You cannot use today’s life to cover tomorrow’s death.
Today’s good deed does not make up for yesterday’s sin.
Birthing a baby this morning will not cover the murder you will commit tonight.
Inspired by an excerpt from my article on Salvation.
Originally posted November 10, 2012.
#7 – Which Came First: Animals or Adam? << Previous | MASTER LIST | Next >> #9 – One Earth: Two Fates?
Originally posted September 28, 2012.
#8 SAY WHAT? – Who Heard the Voice on Damascus Road?
“IT’S A TRAP!”
Welcome to the sixth Biblical Contradictions entry! …But, isn’t that an 8 in the title? N-Nevermind that. (I’d fire my editor if…ugh, wait, I am the editor.) This is my series that seeks to debunk the 45 claims proposed in the video of a creative individual that the Bible is full of contradictions. (Yes, I actually counted every one, listed on a separate “master list” on my computer for reference.) As I’ve mentioned in my previous entries, there is, no doubt, a whole bevy of difficult and confusing passages that seem (pay attention to the italic word now) to fly in the face of logic.
The good news is that you don’t have to be a master theologian to notice that such claims are often farfetched by a simple and careful reading. More so, like we’ll see in this article, such claims almost appear to be intentionally stretching their own argument just to have an argument at all against the Biblical texts. While it’s not the purpose or intent of this series to deduce motive behind these claims, any critic who makes such a claim has to try really hard to make it stick.
ON THE ROAD AGAIN! I JUST CAN’T WAIT TO BE ON THE ROAD AGAIN…
I honestly wonder if ancient Jews had traveling songs…
At 2 minutes and 13 seconds into the video – during a comical “speed round” of the stickman “game show” – the question is asked if the apostle Paul’s traveling companions had heard the Voice (aka Jesus) that spoke to Paul or not. Did they hear it, or were they as deaf as Helen Keller? A simple question, sure. Logically, scientifically, you either hear a sound or you don’t. It can’t be both ways where our ears are concerned. Or perhaps (and I’m just tossing this out there) the ear drums are vibrating, but there’s a disconnect between the ear and the brain’s ability to process the info…in which case it’s virtually the same as being deaf. Anyway…!
The issue the director of the video has, however, is that two verses in the story told to us in the book of Acts tell a conflicting tale of the same event!
The verses in question are Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.
Now, Saul – Paul’s name prior to his conversion – was one eager beaver. He was “a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia…brought up and educated…in Jerusalem under [the teacher] Gamaliel. …[He] was carefully trained in [all] Jewish laws and customs…[becoming] very zealous to honor God in everything [he] did… [Saul] persecuted the followers of the Way [aka Jesus’ teachings], hounding some to death, arresting both men and women and throwing them in prison” (Acts 22:1-4, NLT).
Paul’s gusto could almost be commended. He honestly thought he was doing the Lord’s work! If only all Christians had such fervor. But for all his grand education in the Scriptures, he was blinded…by what is for another article. Then, one fateful day, Saul personally requested and “received letters from [the high priest and the whole council of elders] to [be delivered to the] Jewish [leaders] in Damascus, authorizing [him] to bring the Christians from there [back] to Jerusalem, in chains, to be punished” (Acts 22:5, NLT).
This is one dedicated man.
DETOUR…SPIRITUAL ROAD WORK AHEAD
Ever have an apostrophe…I mean, epiphany? One so amazing that it felt like lightning had just struck your brain? (Well, that must have hurt.) That’s rather what happened to Saul next, except it wasn’t lightning…and this “epiphany” spoke back.
At high noon, a bright light surrounded everyone and a Voice spoke to Saul, asking why he was persecuting Him. Saul had no clue what was going on and asked just who He was exactly.
“Jesus the Nazarene,” came the reply.
I can tell you now that that pretty much ended that all-expenses-paid trip to Syria as had been planned. Oh, Saul was still to go to Damascus, but not for the original goal. No, Saul would later go to make Christians (disciples) rather than destroy them. Jesus sent Saul to meet with a Godly man in Damascus, and so began Saul’s preparation to be one of the most influential men in Christian history.
IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER?
With the surrounding context laid out, then, let’s examine whether or not Saul’s companions heard Jesus speak. (In Acts 9, the events are just “now” unfolding for Saul. Later, in Acts 22, Saul – now post-conversion Paul – is recounting his encounter with Jesus on Damascus Road.)
“Who are you, lord?” Saul asked.
And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting! Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the sound of someone’s voice but saw no one!
(Acts 9:5-7, NLT, bold mine)
“Who are you, lord?” [Saul] asked.
And the voice replied, “I am Jesus the Nazarene, the one you are persecuting.”
The people with me saw the light but didn’t understand the voice speaking to me.
(Acts 22:8-9, NLT, bold mine)
First of all, in neither case does it suggest that the people with Saul didn’t hear Jesus’ voice. They certainly heard something. That much is certain. I could end the article right here and now. In fact, this is the only section I’d really have to write. But I’m big on context…heh, so you “have” to read more. Mwa ha haaa!
In chapter 9, they hear someone speaking, but all that’s explained is that they don’t see from whom the voice is coming (remember, they’re out in the middle of nowhere). In chapter 22, all that’s explained is that they didn’t understand what the voice was saying.
These differences between the two verses don’t present any conflict, though. In fact, they work side-by-side.
The only contradiction here is between the two claims: what the texts, themselves, say about the event and what the video says about the texts. The contradiction only exists if someone tries to say that both the video and the texts are true. …but no one with any sense is saying that.
“BIG” IS THE NEW “LARGE”
What we’re partially dealing with here may also be a matter of translations. Download the YouVersion Bible app for your iPhone or Android cell or go to YouVersion.com or BibleGateway.com…the list is mounting, and you’ll easily see (as if there was any mystery) that we have a plethora (I like that word…ple-thor-a! Pleeeh-thooorr-aaa…now you try it!) of Bible translations. In English, no less!
At the very beginning of the video, the sub-title states, “…the actual words on the page!” Okay, let’s roll with that one for a bit. In his description to the video on YouTube, the director understands that there are the original copies of the Biblical texts and then there are the translations. Either way, he doesn’t seem to be content to excuse minor typos that don’t actually compromise the Biblical message in any way. More so, he seems highly focused on the fact that any translation will contain some level of errors (even theologians and translators understand that God never promised to protect translations, but that His Word, itself, would be preserved).
To my mind, the director, though claiming to have examined each and every piece of Scripture he cites thoroughly, seems to have a very hard time not making a contradiction of his own. Is he addressing the context and message of the Biblical translations or the copyist/translation troubles?
If it’s the former, chock this article up to six entries that prove his contradiction claims are debunked. For, in every one of his game show questions and the cited verses, there seems to be an implied matter of contextual contradiction. In order to address the matter of copyist errors within the copies of the original Biblical texts as well as typos, or accuracy in terms of translations, he’d have to do a full-blown series comparing every little fragment of parchment and printed paper available to him. I don’t think YouTube will allow him the storage space for that monumental task.
To be fair, though, is this a “words on the page” issue? Let’s test a few examples. You may have notice that I’ve referenced the New Living Translation (NLT) Bible. But what about the English Standard Version (ESV) or the (New) King James Version ([N]KJV)? Or the American Standard Version (ASV), New International Version (NIV), Amplified Bible, Common English Bible, The Message, and several others I didn’t even knew existed until I downloaded the YouVersion Bible app! Again, that’s just in English.
So let’s compare a sampling.
American Standard Version (ASV)…
And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. (Acts 9:7)
And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)
English Standard Version (ESV)…
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7)
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:9)
King James Version (KJV)…
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)
New King James Version (NKJV)…
And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7)
And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)
Well now! That is interesting! Now we appear to have a conflict between translations as well as within! I’ll be honest with you; I chose these four translations at random. I did not know ahead of time what each of them would say verbatim. Right now we definitely do have an apparent conflict, for two translations say in Acts 22:9 that they simply did not understand the voice when it spoke, and three others that say they didn’t even hear the voice at all.
Let’s remember, however, that these are translations. This isn’t to excuse the errors, for, if they are truly translation errors, then errors they are, indeed! Rather, we must allow for the understanding that when translating between any two languages, there may very well be issues of word-to-word syncing or the far more difficult matter of translating the conveyed message accurately. Sometimes, there just are no complimentary words or concepts between two languages, further adding to the difficulty. We must keep that in mind when critiquing the Bible (translations).
So let’s go back to the best source we have. The Greek.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY or WHAT’S IN A WORD?
Since Acts was written in the Greek language by the doctor, Luke, let’s pull up our handy-dandy concordance and see what which Greek word(s) Acts 22:9 was translated from.
The word “heard” is translated from the Greek word, “akouo” (transliterated, Strong’s Concordance reference G191). Like words in English, “akouo” has a few various definitions. The one that’s used depends on the context and tense of the sentence. For instance, how you use and pronounce “read” depends entirely upon tense. “I am reading the book” is a present tense usage and gets a reed pronunciation. “I read the book” suggests a past tense usage and gets a red pronunciation. Other words have completely unrelated definitions that they can employ. “Blue” can be either a color or another way to label an emotion. “Akouo” is definitely a word more akin to “blue”.
The Biblical outline of “akouo” usage goes like this:
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
a) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
b) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one’s presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one’s ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand
It’s rather dishonest to put the words on trial without taking into account all their possible definitions and how they might play a part in the context of the message being conveyed. After all, what good are words without definitions? Alone, words are just audible nonsense. So if the words on the page are the focus, we must take into account the ideas those words represent as they work together.
If we consider the possibility that the other men “not hearing” did not refer to their ability to pick up audible sound, but instead their ability to understand the sound as intelligible, then we are forced to conclude there is no contradiction either contextually or textually. They certainly did “perceive by the ear what [was] announced in [their] presence”, but they just could not “comprehend” or “understand” it.
(For more on the matter regarding the debate between the words of the two verses, check out the “’Hear’ or ‘Understand’” as well as “’Voice’ or ‘Sound’” sections of this Wikipedia page.)
AFTERTHOUGHTS…
After having finished writing everything above, I emailed my pastor, Rick Thiessen of Allen Creek Community Church in Marysville, Washington, for some peer review on the theological integrity of my article. The following are excerpts from his reply.
…[T]his particular bible problem is most easily solved by realizing that…[o]ur knowledge of word usage has expanded since that dead language… er, died, which is why the newer translations make more sense of it, using words like “hear” versus “understand” instead of the same words [as] in the KJV [which cause] confusion. The newer translations actually benefit from increasing knowledge of word meanings/usage (and older manuscripts). (Another reason the “KJV only” folks are out to lunch.)
Earlier, I only addressed Acts 22:9 and its use of “akuou” for “heard”. Acts 9:7 uses the same word. With multiple definitions – at least two primary ones in question – how are we to discern exactly what Luke meant when he wrote the two instances that changed the course of Paul’s life? As Rick said, we’re dealing with a very old language. It’s not like everyone is speaking it these days who can help us figure out which definition was intended.
Rick pointed out something very important, too. Translations are based off of available resources and current understandings of the language, the culture, and the history, and more that is depicted in the manuscript copies. The KJV was written in the early 1600s, no less!
The American Standard Version was officially released in 1901.
The New King James Version was fully published 1982.
The English Standard Version was released in 2001 and was a revision of the 1971 revision of the ASV.
And the New Living Translation came out back in 1996 (with a second edition printed in 2004 and 2007).
As time has gone on and new discoveries are made about Biblical times and the Biblical text, itself, what we have are refine translations to increase accuracy in how the translations are presented, preserving the integrity of the Biblical manuscripts. These are not changes to fit evolving biases that many critics cite, nor is it the “telephone game”.
Just take this instance regarding unicorns in the KJV, for example.
Another thought I’ve always had about this alleged contradiction is simply this: skeptics are alleging a contradiction by the same author in the same book over two accounts of the same event. Should our default stance be to assume that an author would blatantly put contradictory data regarding his accounts of the same event!? Or should we assume that he was internally coherent, as most humans are, and we should look harder to see how it was sensible and coherent for him and his audience? To assume he was so unaware of his own writing, that he didn’t even realize he was putting down two versions of an event that were so different that his readers would have to assume either one or both version were false…is stupid. More caution please, instead of these dogmatic announcements of falsehood.
Is it really that much of a stretch to think Luke wouldn’t even review his own work or didn’t have a firm grasp on the events he was writing about? And since we’re dealing with translation conflictions, it’s even more dishonest to accuse the Bible of contradictions without checking if there is truly a contradiction in the text the translations stem from.
Documents that are blatantly incoherent, internally illogical, or blatantly false don’t last, because people normally prefer coherence and logic and the truth. I’m not saying Luke shouldn’t be scrutinized for internal consistency, I’m saying that if something seems blatantly inconsistent in two accounts of the same event by the same author in the same work, he should get the benefit of the doubt before we boldly claim “contradiction”. If people had humbly taken a more reserved stance for all the years where these Greek words were less well understood, the same people wouldn’t have egg on their face now, when it appears the accounts in Acts are easily reconciled.
In other words, critics ought to exercise a level of grace before calling foul on a text that most (granted, that’s my personal estimate) have not even begun to study at length. And, on a personal note, I find those who have done some greater amount of study often do so through a heavy bias and make conclusions quickly, making any attempt to amend their understanding nigh impossible.
The mere fact that some translations of the Bible include all manner of footnotes and study notes ought to suggest that even the proponents of the integrity of the Biblical texts have reservations as to the meanings of certain words and are still searching for conclusive answers. If the scholars who have dedicated their lives to accurately translating the Bible have certain doubts when a word or meaning is presently in question, so should we.
Do you…hear [understand, audibly perceive]…me?
Originally posted July 2, 2012.
Below is a working list of the articles I have written in response to a YouTube video that cites 46 proposed contradictions in the Bible.
Interpreting the Bible according to its intended message is no easy task in many cases, but it’s not impossible. In fact, many supposed contradictions simply require an understanding of things the writers sometimes took for granted: cultural practices, writing style, the original audience the book/letter was written for, and so on. Other things Christians and critics alike need to recall are things like history and geography, as well as the passage of time between the period when the book/letter was written and today.
It’s important to note that, despite the most expert in all fields of discipline regarding Biblical interpretation, translation, history, and more, there are still some things that elude such scholars when trying to accurately take God’s Word and present it in another language. Sometimes the difficulty rests in the fact that the language being translated in to has no word to match the original. Sometimes there is a context which is deeply foreign to today’s cultural understanding…”forever” lost to history. (To be sure, when such uncertainties arise, the editors often include footnotes to say, “We’re not really sure on this one; here’s the alternate possibility.” In such cases, the meaning is barely, if at all, affected or altered.) These issues occasionally creep into our translated texts and are, indeed, errors. They are errors of translation, however, and not errors in the actual message of God’s Word. (The author of the video I linked to above, though, still sees this as reason for criticism against the Bible, it seems, according to his commentary below the video. And truthfully, it is an error, but it’s another sort of error. Consider this account regarding unicorns in the Bible.)
In the following articles, I attempt to provide some answers into the heart of these issues. As I grow in my understanding of Scripture, these articles may be updated with new information or refined content in order to give honest and truthful accounts of the Bible’s message. I welcome respectful questions and discussions, as well, so don’t be shy.
(Note: Some items may seem to be missing. This is because I have not yet attempted to answer those proposals or simply have found answers to items that come later in the list.)
| 22% | Time Stamp | Proposed Contradictions | Verse References |
| 1 | :25 | GOD’S ANGER: Temporary, or in need of some management?
How long will God stay mad when people sin? To anyone who has read even small portions of the Old Testament, God expresses His wrath vividly. But is He always angry? Is the Man Upstairs ever calm and cool? |
Micah 7:18 Jeremiah 17:4 |
| 2 | :40 | A TEMPTER OR A TESTER: God
It’s written that God never tempts people, but then why in the world did He send Abraham to sacrifice his only son on the alter?! Isn’t human sacrifices a sin, too?? |
Genesis 22:1 James 1:13 |
| 3 | :58 | SALVATION: ordered by faith mail or purchased at your local church shopping center?
What are the roles of faith and works? Is salvation earned? Is it a free gift? |
Galatians 2:16 Matthew 19:17 Luke 10:26-28 Romans 3:28 James 2:24 |
| 4 | 1:24 | GOD’S FACE: Holy Medusa?
Just what are the consequences of seeing God’s face? And why is it even an issue? |
Genesis 32:30 Exodus 33:20 Genesis 12:7 Exodus 33:11 John 1:18 Exodus 24:9-11 1 Timothy 6:16 |
| 5 | 2:05 | BURNT OFFERINGS: A pleasing aroma or too crispy for His taste?
Why would God order the Israelites to give animal sacrifices if He was only going to say He never wanted them in the first place? |
Jeremiah 7:22 Exodus ?:20-24 (20:24 presumed) |
| 6 | 2:08 | A GOOD GOOD EVIL GOD: Did God create or use evil?
Certain words in the Bible seem to suggest God employs evil tactics to bring about His goals. What’s more, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that He even flinches about it. But is this really the case, or just another poor judgment by critics? |
Isaiah 45:7 1 John 4:8 |
| 7 | 2:10 | CREATION CHRONOLOGY: Who came first? Adam or animals?
Genesis 1 and 2 can’t seem to get it straight about which order God created the living creatures of the earth and Adam. But is it really chronological confusion of just a matter of wording? |
Genesis 1:25-27 Genesis 2:18-19 |
| 8 | 2:13 | HEARING THINGS: Did Paul’s traveling companions hear the Voice on Damascus Road?
Is it possible to hear something and not hear that same thing? There are some who would have you think it’s impossible…but to the contrary! |
Acts 22:9 Acts 9:7 |
| 9 | 2:17 |
ONE EARTH: Choose your own adventure? Both Ecclesiastes and 2 Peter use the word “earth” in their individual messages – one says it never changes, the other says it’ll be destroyed. How do we resolve this issue about the fate of our own planet? |
2 Peter 3:10 Ecclesiastes 1:4 |
| 10 | 2:20 | Jesus the only one who ascended into Heaven | 2 Kings 2:11 John 3:13 |
| 11 | 2:23 | OT children punished for sins of fathers | Deuteronomy 24:16 Deuteronomy 5:9 |
| 12 | 2:30 | God resting | Isaiah 40:28 Isaiah 1:14 Isaiah 43:24 |
| 13 | 3:11 | Number of men drawing swords for Israel as counted by Joab | 2 Samuel 24:9 1 Chronicles 21:5 |
| 14 | 3:20 | Number of horsemen with Joab | 2 Samuel 8:4 1 Chronicles 18:4 |
| 15 | 3:29 | Amount David paid for threshing floor | 1 Chronicles 21:25 2 Samuel 24:24 |
| 16 | 3:46 | Number of men killed by David’s chief captain | 2 Samuel 23:8 1 Chronicles 11:11 |
| 17 | 4:01 | ONE THIEF, TWO THIEVES: How many thieves accepted or rejected Jesus while on the cross?
There seems to be conflicting accounts about the thieves who were crucified next to Jesus. Can’t the writers who were there even keep their stories straight? |
Luke 23:39-42 Mark 15:32 Matthew 27:44 |
| 18 | 4:13 | Number of blind men Jesus healed near Jericho | Mark 10:46 Matthew 20:30 Luke 18:35 |
| 19 | 4:24 | Conflicting testimonies | Matthew 28:2 Mark 16:5 Luke 24:4 John 20:12 John 20:1 Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1 Luke 24:10 |
| 20-34 | 5:12 | Conflict in God’s nature | Exodus 24:6 |
| 21 | 5:21 | …fortune telling | Leviticus 20:27 |
| 22 | 5:21+ | …hitting a parent | Exodus 21:15 |
| 23 | 5:21+ | …cursing a parent | Leviticus 20:9 |
| 24 | 5:21+ | …not listening to a priest | Deuteronomy 17:12 |
| 25 | 5:21+ | …following another religion | Exodus 22:20 |
| 26 | 5:21+ | ……adultery | Leviticus 20:10 |
| 27 | 5:21+ | …not seeking the LORD God of Israel | 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 |
| 28 | 5:21+ | …fornication | Leviticus 21:9 |
| 29 | 5:21+ | …prophesying falsely | Zechariah 13:3 |
| 30 | 5:21+ | …that parents of false prophet(s) must kill their child(ren) | Zechariah 13:3 Unsure of verse referenced at this time |
| 31 | 5:21+ | …homosexuality | Leviticus 20:13 |
| 32 | 5:21+ | …blasphemy | Leviticus 24:10-16 |
| 33 | 5:21+ | …working on the Sabbath | Exodus 31:12-15 |
| 34 | 5:21+ | …having a few people in your town worship another god | Deuteronomy 13:13-16 |
| 35 | 6:52 | House upon the rock (unsure of proposed contradiction) | |
| 36 | 6:56 | Attitude about riches – Having riches is good/bad |
Luke 6:4 Psalm 112:1-3 |
| 37 | 6:56+ | Giving to the poor | Luke 18:22 Luke12:33 Luke 14:33 |
| 38 | 6:56+ | Socialist thinking | Acts 2:44-45 Acts 4:34-37 |
| 39 | 7:50 | Temple curtain ripped before/after Jesus died | Mark 15:37-38 Luke 23:45-46 Matthew 27:50-51 |
| 40 | 7:55 | Person who put robe on Jesus | Luke 23:11 Matthew 27:27-28 John 19:1-2 |
| 41 | 8:03 | Time of Jesus cursing fig tree compared to tossing people out of temple | Matthew 21:12 Matthew 21:17-19 Mark 11:12-17 |
| 42 | 8:13 | Homosexuals to be killed or exiled | 1 Kings 15:11-12 Leviticus 20:13 |
| 43 | 8:19 | Jesus born during reign of Herod or Corinius | Luke 2:1 Matthew 2:1 Wikipedia citation |
| 44 | 8:34 | The open/closed position of rock of Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived | Matthew 28:2 Luke 24:2 |
| 45 | 8:40 | HOW TO DIE TWICE: Did Judas, Jesus’ betrayer, die by hanging or a big splat? | Acts 1:18 Matthew 27:5 |
| 46 | 8:52 | God as the author of confusion | 1 Corinthians 14:33 No other verse(s) referenced to compare |
Other proposed contradictions found in the Bible (not mentioned in the video).
| 47 | N/A | Women can teach or must remain silent in church meetings/worship | |
| 48 | N/A | Mythical unicorns in the Bible REFERENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQooBFIPdY |
|
| 49 | N/A | Will events in the Revelation End Times include a world-wide flood? @AnyasFriendMe |
#3 – Salvation: By Works or Faith? << Previous | MASTER LIST | Next >> #6 – An Evil Good God: Did God Create Or Use Evil?
Originally posted October 30, 2012.
Here’s the (playful) question: Does God delight in burnt offerings or are they too crispy for His taste?
A BLOODY MESS (NO, THAT’S NOT A BRITISH CURSE)
God’s answer to the sin problem is one that would surely enrage P.E.T.A. and other animal rights activists. Undoubtedly, it probably has already even though Christians and Jews don’t employ them anymore.
Animal sacrifices. A bloody mess, indeed. The question some critics have asked about – or even charged against – the Bible is if God delights in this whole bloody affair. Does God actually get enjoyment somehow from sacrifices or doesn’t He? How is the smell of burning fat a “pleasing aroma”? And, I’ll add myself, why does (rather, did) God employ them?
The sacrificial system is a serious matter. (I say “is” for, even though we’re looking at the Old Testament sacrificial system which is no longer in use, we are still called to be living sacrifices (Romans 12:1) in our walk with Christ.) For, even after this article is done and I’ve clarified how there is no contradiction and hopefully have done so with a good dose of humor, what’s left is the very real matter of our sin – yours and mine – and Jesus, the Final Sacrifice.
The ancient Israelites took the ritual of animal sacrifices very seriously. For it was not about appeasing an emotionally unstable deity nor was it to entice a god for good crops. Rather it was about redemption. A restoration of a relationship with God and a payment of debt…theirs…and ours. Like any debt, it demands repayment. It demands justice. But could they pay in full and still live?
I NOW PRESENT THE INTRODUCTION…AGAIN
As I have done with every entry to my Biblical Contradiction series, I like to give a little background on what inspired this and the other entries (because maybe you’re just now coming into the series and have no idea why I’m even writing it!). There is a rather comical video production on YouTube that some guy from England (they sure sound British anyway) put together in order to show a wide array of proposed Biblical contradictions in the text. (However, I have personally dialogued with the gentleman and he’s very convinced these aren’t just possible contradictions, but certifiable ones.) Fourty-five to be exact. It’s a clever “game show” with stick men…though not without some mockery at the expense of the Bible and Christians sprinkled all around just to spice things up.
This time around, as you have surely guessed (either you’re that smart or I’m being way too obvious…or both), I’ll be addressing his argument that there is a conflict as to whether or not God delights in animal sacrifices (which comes in at time index 2:05 in the video). The verses in question are Jeremiah 7:22 and Exodus 20:24. We’ll get to these two verses later on.
First, though, we ought to take some time to understand the types and purposes of each of the sacrifices God established through Moses.
THIS ISN’T YOUR REGULAR BACKYARD BBQ
As an overview, here’s a table that highlights each of the five main types of sacrifices and a few other details. I don’t want to delve too deeply into the details of the ritual in practice as they are simply not the focus. But let’s do take a glance. The book of Leviticus, written by Moses, as was Exodus, details the stipulations for the sacrificial ritual as prescribed by God.
|
TYPE |
ELEMENTS |
PURPOSE |
PORTION LEFT FOR… |
|
Burnt Leviticus 1 |
- Bull, ram, or bird (dove or young pigeon for the poor) - Wholly consumed - No defect |
- Voluntary act of worship - Atonement for unintentional sin in general - Expression of devotion, commitment and complete surrender to God |
…GOD …PRIESTS …OFFERER |
|
Grain or Cereal Leviticus 2 |
- Grain, fine flour, olive oil, incense, baked bread (cakes or wafers), salt - No yeast or honey - Accompanied burnt offering and peace offering (along with drink offering |
- Voluntary act of worship - Recognition of God’s goodness and provisions - Devotion to God |
…GOD …PRIEST …OFFERER |
|
Sin Leviticus 4 |
- Young bull: for High Priest and whole congregation. The blood was to be sprinkled in front of the veil and put on the horns of the altar of incense - Male goat: for leader. The blood was to be put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering - Female goat or lamb: for common person. The blood was to be put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering - Dove or pigeon: for the poor. The blood was to be put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering - 1/10 ephah of fine flour: for the very poor |
- Mandatory atonement for specific unintentional sin - Confession of sin - Forgiveness of sin - Cleansing of defilement |
…GOD …PRIEST …OFFERER |
|
Peace Leviticus 3 |
- Any animal without defect from herd or flock |
- Voluntary act of worship - Thanksgiving and fellowship (it included a communal meal) - Included vow offerings and freewill offerings |
…GOD …PRIEST …OFFERER |
|
Trespass Leviticus 5:14-19 |
- Ram - If the worshiper had unwittingly cheated another of money or property, his sacrifice must be equal to the value of the amount taken, plus one-fifth. He offered this amount to the priest, then made a similar restitution to the former property owner. Therefore he repaid twice the amount he had taken plus 40 percent (Lev. 6:5-6) * |
- Mandatory atonement for unintentional sin requiring restitution - Cleansing from defilement - Make restitution - Pay 20% fine |
…GOD …PRIEST …OFFERER |
TABLE DATA FROM: http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/tabernacle/details/offerings.htm#
* Additional data from: http://myfriendsforlife-prince.blogspot.com/2011/06/5-types-of-sacrifice-in-old-testament.html
FOR MORE DETAILS ON EACH SACRIFICE TYPE: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5431, http://maranathalife.com/teach-ot/classnotes/Notes%20-%20Class%205%20-%20Sacrificial%20System.pdf
ABOUT CROSSING BURNED BRIDGES
Primarily, the bulk of the sacrifices had to do with atonement for sins. It’s important to note that any sin, regardless of severity, creates a rift in our relationship with God. Again, it’s not necessarily the severity of the sin (that’s definitely important, too), but that there’s sin at all.
If you recall in Genesis 1, God created us in His image. We are to be a reflection of who He is. If you consider a mirror, even one crack can distort the image of the one standing in front of it. Unlike a mirror (or the image it reflects), which is just an inanimate object, we are free-will reflections of God. So when we sin, we are essentially telling God, “This is who You are. This is what You ‘look’ like.” God takes offense to that.
Sacrifices are not to be confused for a mere fine for breaking the law, necessarily, such as paying for a speeding ticket or littering; but the equal consequence for breaking the law. For instance, when you have a lit room, disrupting the electrical flow to the light bulb will cause an equal consequence of darkness. You cannot interrupt the electricity and still expect to have light. With animal sacrifices, it’s like God is creating an alternate circuit pathway to allow your light to still shine…at the cost of the animal’s life.
A light must still go out. The grace is shown in that it’s not yours.
It should be noted that the sacrificial system is more than just about paying off debts. God’s design of the system was also to be an act of worship to Him, a means to maintain or repair Israel’s part in the Mosaic covenant, (re)focus the people’s hearts on Him, and show their dedication to Him. God is Lord and Creator, and more.
Keep this in mind: Sacrifices were a means to externally demonstrate what was inwardly true. More on that later.
THIS IS GONNA HURT…
As I mentioned, animal sacrifices were part of paying a debt…but instead of us – the guilty ones – paying the debt, God’s establishment of this system of rituals was a gracious and merciful way for us to be spared.
The instructions for each type of sacrifice were very strict in most cases and were not to be taken lightly. Among other things, the one who was offering the sacrifice had to provide the animal from his own assets (Leviticus 1:2)…and it had to be the best (Leviticus 1:3, et al, with certain exceptions: i.e.: Leviticus 22:17-30). Animals were clearly a huge part of daily living back then. One’s wealth was often measured in terms of livestock. It was, indeed, a sacrifice to actively take responsibility for the deep cost of sin (let alone the natural consequences of the sin, itself).
God wasn’t asking the people to kill off the milk cow or the strong ox for plowing the farms, of course. As you read through the Bible, even in times of serious punishment, there was always at least a hint of grace and mercy stitched into His every judgment (consider God’s judgment to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3). The sacrificial animal was most often the firstborn male that was just about to reach its prime for labor, and not the individual’s immediate source of livelihood.
Indeed, the cost for sins was heavy, but it was a small price to pay considering the alternative.
We see that King David understood this cost very well in one instance. David had sinned against the LORD and was on his way to follow the instructions God gave him through the prophet Gad.
That day Gad came to David and said to him, “Go up and build an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”
So David went up to do what the LORD had commanded him [through the prophet Gad]. When Aaraunah saw the king and his men coming toward him, he came and bowed before the king with his face to the ground.
“Why have you come, my lord the king?” Araunah asked.
David replied, “I have come to buy your threshing floor and to build an altar to the LORD there…”
“Take it, my lord the king, and use it as you wish,” Araunah said to David. “Here are oxen for the burnt offering, and you can use the threshing boards and ox yokes for wood to build a fire on the altar. I will give it all to you, Your Majesty, and may the LORD your God accept your sacrifice.”
But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on buying it, for I will not present burnt offerings to the LORD my God that have cost me nothing.” So David paid him fifty pieces of silver for the threshing floor and the oxen.
David built an altar there to the LORD and sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the LORD answered his prayer for the land…
(2 Samuel 24:18-25, NLT, bold mine)
David was king; he had access to great riches, so fifty pieces of silver was hardly taxing his pocketbook. But that wasn’t the point. Had David not paid Araunah, it would effectually have been Araunah paying (I speculate a far greater amount in relative comparison) for a sin he had not committed and David would not truly be taking full responsibility for his offense and the due penalty. The grace comes through in that David did not have to pay the full penalty of his sins but God never simply dismisses matters of justice, either. David understood this and so he insisted on paying the cost for Araunah’s offerings. David committed the offense, so it had to be David who made compensation.
“CLEAN UP ON AISLE FIVE” or …NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED
We are told that forgiveness for sins can only come by way of the sheading of blood (Hebrews 9:12-14). Had God not implemented sacrifices as a way to pay the debt of sin, we would all be dead, for it would be our blood that was shed.
That God set up this ritual system emphasizes and underscores the very key point: God wants us to live. Because God is the Lord of life, sin detaches us from the source of life, Him. Just as I illustrated earlier with the light bulb, we cannot live without the source of life. The natural consequence is death when we sin. (Part of God’s grace is that the punishment is not fully realized – it’s postponed that grace may be given and life renewed.)
Paul said in his letter to the church in Galatia, “Jesus gave His life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live” (Galatians 1:4, NLT). His very first command to Adam and Eve included a stern warning to obey lest they die. When they did sin, God sacrificed animals to clothe them before sending them out of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 4:21). The clothing was also symbolic of His covering of protection as they ventured out into the wild, beyond the protection of the Garden, and was a reminder of God’s forgiveness – which restored life – in light of their deliberate disobedience – which was the catalyst for death. It also included the first foreshadowing of Christ – both in the sacrificial deed and verbatim when God mentioned Eve’s offspring.
So, in order for us to live on, there must be the shedding of blood to pay the penalty for disobeying the demands of Life. (Leviticus 17 points out that the life of every creature – human or animal – is in the blood. This is true medically and spiritually.) This is because we cannot pay the full penalty (everlasting death) and yet still have God’s gracious gift (everlasting life).
In order to guide His people – and later the world – into righteousness, into Life, God had to lay the groundwork. There had to be a foundation to build upon, and that’s very much what Leviticus is.
Leviticus, as a singular book within the Biblical cannon, only gives us part of the context, however. When we’re asking the question of whether or not God delights in animal sacrifices, it’s important to understand the message being delivered in this particular text. The first seven chapters alone detail how the Israelite priests were to lead the sacrifice rituals, be it for themselves, the Israelite leaders, or the rest of the community (individually or as a whole). The purpose was, as we got a taste of with David’s account earlier, for the sinner to identify with the cost of their sin (Leviticus 4:4, et al), recognizing that their punishment was being passed on to an innocent. It was supposed to spur the sinner to repentance – to change their ways and seek God’s goodness and obey. In short, to live according to God’s image.
The majority of Leviticus is a code of conduct book and the consequences for not holding to them. These regulations addressed how the people were to carry out their ceremonial activities, primarily, and to address what God considered holy and unholy. It barely details the heart the individual ought to have while carrying out these regulations. As we’ll see later, though, God was not talking about empty legalism…a kind of talking without the walking.
We do get a taste of why God was so keen on the people adhering to His commands. Leviticus 18:24-30 definitely highlights God’s reasons:
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for the people I am driving out before you have defiled themselves in all these ways. Because the entire land has become defiled, I am punishing the people who live there. I will cause the land to vomit them out. You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you.
“All these detestable activities are practiced by the people of the land where I am taking you, and this is how the land has become defiled. So do not defile the land and give it a reason to vomit you out, as it will vomit out the people who live there now. Whoever commits any of these detestable sins will be cut off from the community of Israel. So obey my instructions, and do not defile yourselves by committing any of these detestable practices that were committed by the people who lived in the land before you. I am the LORD your God” (NLT).
“I’LL TELL YOU WHAT I WANT, WHAT I REALLY, REALLY WANT!”
Now we have the background on the sacrificial system and its purpose. This is clearly how God wanted things to be done where sacrifices were concerned. The question that remains, then, is if this was specifically what God wanted – did He want sacrifices at all? And that’s where the contradiction claim comes in.
Exodus 20:24 – which is expounded upon in Leviticus – quotes God saying,
“Build for me an altar made of earth, and offer your sacrifices to Me – your burnt offerings and peace offerings, your sheep and goats, and your cattle. Build my altar wherever I cause My name to be remembered, and I will come to you and bless you” (NLT).
Way over in Jeremiah 7:22, we hear God crying out,
This is what the LORD of Heaven’s Armies, the God of Israel, says: “Take your burnt offerings and your other sacrifices and eat them yourselves! When I led your ancestors out of Egypt, it was not burnt offerings and sacrifices I wanted from them. This is what I told them: ‘Obey Me, and I will be your God, and you will be My people. Do everything as I say, and all will be well!’” (NLT, bold mine).
In terms of the issue of the Biblical contradiction, I don’t see any. The assumption in Exodus 20 is that that’s what God wants, but all that we can surely discern is that God is describing what He expects to be done regarding animal sacrifices and what the purpose for them are (as further described in Leviticus). Much, much later in Jeremiah 7, God’s stating that He never wanted sacrifices at all! One is an instruction, the other is a reflection.
Why do we have sacrifices if that’s not what He wanted? What did God want from us?!
“AND HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?”
This might sound sacrilegious, but imagine God laying on a shrink’s couch while He vents about how upset He is over humanity’s constant sin issue. “They eat, drink, sleep, and dress in sin! Everything good they call bad. Everything bad they call good! I did not create them for this! Gah!”
In God’s own words, He tells the people through the prophet Isaiah how angry He is with His people:
“What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?” says the LORD. “I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of the fattened cattle. I get no pleasure from the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to worship Me, who asked you to parade through My courts with all your ceremony?
“Stop bringing Me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts Me! … Wash yourselves and be clean! Get your sins out of my sight. Give up your evil ways.”
(Isaiah 1:11-13a, 16, NLT, bold mine)
What does God want?
Love. Obedience. Giving hearts. Humility. An everlasting relationship with us in peace and joy.
God wants a people who live like Him. I began this article explaining what the purposes of sacrifices were for – to address the consequences of the broken relationship with God.
Earlier in the book of Jeremiah, God laments,
“I thought to Myself,
‘I would love to treat you as my own children!’
I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land—the finest possession in the world.
I looked forward to your calling me ‘Father,’ and I wanted you never to turn from Me.
But you have been unfaithful to Me, you people of Israel!
You have been like a faithless wife who leaves her husband.
I, the LORD, have spoken.”
Voices are heard high on the windswept mountains, the weeping and pleading of Israel’s people.
For they have chosen crooked paths and have forgotten the LORD their God.
(Jeremiah 3:19-21, NLT, bold mine)
God’s provision – it is, indeed, a provision – of the sacrificial system was the only way to ensure justice was addressed, yet assured a gracious and merciful restoration of our relationship with Him. The terms of “child” and “Father” underscore the depths of the relationship God longs to have with us.
God wants us to want Him the way He wants us.
IT’S WHAT’S ON THE INSIDE THAT COUNTS
Jesus had extremely harsh words for the Pharisees and other teachers of the law one day.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.
“Everything they do is for show…
“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!
“… Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.
(Matthew 23:1-5a, 23-24, 27-28, NLT, bold mine).
The context here obviously isn’t about sacrifices, but Jesus’ criticism strikes to the heart of the matter.
Since the sacrifices were for the purpose of addressing disobedience – a matter ultimately of the heart expressed through actions – a sacrifice for those sins had to include a complete repentance in the heart, too, expressed by actions! They had to stop sinning!
The Pharisees, in their daily lives, made like they were ultra-righteous and Jesus called them out. (This very critical commentary to the Pharisees enraged them a great deal…and it happened often.) They went through the motions, observed all the laws, but their hearts were unmoved towards God.
It’s like speeding down the highway and the only reason you slow down to observe the speed limit is because your radar detector is going crazy. Are you obeying the law for the purpose of the law or are you obeying it just to avoid being caught?
The Pharisees sacrificed the rams and goats and turtledoves, ate their allotted portions of the offerings, but had no desire to truly honor God. They neglected that the point of the entire Mosaic Law was to point us back to God in a personal way and to foreshadow Jesus, Himself. As Jesus pointed out, “they crush people with unbearable religious demands.” God wasn’t about being some kind of spiritual ant bully. He was about setting the people free from the bondage of sin and the eventual reality of Hell! But Jesus caught them “in the act,” having revealed their hypocrisy. (This is why Jesus also encouraged His listeners that His yoke – like that which a beast of burden wears – is light; His burden is easy (Matthew 11:30).)
Equally, it’s hypocritical to make sacrifices for sins that we’re not even sorry for or, worse, we don’t stop doing. What good is a sacrifice for one’s sins if you just keep on sinning? All you’re doing is murdering an animal (and God had a lot to say about that, too)!
King David already understood the heart of the matter that Jesus would identify many years later. After the prophet Nathan confronted the king regarding his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of her husband (all of which David thought he managed to do in secret), David anguishes through this song:
Have mercy on me, O God, because of Your unfailing love.
Because of Your great compassion, blot out the stain of my sins.
Wash me clean from my guilt. Purify me from my sin.
For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.
Against You, and You alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in Your sight.
You will be proved right in what You say, and Your judgment against me is just.
For I was born a sinner—yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
But You desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.
Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Oh, give me back my joy again; you have broken me—now let me rejoice.
Don’t keep looking at my sins. Remove the stain of my guilt.
Create in me a clean heart, O God.
Renew a loyal spirit within me.
Do not banish me from Your presence, and don’t take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and make me willing to obey You.
Then I will teach Your ways to rebels, and they will return to You.
Forgive me for shedding blood, O God who saves; then I will joyfully sing of Your forgiveness.
Unseal my lips, O Lord, that my mouth may praise You.
You do not desire a sacrifice, or I would offer one.
You do not want a burnt offering.
The sacrifice You desire is a broken spirit.
You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God.
Look with favor on Zion and help her; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
Then You will be pleased with sacrifices offered in the right spirit—with burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings.
Then bulls will again be sacrificed on Your altar.
(from Psalm 51, NLT)
I’m sure many of you will recognize a very popular worship song here. This is where it came from.
When David says to God, “You do not desire sacrifice, or I would offer one,” he is not ignoring God’s command that the sacrificial rituals be observed. He’s saying the ritual, itself, is not important to God. It’s not the motions that are the focus. It’s something deeper…
Pay attention the parts I’ve highlighted, but also note David’s attitude regarding his sin. The man is devastated over what he has done. This is a guy – a high and noble king! – who is inwardly broken by the gross and reprehensible actions he has committed. During this time, David’s son with Bathsheba is less than a week away from death – a part of the consequence for David’s sins. His crimes against God (and Bathsheba’s late-husband) were striking very close to home and David wasn’t running away.
Solomon (David’s son, who had his own list of major no-nos) knew how to hit the nail on the head:
The LORD detests the sacrifices of the wicked, but He delights in the prayers of the upright.
The LORD detests the way of the wicked, but He loves those who pursue Godliness.
(Proverbs 15:8-9, NLT)
The LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer Him sacrifices.
(Proverbs 21:3, NLT)
Jeremiah 7:23, 1 Samuel 15:22, Amos 5:21-27, and Hosea 6:6-7 all cry the same message, too. Sacrifices mean nothing by themselves. Innocent animals die for absolutely nothing then. Sacrifices mean even less when they are but a pretense to cover up the rampant sin of the people offering them. In each example I’ve cited that speaks of God saying how much He doesn’t want sacrifices, this is coupled with the fact that 1) He wants obedience in the first place, 2) He is furious with the sin and sacrificial hypocrisy, and 3) if a sacrifice is offered, He expects new and good behavior stemmed from the heart.
If nothing else could be said, the people were taking advantage of God’s graciousness and patience. God is slow to anger, and they were using this fact to their advantage…as if God wouldn’t really do anything.
GLADE NEVER HAD AN AROMA QUITE LIKE THIS
Throughout Leviticus, as God detailed how the sacrificial rituals were to be carried out, He always added “It is a special gift, a pleasing aroma to the LORD.” It’s a very curious thing for Him to say. Psalm 50:9 spells out that God is not in need of anything, least of all the sacrifices given by His people. So it’s not like in other religions and cultures where the people offered food to feed their gods – God wasn’t saying, “Oh, that smells yummy!” And we see plainly, abundantly that God doesn’t even want sacrifices primarily, or at all. So why does God consider the sacrifices a special gift? What’s so aromatic about a gift He doesn’t even want?
The gift, actually, is not the sacrifice. It’s not the slaughtered animal roasting on the fire. Rather, it’s the act of humility before God; the admission that the sinner is unworthy of the grace God has provided through the entire ritual. Remember, this isn’t like other religions where the sacrifice given is somehow feeding the god or is appeasing the god’s wrath or is bribing the god for a good harvest.
Pay close attention to what I say next. Re-read it several times:
The sacrifice is the courtroom sentencing. It’s judgment in action!
Imagine you have committed a heinous murder and you have been sentenced to die. That is the just punishment for your crime. Instead of you dying, though, another steps in to die in your place. But you don’t get to simply walk out the door scott-free. You’re still the guilty one, remember? You have to walk your scapegoat down the hall. You have to walk him through the door and into the chair. You have to strap him in tight and look him in his innocent eyes. You are the one who has to flip the switch on the electric chair.
…Then you can go free… And never commit another crime again.
That’s why God instructed the Israelites to lay their hands on the animal as the priest killed it. It symbolized a “transferring” of guilt and the literal punishment avoided. This is unlike any other brush with death; your life didn’t flash before your eyes: it was literally handed back to you.
Consider that in the story of the adulterous woman who was caught (rather, set up) and used as a trap against Jesus. After He told the people that those who were without sin could be the first to stone her (the proper punishment for such a sin at the time), He asked, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more” (John 8:1-11).
Jesus did not dismiss the woman’s sins after wisely and cleverly addressing the hypocrisy of the would-be Judge Dredds. Jesus expressed mercy as He said, “Neither do I [condemn you].” But He makes it plain and clear that she did sin and she is to do it no more.
What might we say of the woman who accepted Christ’s forgiveness and yet later went on to commit adultery again and again and again? We don’t know what she did afterwards – the Bible just doesn’t say. But would you think she was truly a changed woman if she continued her sinful life despite Jesus’ grace? Would you think she was grateful? Psalm 50:14a says, “Make thankfulness your sacrifice to God…” (NLT).
What could be a greater, more pleasing gift to God than to return to Him His gift of life through our humble, grateful obedience after He so graciously spared us from death?
When the Pharisee [Simon] who had invited [Jesus] saw [what the immoral woman had done to anoint Jesus’ feet], he said to himself, “If this Man were a prophet, He would know what kind of woman is touching Him. She’s a sinner!”
Then Jesus answered [Simon’s] thoughts. “Simon,” He said to the Pharisee, “I have something to say to you.”
“Go ahead, Teacher,” Simon replied.
Then Jesus told him this story: “A man loaned money to two people – 500 pieces of silver [a laborer’s full day’s wage] to one and 50 pieces to the other. But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose love him more after that?”
Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the large debt.”
“That’s right,” Jesus said. Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Look at this woman kneeling here. When I entered your home, you didn’t offer Me water to wash the dust from My feet, but she has washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You didn’t greet Me with a kiss [on the cheek, as was the customary greeting], but from the time I first came in, she has not stopped kissing My feet.
“You neglected the courtesy of olive oil to anoint My head, but she has anointed My feet with rare perfume. I tell you, her sins – and they are many – have been forgiven, so she has shown Me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love.”
Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.”
(Luke 7:39-48, NLT, italics mine)
This woman understood her depravity, I am sure. The pleasing aroma of the perfume could be said to be representative of her repentance. Jesus knew of her many sins and recognized what she was offering in her heart through her actions. And this woman sacrificed a great deal unto God. She sacrificed her pride as she cried and washed Jesus’ feet. She sacrificed a huge financial commodity with the rare perfume. She sacrificed herself, in a sense. She gave herself up to God, and God was most pleased with her heart. That is why Jesus could easily say her sins were forgiven.
That is the aroma that God so longs for. He would much rather it came without the precursor of sin and sacrifice, but He still delights in a heart that returns to Him. And the only way for us to return to an unhindered relationship is for the sin issue to be addressed justly and humbly.
THERE’S STILL A CONTRADICTION
After all of that, there still remains a contradiction. It’s not regarding God’s desire for sacrifices or not, though. The contradiction comes in our own hearts when we seek God’s forgiveness when we know we have obviously sinned, yet go about the rest of our days living the same offenses. The contradiction is when we say we’re sorry but act otherwise. The contradiction is when we call Jesus Savior and Lord and Friend and Redeemer (do we even truly understand what He’s redeeming us from?) and don’t even bother to give Him as little as a single Sunday a week! It’s when we say we have no sin at all and don’t need God but live contrary to even our own standards.
That’s the contradiction. It’s not in the Bible; it’s in us.
The good news is that it doesn’t have to stay that way.
#2 – God and Temptation: Do the Two Really Go Together? << Previous | MASTER LIST | NEXT >> #5 Burnt Offerings: Is God For or Against Them?
Originally posted July 31, 2012.
INTRODUCING THE INTRODUCTION
Welcome to item number three, my fourth post (confused yet?), in my series simply titled, “Biblical Contradictions”. This series is a work seeking to take up the challenge inadvertently posed by the talented maker of this YouTube video. It’s a very humorous production that asserts there are contradictions in the messages and themes in the Bible by way of a stick-man game show. At a glance, he might be right, for it is no mystery that there are certain types of errors amongst the thousands of copies of the Scriptures that we have (please keep in mind that these errors are typically no more than typos). However, I aim to show that one only needs to dig deeper and be willing to consider that first impressions are not always correct, and that our own bias can sometimes distort the actual message of Scriptures.
Today’s topic is the oft-cited dilemma of whether God offers Salvation by means of faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, or by (good) works. The Bible absolutely references works as an important part of the Christian life. So there’s no denying that to be a Christian means doing good works. The question, then, is whether or not it saves us; does the well-intentioned do-gooder go to Heaven, too, even if he doesn’t believe in Christ?
A thought, though…is it fair to pit the two against each other?
SEMANTICS MATTER
I’ll be honest: This one will be a bit more difficult to address. In the video, there are five verses referenced on this particular debate (not the usual two). Taken alone, out of the context of the surrounding verses, it’s almost certain that anyone would conclude that there is a contradiction. I want to give you an example of why this is very dangerous, and even dishonest, for the Bible critic to do.
Let’s say that my favorite color is green (which, it is). Suppose everything I buy is green. Green clothes. Green pens. Green cars. Green beans. Green pajamas. Green eggs and ham. Even green peace. (Ha!) In fact, I’m so into green, that if anyone who knew (of) me was to hear mention of my name, they’d instantly know I’m the proverbial green giant. Michael is to green as green is to Michael.
One day I go to the store and I say, “I’d like a purple ball, please” (purple is my second favorite color). Everyone within audible range likely would die from shock – and any who survived this near-cataclysmic event would spread the gossip faster than the quickest tongue in the West. “Michael asked for purple! This can’t be right! There must be some kind of contradiction because we all know Michael is all about green.” But this is the only thing anyone knows – just that I requested to buy a purple ball. The question few, if any, would ask is, “Why? Why did he ask for something purple?”
Well, the answer could be quite simple. It might be that there is a special little friend whose birthday is approaching and her favorite color is purple, and she likes bouncy balls. In that context, I am not contradicting myself as to my preference or standard of color choices. Since the ball is not for me, I am not going against my well-known selection from God’s light wave spectrum.
As I will strive to illustrate in this entry, the context regarding this topic of Salvation and the verses in question is of the utmost importance. Perhaps more so than any other entry I’ve written or will write.
LET’S MEET OUR CONTESTANTS
The five main passages of Scripture I’ll be referencing are Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:26-28, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and James 2:24, and a bit more to solidify the context that each of these verses appear in.
The tricky part is that each of these portions of Scripture deals with particular facets of eternal life and the specific issue of works and faith. (I must say it again, context is critical.)
CONTESTANT NUMBER ONE, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF
First, I’ll summarize each listed bit of Scripture in its respective context.
Matthew 19: 17 reads:
And [Jesus] said to [the man], ”Why do you ask Me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
The man had asked what good deed(s) he could do to inherit eternal life, and further tried to justify himself by asking which of the commandments he had to keep. Jesus replied with the man’s Achilles Heel: give up your greedy life by giving your possessions to the poor and needy. More importantly, the man had to give up his selfish will and follow Jesus wholeheartedly. The man walked away sadly, for he was too attached to his wealth.
Then we have Luke 10:26-28 (I’ll start with verse 25, though):
…A lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
[Jesus] said to him, “What is written in the Law [of God]? How do you read it?”
And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
And [Jesus] said to him, ”You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
However, like the rich man back in Matthew, this lawyer tried to justify himself by asking who his neighbor was, and then Jesus gave the famous parable of the Good Samaritan. The man was more concerned about the cost of applying God’s law than he was about actually loving God and his fellow man. God’s laws are built around such things, but this man wanted to know what exceptions there were.
Next up, Romans 3:28:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Paul is here writing to the Roman Christians explaining how we are not justified by works alone, as if we could boast about earning our own way to Heaven, and, in doing so, denying God the glory He deserves and making our faith in Jesus pointless. We’ll see later that this does not diminish the importance of works, but that works alone isn’t the truth about the way to life.
Galatians 2:16 says:
[Y]et we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Paul was giving some serious criticism to Peter (yup, the same Peter of the Twelve Disciples) because Peter was, for a time, acting very un-Christ-like; acting like a Gentile while expecting Gentiles to behave like Jews. (For clarification, “Gentile” is also typically synonymous with “ungodly” in Biblical times and texts. This wasn’t always an absolute case, for many Jews, too, often acted ungodly while many Gentiles came to live for the Lord.) Paul was saying that Peter’s actions were directly contrary to Jesus’ teachings and failed to embody the heart of the law of God.
Here, Paul was basically saying that because no one has kept the law perfectly, the only hope we have is through faith in the One who has. In his letter to the Christians in Rome, he states, “Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the people of Israel to be saved. I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal. For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with Himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in Him are made right with God” (Romans 10:1-4, NLT).
And finally, James 2:24:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Things just got real here, yo! This is perhaps the trickiest one of all if not read very carefully. James was comparing, quite to the point of this article, Salvation by faith or by works. His point was that faith alone in Christ does us no good and is dead if we don’t back that faith up with works. It’s not enough to say we simply believe…but keep reading as I’ll get more into that later.
SUMMARIZING THE SUMMARY
As you can see, without even these brief summaries, these verses can present a great deal of confusion if analyzed side-by-side. Yes, they do share in a common theme of Salvation, but not exactly in the same way. For instance, with the situations in Matthew and Luke, Jesus was addressing the flawed attempt of those who try to justify themselves through twisting and manipulation of God’s laws (Salvation by works). And notice that neither the rich man nor the lawyer actually kept the law in full, so they would stand condemned by the very law they were trying to justify themselves with.
Romans is stating that we are justified through faith in Christ alone (because no one can keep the law perfectly); that faith is trusting in Jesus who did keep the law perfectly. Galatians, also, addresses our inability to justify ourselves through the law and that faith in Christ is the only way. And then the seeming “trump card” of them all – James – argues that works as a result of faith – that is, evidence of the faith we say we have – is confirmation that our faith is real. That’s it in a nutshell.
Confused? Yeah, it’s a messy matter to sort through. (Even I, a 25+ year Christian, still tend to get these points a tad muddled in my head and it takes some careful reading and thinking to keep it straight.)
To be clear, the three elements we all need to be aware of: “faith”, “works”, and the “law”. Each of these is essential to understanding Salvation. In fact, while this might seem contrary to your current understanding (especially if you’re not well-studied in Biblical theology), all three of these key points are inter-related. It’s important to have each one in play lest the other two fall to the wayside.
Now to get into the nitty-gritty.
LIVING BY THE NUMBERS
Some number of years ago, I wrote an article explaining why trying to be perfect by our good deeds cannot earn us Salvation. Why we can never be “good enough” simply by our works.
I used the illustration of a fraction, where the top number is the number of good deeds we have done in our life, and the bottom number is the total number deeds, good and bad. If a whole number – a 1-to-1 relationship of good deeds to total deeds – is a perfect life and earns us Heaven, then no one is getting in. That is because even a near-perfect life of 99.9% still does not meet the expectations: to be holy like God is holy (1 Peter 1:16).
This is basically what the Scripture means when it says that no one who lives by the law alone will live, because no one has kept the law perfectly.
Back in Matthew 19, this is precisely what is illustrated when the rich man asked Jesus how he can have eternal life. Jesus said to keep the commandments. The man kept the law in a legal sense, but not at heart, which is keenly illustrated when the man felt the need to ask, “Which ones?”
In verses 18 through 19, Jesus listed off five of the Ten Commandments (plus one more that compliments the Ten). Curious as to why He only gave six? Jesus knew that this man was wealthy. The man kept all the laws in a sense, but his heart was not at all interested in God, but in himself.
You see, all of God’s laws are designed to lead us into a right relationship with Him. You cannot keep some of His commandments and expect to be in a perfect relationship with Him, because breaking even one commandment means you are, in one way or another, actually choosing to disregard God.
What Jesus was doing was illustrating how the man was not actually keeping the laws in accordance to their original purpose.
The man did not murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, dishonor his parents, or disrespect his neighbors (Matthew 19:18-19). But the commandments Jesus did not list off initially were the ones that directly pertain to our relationship with God: keeping the Sabbath, don’t misuse God’s name, do not worship idols, and do not have serve any other gods. While it’s not suggested one way or the other about the man’s regular church attendance and Saturday work habits, notice that the theme of these commandments all relate to God. The man kept all the commandments as they related to other people, which was good. He did not break any legal laws, but at the same time, he was not actually obeying God, for as it was pointed out, the man worshiped his money (an idol) more than he cared about God. If this were not so, he would not have been so saddened over having to give up his temporary wealth for everlasting life. Nor would he have asked which of the laws he had to obey.
THE LAW IS FOR THE LAWLESS
So if the point of the law is to guide us into a right standing with God, what then? If keeping the law still doesn’t save us, why do we have to obey it? It’s not simply about following rules and regulations, dogma and doctrines. That’s all for the purpose of opening our eyes to the Truth, particularly about how we have not been obeying God.
Paul keenly pointed out:
For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in His sight. … Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.
(Romans 2:13, 3:19-20, NLT)
(Remember, Paul was talking to Christians – people who had already accepted Christ through faith.)
People were given the law because they were not obeying God with all their hearts. Thus, obeying the law is not merely about following the rules, but about guiding us to the point where we willfully follow God with all our hearts; that is, for the sake of being close to God in mutual love and service.
We see this point further emphasized in Luke 10. As I highlighted earlier, the lawyer wanted to try to justify himself by asking who his neighbor was (I find it ironic that it’s a lawyer asking Jesus about this, for the stereotypical idea of lawyers is that they try to win their cases by finding loopholes…and that’s exactly what he’s doing here). He rightly quoted Scripture (the law), saying to inherit eternal life, one must love the Lord God with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
The lawyer, a Jew, and like many other Jews, had a deep-rooted problem of prejudice against the Samaritans, who were half-Gentile, half-Jewish people. Jesus’ parable was pointing out that you cannot love the Lord and one’s neighbor with such prejudices. By making the Samaritan the hero of the story, the lawyer was forced to acknowledge his failure to actually obey the law of loving others.
With Matthew and Luke, the point is that keeping the law can’t be accomplished when exceptions are sought after. Rather than obeying the law for the sake of the purpose that the laws were given, these men were trying to use the laws to justify themselves. Isn’t it interesting, too, that in both cases, these men were asking which part of the law they didn’t have to obey, as if God gave laws that could simply be disregarded anyway? Why would this be a concern if they were already obeying the law in full? They knew they weren’t obeying the law, so if they could find out the exceptions, then “maybe” they could have eternal life, right? Wrong.
Again, the law was given because people were not following God to begin with. The law was to help instruct people on how to actually love God.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
So where does that leave us? Is obeying the law the way to Salvation or not? Yes…and no.
Here’s what I mean. Let’s say one has a plot to murder someone. In his heart, he intends to take someone’s life but chooses not to simply because of the law and the repercussions if he gets caught. Did the person keep the law (of the land)? Yes. So far, the action of breaking the law was not made. But in his heart, he has schemed to take someone’s life without just reason. In his heart, he cares nothing for the value of another’s life and cares nothing for the law which seeks to protect that value. He only obeyed the law for his own sake. From a social and/or governmental standpoint, the man cannot be convicted, because human law cannot conclusively prove the condition of a man’s heart apart from actions. Motive alone isn’t enough to pass judgment in this case.
However, in spiritual terms, the Bible makes it clear, as we see here between Jesus and the religious leaders: “The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all [that Jesus had said a moment ago] and were sneering at Jesus. [Jesus] said to them, ‘You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight’” (Luke 16:14-15, NIV). (Please note the highlighted text. Jesus also isn’t saying that money is detestable, but rather the greed for it.)
Just because we didn’t “do badly” doesn’t mean we did good. This is why simply obeying the law cannot save us, but it is necessary to do so anyway in order to give significance to our faith, which is what puts us in a right standing with God. For, it was breaking God’s law that got us in this mess in the first place, and it’s in obeying the law that we begin to come back to Him.
“USE YOUR FAITH, LUKE!”
That leaves us with the matter of faith. If the law cannot save us – if it’s just a notification of how sinful we are – how does faith play into this?
Faith, in layman’s terms, is a matter of belief in and acting on God’s promises and trusting His character. Even when things seem to be impossible by human terms, we trust and obey God anyway, believing that God will take care of the things we cannot. That’s the gist of it.
What this amounts to is that faith in Jesus recognizes and accepts that His death on the cross was enough to save each and every one of us from everlasting separation from God.
Since we cannot save ourselves by simply obeying the law of God (remember my fraction illustration earlier), then perfection is impossible to attain. There is no removing the fact that we have broken the law. And God has said that when the time comes, all people will have to stand trial for their lives.
PAY UP
Let me illustrate it this way (keep in mind Jesus’ parable of the three servants and the talents as I am basically “retelling” that story). You were given life by God. In reality, the life you and I call “ours”, is not really ours. It belongs to God as He is the one who created us. (If you built your house, humanly speaking, that house is yours.)
Since you were created in His image, so the life you have (not necessarily the life you live) is also a reflection of who He is, too. God is life, and He gave life to you. We are called to give that life back through our heart and actions – “love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength”. When we failed to do that, we were left with a debt. We can’t exactly just go buy some new life at the local store and give it to God. We can’t earn it by way of work and wages. Every new minute we are given life and each moment of life we are called to live for God. That new moment of life cannot be used to cover a past moment; just like you cannot spend money on a new CD and expect to be able to use that same $20 to pay your electric bill.
Let’s put it in a contemporary sense. If you gave a bank your money for savings, typically, you’d expect, at the very least, a full return of your deposited cash when you go to withdraw it. And normally, you’d expect a bit of interest given how our bank systems work. If the bank fails to return your money, clearly, they’d owe you a debt. The banks aren’t just letting your money sit there collecting dust. In order to stay in business and profit, themselves, they are investing your money so that they are still making an income even as many people deposit and withdraw their wealth.
What if the bank spent all your money? Suppose you came to collect your money and the bank said, “Sorry! All gone.” You’d be furious and the bank would be in a very difficult spot. They can’t just pull money from other accounts, because that would leave other customers short in their own funds (that’s also called theft). If they did that with everyone’s accounts, they’d go broke! And they likely couldn’t pay for every penny of everyone’s money they misused. How would they pay it back?
So it is with our lives. God gave us our lives and so He naturally expects a return on it – and He has made it clear the kind of return He expects. He wants a full life that reflects His image. But does the life you and I have presently and completely reflect His character? No. We are in a debt we can’t repay. The result is the penalty of death – our lives taken from us – which is, in reality, complete separation from God. That is, the life we have left will be used to cover the debt of misused life we have lived…leaving us with no life to live on.
THE SWAP
That is why Christ is so important. He did live a perfect life. He is innocent from any guilt, having kept the laws of God completely. However, He graciously and mercifully gave up His life, paying a debt He didn’t owe. In this trade, though, if we accept God’s gift of Salvation through Jesus, we are granted Jesus’ righteousness. Meaning, even though we are guilty, we are seen as innocent. This means, however, that we must also live righteously, as Christ lived.
Christ’s death for our sins did not mean that He also lived sinfully, that we might also continue living sinfully. Or look at it this way: if you were poor and lived a life of rags, imagine if someone came and paid off all your debts and gave you new clothes, a home, and a brand new life, complete with a great paying job. Would you truly continue to live the life of a bum on the streets, sick and dirty?
Salvation, then, is about Redemption. More on that in a bit.
It is in this that we see that works without faith and faith without works cannot justify us. Works without faith is like trying to fully keep the law…but it’s too late. We’ve already broken it. And faith without works is like expecting a paycheck without actually doing the work to earn it. Faith in Christ means that we are trading our old, sinful lives for the one Christ lived (that is, we’re receiving credit for a life we didn’t live). We are resting on His righteousness to cover the fact that we have not lived righteously. We are resting on His riches for the wealth we squandered. Otherwise, what does it mean to say we trust in Christ’s work on the cross yet continue to live just as we had before? If we recognize our sinfulness and our need for Salvation, then accepting Christ ought to be met with a response of works – works that seek to obey God with all our hearts! That means keeping the law! Again, not that we can be saved by it, but as an expression of the faith in and acceptance of Christ and His work for us. That’s what the law is for, as it shows us how we are to properly love God.
One of Jesus’ other parables probably better illustrates this.
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
[The Pharisees] said, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, ”Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes will go into the kingdom of God before you. For John [the Baptist] came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe Him.”
(Matthew 21:28-32, ESV)
Neither son fully kept the law. The first son disobeyed his father, at first, in his heart for he responded with stubbornness and a refusal to respect his father’s authority. But, by grace, he was deemed the obedient one when he began to do the work he was called to do. It is in this that we find the qualifier when Paul says in Romans 3, “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (vv. 27-28, ESV).
We can’t boast we’re good and righteous on our own merits after we’ve already demonstrated evil and unrighteous hearts! So all that’s left is the grace of God!
Faith in Christ’s work, in what He did, is what justifies us, for Christ is the only one who fully kept the law. By grace – God’s grace – we are deemed righteous.
THE EVIDENCE
Finally, when it is said that “[y]ou see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, ESV), we have to remember that faith without works is dead. Earlier, James states that the demons believe in God…and tremble (James 2:19)! The context of James’ message was that simply believing does no one any good. There must be some kind of evidence – works – to prove the faith is genuine.
What does this mean?
If we only take the words used in James 2:24 at face value, we won’t notice what is actually a glaring point. James just said that demons believe, yet are terrified of God. However, their belief is a mere mental acceptance of the Truth. (It’s hard to spread lies if one doesn’t readily know the truth.) It’s like the age-old example of believing there’s a $20 bill around the corner but doing absolutely nothing to go get it. What in the world is that belief for?! Believe all you want, but you won’t be $20 richer simply by having faith…by simply accepting is true. (Perhaps an example of being sick and doing nothing when a cure is readily at hand would be a better illustration.)
And if one says they have faith but do not actually obey God, then what good is their faith? (Do they even really have faith?) Thus, works is the qualifier of faith. That’s what James means.
Let’s look a few verses earlier in the second chapter of James:
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality [ie: favoritism towards Jews but not Gentiles], you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For He [that is, God] who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
(vv. 8-13, ESV)
It’s not just this law or that law broken and everything else is a-okay. Remember, God’s law (have you noticed I keep referring to it in the singular despite there being many various laws given) is designed to point us back to Him; God’s law is a reflection of His character and who He is and that we are created in His image. So if we break one law, even if we keep all others, then we have broken all of them. That’s why being a “mostly good person” doesn’t cut it.
Think of it like a stained glass window. A single shard of glass could be missing from the entire window, while all others are intact, but that window is still not wholly complete. God is not looking for a mostly complete stained glass window; He’s looking for the whole thing. Because what is depicted in that window is God, Himself. You cannot say that you are a complete reflection of God’s image yet be missing a piece. Missing a piece means that the image isn’t complete. So it is when dealing with God’s law.
What we have then is not faith versus works, but a mutual dependence of both.
GRACE VERSUS WORKS: THE FINAL BATTLE
Even when Jesus, Himself, says, “Do this, and live,” or when reading the Old Testament where several commands from God iterate obedience to the law so that one may live, one thing becomes apparent: the law is an unrelenting source of conviction. Like in a court of law, a conviction refers to one’s failure to keep the law.
Notice, however, how Jesus addresses the varied people in the Scriptures. Every time the Pharisees try to catch Jesus in a trap or question Him, Jesus turns the tables on them, showing how these religious “elites” are breaking the law they supposedly revere so much. But to those who know they are sinners, to those who are inwardly broken over the sin they have committed, they are set free from the law and given grace, pardoned from the law’s demands.
As my pastor put it, “Grace to the humble, [the] law to the proud.” And we already know that no one keeps the law fully.
Look at Luke 15. In all three parables – “The Lost Sheep”, “The Lost Coin”, and “The Prodigal Son” – Jesus illustrates how God seeks out the lost and the broken. The lost sheep, the woman’s lost coin, and the father’s wayward son are all representations of us.
Luke 15:1-2 says, “Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, ‘This Man receives sinners and eats with them’” (ESV).
But in each parable, Jesus ends His story with the same message, “For each sinner who repents, there is cause for celebration!” In your face, Pharisees! Repentance, therefore, is demonstrated by good works!
Celebration! Not condemnation. Therein is the lynch pin! I touched on this earlier, but now I state it outright. If we do not repent from our sins, then no amount of faith – no supposed belief – will do us any good! We must repent! For before there was grief. After all, neither the shepherd, the old woman, nor the father of the son were happy over that which or whom was lost. But once the sheep and coin were found and the son had returned, then, then there was cause for celebration!
Notice, too, that Jesus went from a rather impersonal example such as a mere sheep, to a more personal thing as a poor woman’s sole coin, to a father’s very treasured son. The first two illustrated God’s pursuance of us, but in the last example, Jesus speaks of the importance of our response to why we are lost and broken. The law points out our failure to obey and demands a response; that response is repentance, coupled with faith, which is then qualified by obeying the law.
JUST WHAT IS IN A WORD?
With repentance (the word that perhaps best sums up the entire faith-and-works matter) we are blessed with redemption. Redemption in the dictionary is stated this way:
1. To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum.
2. To pay off (a promissory note, for example).
3. To turn in (coupons, for example) and receive something in exchange.
4. To fulfill (a pledge, for example).
5. To convert into cash.
6. To set free; rescue or ransom.
7. To save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences.
8. To make up for.
9. To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redeem
Jesus paid the price (death) that we owed and He paid it in full. When we turn in our old lives, we are granted new ones (2 Corinthians 5:17). Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5-17-18 & John 19:30), and, even though He died in our place (John 3:16), His innocence was converted into life (Luke 24), and thus He was raised from the dead. Our sins condemned us to death, and so we face the decay of our bodies and our spirits. But when we accept Christ, “dying to our old selves”, we are set free from that dire future (Romans 6:5-11); we are rescued, Christ having paid the ransom on our lives (1 Timothy 2:5-6). While we will face daily consequences for our sins in this life, the ultimate consequence for our sin will be something we are spared from (2 Samuel 12:13-14). Christ’s perfect life makes up for our failed one.
And with that, I have just crossed into the eleventh page as I type this up in Word (the Microsoft version; not the Biblical one LOL). I hope this lengthy message clears up one more matter about the Bible and what it’s actually saying. And I hope it gives you a sense of freedom, in that you need not worry about being justified in God’s eyes by your own merits, but only have to live intentionally for Jesus, knowing that His works saved you. That’s the kind of faith to have.
#1 – God’s Anger: Temporary or Everlasting? << Previous| MASTER LIST | Next >> #3 – Salvation: By Works or Faith?
Originally posted November 1, 2012.
TESTING…TESTING 1, 2, 3…
Hello again! Welcome to my eighth entry to my Biblical contradiction series! That you see a number 2 in the title either means you’re confused or I can’t count. But it’s okay. I still know my alphabet, I color within the lines (most of the time), and I like to mimic The Count from Sesame Street.
This time around we’ll be looking at a rather frequent topic of criticism regarding God’s character: Does He tempt people?
As I always like to make known for my new readers to this series, there is a video on YouTube that claims God can’t be tempted but can tempt others…among 44 other accusations of contradiction. That’s some serious stuff and we’ll do some subtle context study to find out the truth – as I like to think of it – ninja style.
A BIBLICAL BATMAN BATTLES BRUCE’S BAD GUY?
Attention, ninja! This is no time for entertainment. Listen closely. Hai!
In director Nolan Ryan’s “Batman Begins”, we see young, angry, lost Bruce Wayne being trained as a ninja by his mentor, Ra’s al Ghul, in a game of shadows and cunning. A literal mind game. Coincidentally, it takes place at the temple of the League of Shadows. You would do well to learn from Bruce.
Rows of fellow ninjas stand in formation dressed in full ninja attire, just as Bruce is, and as the aromatic toxin affects Bruce’s mind, al Ghul slips into the ranks among the other masked ones. During his training, Bruce suffers a cut to his arm, making even a “minor” difference a glaring one between him and his clan mates. Knowing he was no match for al Ghul in direct combat and impaired by the vapor toxin’s effect on his mind, he uses quick wit to take advantage of his mentor’s own weakness: al Ghul favors a direct approach and technique over minding his own instructions; particularly to mind one’s surroundings, which Bruce employs to the fullest (especially at the climax of the movie).
Bruce, while evading al Ghul in the dimly-lit room, cuts fellow ninjas in the same manner as he was earlier cut during the skirmish. Seeing a cut arm, al Ghul believes Bruce was trying to hide among the other ninjas and comes up behind Bruce’s “double”, thinking he had outwitted Bruce’s game. To the contrary, Bruce proved his ploy successful, as that was exactly what he hoped al Ghul would do. Coming out from within another row, he successfully checkmates his mentor, winning the exercise.
What I hope to illustrate here is the need to be aware of the details. Ra’s al Ghul was not (though he thought he was) and failed to look closer, however subtle, at would have been a glaring difference.
You will not fall to such folly, however, my student, as al Ghul did. You will discover the Truth is in the nuances we would normally take for granted.
THE TARGET
Like a ninja, stealth is all about being sneaky; lurking in the shadows, seeing but not being seen. People are less on their guard if they think there is no current threat. Thus, the deeper truths can be more easily discovered.
Today’s ninja lesson will have us observing the argument against Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13. These two verses are almost as far apart as they can get in the time they were written and even in the Bible pages, themselves. So far apart, one might think that’s enough reason to call the ninja back home to the clan. But any good ninja knows that patience and a careful eye can pierce the darkness. For in the darkness, the enemy wishes to call these two verses into conflict.
Ironically enough, the shadow is our ally. For we will not engage in direct combat.
DEBRIEFING: KNOW THY “ENEMY”
In order to defeat his opponent a wise ninja observes his every move. Does he favor strength over defense? Does he feign weakness to mislead his adversary into overconfidence? Is he left- or right-handed? … Does he watch Spongebob secretly during midnight marathons in his Smurf boxers? Does he practice his Power Rangers battle poses in his basement?
So, we will first examine each verse. Knowing the situation before the battle has begun will give you a keen advantage; including the chance to avoid battle altogether. In this case, it will come by seeking to gain understanding of the larger context from which each verse is pulled from. From there, we can discern the enemy’s weak points.
Genesis 22 starts out the chapter with this:
Some time later, God tested Abraham’s faith. “Abraham!” God called.
“Yes,” he replied. “Here I am.”
(Genesis 22:1, NLT, bold mine)
And then we have this one:
And remember, when you are being tempted, do not say, “God is tempting me.” God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else.
(James 1:13, NLT, bold mine)
A keen ninja eye always sees the whole room as well as the most minute details…including every dust bunny that hops along the floor by the slightest gust of wind.
Do you see it, my disciple? Is God a tester or a tempter? Or perhaps both?
TRAINING DAY: A GOOD DEFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE
A skilled ninja relies not solely on a tug-of-war between defense and offense. A battle is not won based on overpowering your opponent. Patience. Foresight. These are what win battles. In today’s lesson, we will discover that the enemy may tend to favor one method of attack while neglecting to train in another…or worse, to his greater disadvantage, he will think he has no weakness at all. In that instance, the enemy will fall on his own, needing no help from you. Simply exposing these weakness will be enough.
What we have here is a pitting of God’s test of Abraham against the claim that God never tempts anyone to do wrong, namely to sacrifice his son, Isaac. The problem here is that it fails on two points: 1) word usage and definition, and 2) context, particularly in Genesis 22. To defeat the enemy, we will arm ourselves with knowledge consisting of the definitions of “tempt” and “test” from both the English dictionary and the Biblical usage reference, and the context surrounding both verses.
Ninja! Bow! And…begin!
A TEMPTING TEST or ATTEMPTING A TEST
Test is a scary word for many people…particularly among the youth in school. How many kids and teens make up all kinds of crazy schemes to get out of their math test (or is that just what I always saw on my favorite sitcoms)?
In Genesis 22:1, God is said to have tested Abraham. What is a test made of, exactly?
Since the verb form of test is used, we’ll look at that first.
Take measures to check the quality, performance, or reliability of (something), esp. before putting it into widespread use or practice.
The object of the test is critical. It’s important to know what was being tested specifically for it was make no sense to study for a history exam when the test is on physics. (How many think it wouldn’t matter which one you studied for, eh?) It was not his completion of the command given that was being measured, but his faith in God. We’ll explore that when you are promoted to a yellow belt.
To tempt is to
have an urge or inclination to do something. To entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial.
Now taking a look at the original Hebrew, we see the difference is just as clear. Genesis 22:1 uses the word nacah, which basically means
to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test.
Some critics may see that “tempt” is in the list of definitions and go, “Ah ha!” But, when we examine Genesis 22 more closely, we’ll see that the prospect of sacrificing his only son was not a very attractive end result for Abraham. In fact, it was not the goal at all, making the accusation of Yahweh tempting Abe highly unlikely. Furthermore, just as in English, a word’s many definitions does not mean that all definitions are valid at any given time. Context is always key. So to ascertain the right definition, we must understand the full gist of the story.
James 1:13 comes in with peirazo, which includes the meanings (not exclusively, but in summary)
To try whether a thing can be done
To try, make a trial of, test (this can include malicious intent)
To try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
The two words definitely have similarities, but there are subtle differences. Nacah takes a more proving theme while peirazo has a strong sense of deceit. Knowing the natures of the two words gives us a better view what was going on in Genesis 22 and the meaning in James 1.
Was Abe’s faith in Yahweh to keep His promises genuine? That’s the real question we’re asking. As we’ll see shortly, Isaac, Abe’s only son through whom Yahweh would fulfill His promise, was about to be required for a sacrifice to the LORD. No Isaac, no promise. Did Abe have faith that God would keep His promises even in the face of such a command to give up the very son he loved so dearly?
THEN AND NOW: KNOW YOUR HISTORY
The enemy often has many skeletons in his closet…perhaps even literally. These rickety bones do not hold well on their own – lies have stripped them of their flesh. Confronted with the truth, the enemy will be faced with an opponent of his own making, rather than you, my pupil. The strongest foe one cannot ever defeat is the Truth, so the only option is to make it one’s ally. The enemy will hide the truth about their lies as if they never existed. They hide the past with lies of the present. Today, we will discover the truth about the past regarding Genesis 22. With the truth revealed, the enemy’s attempts to cover up the truth will be his undoing.
God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (physically, and spiritually) through a child that would be born to him and his wife, Sarah…
The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you. I will make you into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others.” … [T]he LORD said to Abram, “Look as far as you can see in every direction—north and south, east and west. I am giving all this land, as far as you can see, to you and your descendants as a permanent possession. And I will give you so many descendants that, like the dust of the earth, they cannot be counted!”
(Genesis 12:1-2, 13:14-16, NLT, bold mine)
…even though both were very old, and Sarah was barren!
…Abram replied, “O Sovereign LORD, what good are all your blessings when I don’t even have a son? Since You’ve given me no children, Eliezer of Damascus, a servant in my household, will inherit all my wealth. You have given me no descendants of my own, so one of my servants will be my heir.”
Then the LORD said to him, “No, your servant will not be your heir, for you will have a son of your own who will be your heir.” Then the LORD took Abram outside and said to him, “Look up into the sky and count the stars if you can. That’s how many descendants you will have!”
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had not been able to bear children for him…
(Genesis 15:2-5, 16:1a NLT, bold mine)
Several years later, God reaffirms His promise to Abram, now to be called Abraham (Sarai is renamed Sarah), to make him the father of many nations and give him an heir, a son.
“…I will bless [Sarah] and give you a son from her! Yes, I will bless her richly, and she will become the mother of many nations. Kings of nations will be among her descendants.”
Then Abraham bowed down to the ground, but he laughed to himself in disbelief. “How could I become a father at the age of 100?” he thought. “And how can Sarah have a baby when she is ninety years old?”
…God replied, “…Sarah, your wife, will give birth to a son for you. You will name him Isaac, and I will confirm my covenant with him and his descendants as an everlasting covenant. …[M]y covenant will be confirmed with Isaac, who will be born to you and Sarah about this time next year.”
(Genesis 17:16-17, 19, 21, NLT, bold mine)
The references here span some time. God came to Abraham on more than one occasion to confirm His promise to him. In the middle of all this, despite his momentary disbelief (a confusion of sorts) on how in the world two very old people could possibly have kids, we do see that Abraham trusted in God’s promise: “And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith [in Him]” (Genesis 15:6, NLT, bold mine).
It may seem like I’m getting off subject, but Abraham’s faith was the key element in this entire issue. Faith, ultimately, is a matter of trust even when there is no other evidence for why that trust should continue. Allow me to illustrate…
TRAINING DAY: THE GREAT FALL
A ninja relies on all his senses and trusts not in his eyes alone.
A few years ago, my pastor was giving a sermon and asked for a volunteer for a visual demonstration. It’s a classic one that almost everyone knows about: the blind fall.
It’s entirely an issue of trust, but not one of blind faith.
I’ve known my pastor for 10+ years. In every capacity that he could, he has always been there for me, mentored me, gave me guidance and has helped me in understanding of the Bible. He’s a good friend and even was there for me during a particularly painful time in my life…like when I called in the middle of the night and we talked for an hour or two. My pastor has earned my trust that he will not simply let me down carelessly.
When he instructed me to stand up on the edge of the stage (about a good four feet off the floor), with my back facing the audience, for the demonstration, I did so without question. Sure, I quickly figured out what it was he had in mind even though he did not spell it out immediately.
However, even though I knew what the test was about, could I trust that my pastor would actually catch me when he gave me the command to fall back and risk landing on the very hard floor below from several feet above? Mind you, I’m also 5’8”, which added to the potential impact. I could not see behind me, either. I couldn’t see if my pastor was truly there. I couldn’t see if he had silently lined up some cushions for me to fall on while he addressed the people with the rest of his message. What evidence did I have that I would not end up in the hospital…or the grave?!
All I had was past evidence of a consistent character in the man I had come to respect and love after 10 years.
For many people, to have only the past to rely on is a frightening thing, especially if our past is riddled with people who failed to respect our trust in them? What assurance is there? I didn’t have the same problem, but without any other indication, how could know I’d be safe this time?
I did not know how my pastor would ensure my safety, but I had faith that he would. I had faith that he would not turn the tables on me given that has always supported me before. He was consistent.
Upon his command, I fell backwards. Man, what an awesome feeling that was o just be freefalling…quite the rush! What utterly surprised me, though – what I absolutely did not expect – was that he had secretly conspired with several other men (older men whom I personally regarded as mentors, too…almost fathers) – to form a “net” to catch me in their arms. It wasn’t just my pastor who caught me, but several trustworthy individuals who saw to it that I did not reach the dire conclusion to my fall.
To this day, that one moment has stuck with me deeper than I can say.
The thing is, though, I was never in any real danger. This was never a test to see if I’d hit the ground or not – either I would be caught by the men behind me or I would never take the fall in the first place. Either way, my safety was ensured. The test was whether or not I had faith in my pastor to continue being reliable and that he would be the man I’ve counted on after all these years.
The focus was on my faith, not the outcome of what I was risking (that is, the possibility of hitting the floor). I honestly can say that even if I did not already know ahead of time what my pastor was going to ask me to do, I still would have obeyed, thereby proving my faith in him was real. Once he asked me to fall back, I would instantly know the immediate outcome to follow. Yet, I would trust that somehow my pastor would be there to intervene.
This was Abraham’s faith in Yahweh. And we’ll see how exactly this is true for him in a moment.
TRAINING DAY CONTINUES: INTO THE WILDERNESS
It is not enough to practice in the safety of the dojo. Your training will only go so far for you will become familiar with your sparring mates. You will not be pushed, hardened, sharpened, honed. You will not be forced to adapt to the unexpected circumstances. We must take you out into the wilderness…beyond the structured and orderly walls that have housed your training.
Abraham greatly loved his son, Isaac, for he was born unexpectedly in his old age to his otherwise barren wife! Isaac was the one whom the LORD would fulfill His promise through. So, clearly, Isaac was treasured two-fold to the patriarch.
I can’t even begin to imagine what must have gone through Abe’s mind when one day the LORD shows up and delivers these instructions:
Some time later, God tested Abraham’s faith. “Abraham!” God called.
“Yes,” he replied. “Here I am.”
“Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
(Genesis 22:1-2, NLT)
“Uh, did I hear You right, LORD?” My mind would be doing a double-take and I’d be looking around wondering who was hiding behind a rock, playing tricks on my ears. My mind would be going back and forth.
Sacrifice means death… But my son is the object of God’s promise… The promise can’t come true unless my son is alive… But I can’t disobey God… I have to obey… but sacrifice means death… And on the vicious Catch-22 would go.
Abraham, though, demonstrated tremendous faith. He actually got up early the next morning, for one. Who gets up early in the face of such a debilitating hour? When the LORD you trust so much has suddenly told you to sacrifice your son, the same son through whom God would keep His promises? Then the man packs all he’ll need for a three-day journey, chops some firewood for the sacrifice ritual, and walks what must have been an emotionally disturbing trek in the desert (I assume it was in the desert region anyway) (Genesis 22:3-4).
This, though, is where Abe’s faith begins to shine.
“Stay here with the donkey,” Abraham told the servants. “The boy and I will travel a little farther. We will worship there, and then we will come right back.”
Let me interject here…notice he said we…him and Isaac…
…As the two of them walked on together, Isaac turned to Abraham and said, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“…Where is the sheep for the burnt offering?”
“God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering, my son,” Abraham answered. And they both walked on together.
(Genesis 22:5, 6b-8 NLT, bold mine)
Abe was clearly trusting in the LORD to keep His promises. Yahweh had just spent years coming back to him to reaffirm a lasting covenant to make and bless the decedents of Abraham and Abraham wasn’t about to give up on God just because of a perplexing command. “Why would Yahweh ask me to give up my only son?” (Isaac wasn’t truly Abe’s only son, but Scripture puts it that way to emphasize the foreshadowing of Yahweh’s promise through Isaac as a parallel to His promise of salvation through His only begotten Son, Jesus.)
What’s more, as we’ll see in a moment, Abe demonstrated that faith in obedience. He did more than simply prepare for the journey and the sacrifice. And let’s remember, we know something that Abe did not: this was not about actually sacrificing Isaac, but about Abe’s faithfulness to Yahweh. This was a test of his faith, not necessarily his obedience, but a willingness to obey is what gave his faith substance and credibility…viability.
THIS IS A TEST…THIS IS ONLY A TEST
An observant ninja will discern wisely when to act and when to stand firm. Recognizing all elements of a situation will allow you to respond appropriately. Hesitation can be just as effective as a quick response when circumstances call for it. To hesitate is to act, just as to move is to act. Thus, act carefully.
Abraham acted without hesitation in this case, but he didn’t rush to conclusions about why Yahweh would ask him to sacrifice his own son even though that would mean the dismantling of His very promise. Abe trusted that somehow Yahweh would keep His promise in full – and that meant that Isaac would live.
In the following verses in chapter 22, Abe’s faith pays off.
When they arrived at the place where God had told him to go, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood on it. Then he tied his son, Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice. At that moment the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Yes,” Abraham replied. “Here I am!”
“Don’t lay a hand on the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from Me even your son, your only son.”
Then Abraham looked up and saw a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. So he took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering in place of his son.
(Genesis 22:9-12, NLT, bold mine)
Abe put everything on the line. Yet it was not about actually giving it all up, but about His willingness to trust Yahweh when everything else seemed forfeit. That may seem confusing, I admit, but it’s precisely what was at the heart of the test. We see, too, that while the sacrifice was not the actual focus, Yahweh surely did provide the sacrificial ram, thus making it so Abe could also fulfill the command to offer a sacrifice to the LORD.
SMOKESCREEN
Image carrying a shadow in your pocket in broad daylight. Can you distract your enemy by clouding his senses? Hiding the truth is a sensitive tactical move and must be employed carefully, for you may fall prey to your own trickery, just as the enemy would have you fall prey to theirs. The skill you must learn and employ here is how to see without seeing. To discern what is real beyond the smoke.
That brings us back to the proposed contradiction targeted against Genesis 22 against James 13. Does Yahweh tempt people?
The answer, quite simply, is no. There was no indication that Yahweh made the command to sound ideal. Already, He had made promise after promise to bless Abe with a son and to make him the father of many nations. Then, all of a sudden, Yahweh pops up to say, “Abe, go sacrifice your son to Me.” One could attempt to assert temptation there, but there was nothing attractive about the prospect. No amount of urging or enticing could make losing a son sound good to Abe. And Yahweh did not try to.
At the heart of the proposed contradiction is that Yahweh ordered Abe to sacrifice his son despite the fact that such human sacrifices were evil in the eyes of the LORD. Indeed, they were (and are) evil in His eyes. Yahweh never approved of human sacrifices.
We see this disapproval is clearly true in that, even though Yahweh commanded it and Abe set out to obey, Abe did not complete the sacrifice of Isaac since Yahweh intervened. Either Abe would have disobeyed or Yahweh would step in (and He did). Once again, such a sacrifice was never the point and was never meant to take place either way.
The smokescreen here is to suggest that Abe was tempted to do evil. For who in their right mind would seriously ask someone to sacrifice their child? The implication is that Yahweh was seriously commanding – tempting – Abe to kill his own son. But, again, Yahweh wasn’t trying to make something bad sound good and the text clearly stated that His goal was to test the strength of Abe’s faith. Ultimately, this is a classic categorical error combined with a seriously flawed interpretation of the events in Genesis 22.
CLEARING THE SMOKESCREEN…THE ENEMY FALLS
An enemy who cannot see when all his vision is clouded is in a state of panic. He heart races and is more concerned for survival and his judgment is impaired. How much more is he when he can see but still knows not from where his opponent may strike. Indeed, you only need strike true…with the Truth.
We’ve gone through Genesis quite thoroughly now. So what about James 1? We actually find that they are in full agreement. The writer is one of Jesus’ younger brothers, James (so cool how he gets his own book in the Bible named after him…lucky guy!). James starts out addressing the very real fact that believers will face difficulties in life.
My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything.
(James 1:2-4, NLT, bold mine)
James follows up with the matter of difficulties here, including verse 13:
Happy is the one who endures testing, because when he has proven to be genuine, he will receive the crown of life that God promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.
(James 1:12-15, NLT, bold mine)
We see a stark contrast between testing and trials versus temptations once again. Remember, tests are a measure or an assessment of that which is being tested. Those math tests must have been horrible for you in school, but they were just an assessment of your overall understanding of the lessons you had already gone through. Abe was being asked to fall back off a cliff…complete with Isaac in his arms…and trust that God would catch them both. Would Abe put all he had come to learn about Yahweh’s character into active faith? Did he trust the LORD?
Abe’s desire was to have his son. Abe loved and treasured Isaac yet he obeyed God even to death’s doorstep. So to suggest that Abe was tempted is to miss the point entirely. It is basically suggesting that Abe wanted to sacrifice his own son! That’s something that’s just not in the text at all. The test was not to commit spiritual suicide, but simply to show that the faith was, indeed, genuine. Yahweh would never have actually let Abe down; just as my pastor never would have actually let me hit the floor when I fell off the stage.
It comes down to this: Had Yahweh truly wanted to tempt or lead Abe to sin, knowing and seeing that Abe was fully intent on obeying Him even as he trusted Yahweh would keep His promises, Yahweh would not have stopped the man from sacrificing Isaac. In fact, God would have proposed some kind of lucrative deal to get Abe to value Yahweh’s theoretical offer more than his son.
What’s more, if the sacrifice was the point, if tempting Abe into sin was the goal, why stop him at the last second? Neither the words, the context, nor the very logic of such a suggestion line up if we’re to assume Yahweh was so inclined to solicit a man he deemed righteous a mere seven chapters earlier…for his faith! Even the hardened critic has to acknowledge that such an argument of contradiction doesn’t add up.
THE PROMOTION
You have done well, my student. You are now more readily equipped to face the spiritual dangers that await you. Be diligent in your training and do not neglect your studies. May you prosper in the Word of the LORD, the Master Sensei and serve Him with all fervor by first standing firm in nacah and then never being deceived in peirazo. In both, you will be well rewarded with long life and many more blessings that enrich and transcend this life.
Now…ninja! Vanish!
SOURCES:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tempt
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=22&t=NLT#conc/1
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=1&v=1&t=NLT#conc/13
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2775
#9 – One Earth: Two Fates? << Previous | MASTER LIST | Next >> #45 – Judas’ Death: By Hanging or By a Big Splat?
Originally posted August 7, 2012.
HELLO (Again)!
Welcome! If you have been following along with my series, you won’t find it odd that this is my fifth entry, but the 17th contradiction proposal. Don’t try to make sense of it – just accept it (heh heh). If you are not in-the-know, however, there is a YouTube video out there that seeks to prove there are contradictions in the Bible. A casual reading might seem to confirm just so; however, I have a strong hunch that there is more to the story. And, indeed, there is.
In fact, the tale I’m going to tell comes from three separate stories of a moment during Jesus’ crucifixion. So settle your tail in a cozy chair and have a listen. It concerns the two thieves who hung next to Jesus and whether they both reject Him or if one of them accepted Christ as Lord. The good news is that this matter doesn’t require a lot of mental gymnastics or background info to understand what’s going on.
As I’ll unpack here for you, there is one particular element that’s often taken for granted: time. So let’s not waste another second of it. To the Bible-mobile! (You may now groan and shake your head at my odd humor.)
LEFT! LEFT! LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT!
The verses in question are Matthew 27:44, Mark 15:32, and Luke 23:39-42. At a glance, and as I said, it does seem that there are two different stories here: Matthew and Mark say that both thieves insulted Jesus and mocked Him, while Luke says one of them asked Jesus to remember him. Given that this is the Bible, one would think these testimonies would just fall in line, right? If we’re talking about the same event, then we should get the same overall story.
Okay, well, let’s see where the three accounts line up on this matter.
|
|
Matthew 27 |
Mark 15 |
Luke 23 |
|
Number of thieves next to Jesus |
2 (v. 38) |
2 (v. 27) |
2 (v. 32) |
|
Number of thieves who insulted Jesus |
2 (v. 44) |
2 (v. 32) |
At least 1 (v. 39) |
|
Number of thieves who accepted Jesus |
Not mentioned |
Not mentioned |
1 (vv. 40-42) |
|
Time elapsed during crucifixion |
At least 3 hours (v. 45) |
6 hours (v. 25) |
At least 3 hours (vv. 44-46) |
NOTE: John 19:18 also agrees with the other Gospels that Jesus was crucified between two others, but he does not identify any other details in the same veins as noted in this chart; hence why we are only addressing Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
“ELEMENTARY, MY DEAR WATSON…” (TRIVIA: Sherlock never said such words in the books)
The Bible is many things. It’s a compilation of poetry, wisdom, history, scientific references, (moral, legal, & cultural) law, and more. Whether you agree with the teachings and claims in the Bible or not, however, one thing I think we can all agree on is this: the Bible tells a story. A series of stories, to be exact. And stories can be told in a variety of ways, and not always in a point-A-to-point-B fashion. Since the four Gospels (or the three referenced here, at least) all have a particular theme the authors wished to highlight in their testimonies (which I highlight later), it’s important to realize that there will be some variances in how the story is told. (Thankfully, we don’t have to worry much about order of chronology in this discussion.)
For example, suppose I told a story of how two men came up to me and I talked with one of them. Afterwards, I shook the same man’s hand and they left. Later, I told the same story to someone else, except I didn’t mention that there were two men. The story remains the same, otherwise, right down to the handshake.
The contradiction would be there if I stated absolutely that there was only one man present with me during the conversation. However, if I only stated that I spoke with a man for a while and later shook his hand, then no contradiction is present. I simply left out the detail that there was a second man there, too. Leaving out such a detail doesn’t prevent the possibility that there was, indeed, another man present. The two stories therefore are compatible.
The lesson in this simple example must also be applied to the three accounts of the Gospels here. Is it stated explicitly that both thieves rejected Jesus the entire duration of their crucifixion? Is it not possible that there’s another factor we’re missing? Just a moment ago I mentioned time.
“YOU BUILT A TIME MACHINE…OUT OF A DeLOREAN?!”
In both Matthew and Luke, we read the following:
And when they had crucified [Jesus], they divided His garments among them by casting lots. … Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ”Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, ”My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?” … And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up His spirit. (Matthew 27:35, 45-46, 50, ESV)
And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified [Jesus]… It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed. … Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ”Father, into your hands I commit My spirit!” And having said this He breathed His last. (Luke 23:33, 44-46, ESV)
These two accounts seem to suggest a time passage of 3 hours. The sixth hour was noon in Jewish customs, making the ninth hour 3pm. Okay. But what about Mark’s account?
And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him. … And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ”Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” … (Mark 15:24-25, 33-34, ESV)
As Marty McFly would say, “Whoa, hold the phone, Doc, that’s heavy!” (Doc would reply, “Weight’s got nothing to do with it!”) Suddenly, we have a much larger picture with Mark. It wasn’t that Jesus’ entire crucifixion up to His death lasted three hours, but the time of darkness during the middle of the day lasted only three hours. Mark adds that little detail about what time Jesus was actually nailed to the Cross, adding a whole extra three long hours!
I know this detail may seem pointless; after all, what’s it matter if Jesus’ Crucifixion lasted three, six, or twelve hours? But it’s an important factor, however subtle, because the testimonies don’t give us every tiny little detail about what all happened. There’s often a great deal of summary or other structure to how each of the stories are told. When we understand that there was a whole six hours during the Crucifixion, though, suddenly we begin to realize that a lot could have potentially happened during this time (regardless if it was recorded in the Gospels or not).
In fact, John 21:25 says as much, “Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.” So it’s reasonable to assume that one testimony might have a detail the others did not. In fact, there are some details in Luke that don’t show up in the other three. Each of the Gospels has details of Jesus’ life exclusive to their testimony.
IN THE BEGINNING…that is, at 9am
Let’s go back to the two thieves and how they treated Jesus. We see clearly that all three Gospels agree that there were two thieves who were crucified next to Christ. In Luke 23:32 it’s pointed out that the criminals were led to a place called Golgotha (aka The Place of the Skull…sounds fitting, doesn’t it?) along with Jesus. So we know that the three traveled together up to Golgotha.
This means that they were clearly aware of the insults hurled at Jesus every step of the way and how Jesus responded (or didn’t respond).
We also know that this entire event lasted over 6 hours (the duration of the Crucifixion plus the time spent walking through the city carrying the Cross He’d be nailed to).
They saw how they gave Jesus wine mixed with vinegar and how His clothes were divided up among the soldiers. They saw how His mother, Mary, looked up upon her Son with tears in her eyes while Jesus instructed one of His disciples to look after her.
They saw everything. They knew this man was innocent.
A curious question might occur to you, though…it did just occur to me even now. Why do Matthew and Mark not mention the account of the thief who accepted Jesus? Honestly, at this moment in time, I have no idea. All we know is that at some point during those six painful hours (I’m thinking towards the end of those six hours), one thief finally had a change of heart.
“JOIN THE DARK SIDE…OR DIE!”
The thief in Luke’s testimony knew every that happened on the road to Golgotha. We know that, at first, he was also one of the people who hurled the insults. In fact, prior to this, both thieves were known murderers and revolutionaries (apparently not the good sort). They were nailed up next to Jesus in order to make Christ look like a worthless criminal (clearly propaganda and biased distortion of the facts is not limited to the modern media).
Then something in him…was disturbed. What was it that prompted this change? Luke doesn’t explain exactly, except for the fact that he chided his fellow no-do-gooder for his treatment of Jesus and that they both knew they were guilty and Jesus was innocent. Perhaps it was that contrast that finally prompted this man to repent.
This reminds me of Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi. During the climax of the story, Luke has already realized that his father, Vader (as if you didn’t already know), still has good in him, despite being a slave to the Dark Side of the Force for so long. Emperor Palpatine (aka Darth Sideous) is busy zapping poor Luke too crispy for most chicken lovers. Vader looks on as his son writhes in pain and pleads for his father to help him.
We hear Sideous’ heinous, maniacal laughter as we watch Vader look from his son to his master to his son and to his master. The emotionless, dark mask that has been his identity for roughly 20 years begins to finally reveal something real about him: sorrow and pity. He steps forward and heaves Sideous over a railing down into the long silo below, ending in a well-done demise.
Vader’s fate is sealed – the lightning Sideous continued to expel fried Vader’s mechanical components that had kept him alive since the events in Star Wars III. But we see in the end, during the celebration on Endor, Anakin is alive and well, living like a Force-ified willow wisp.
We know this is true in regards to the Star Wars cannon because Luke was there. He could testify to the fact that Anakin really did help save the day. However, anyone else’s testimony might not reveal as much. They would only be able to tell you that Vader was the bad guy. Would Luke’s testimony contradict another’s testimony or the other way around? Not exactly. Because Luke would certainly tell you that Vader was, indeed, the villain for the longest time. Luke simply had the advantage of knowing additional details.
Does this mean that Matthew and Mark didn’t know those additional details? No. It just means that their “lack” of including the detail found in Luke doesn’t mean there is a contradiction, because Matthew and Mark only state that the two thieves did, in fact, insult Jesus. They never say the men continued to insult Jesus to the bitter end.
PARTS TO A WHOLE
It’s right and natural to assume that the Bible ought to be cohesive with all its parts. However, instead of looking at the three Gospels as competing testimonies, let’s look at them as they really are: components to a larger story. Each one tells an aspect of the story according to that particular testimony’s purpose. Hopefully, the supposed conflict of these testimonies becomes less of a conflict and you see that they actually support each other.
According this particular comparison chart of the various accounts in the Four Gospels, there are 167 main topics. Of those, there are only 50 of which none of the other three Gospels record the same matter in some fashion. That means that on every other instance, there is a 70% agreement to Jesus’ life and teachings. And the remaining 30% are simply some of those “many other things” that John talked about. And there’s more, to be sure.
That’s exactly what’s going on here. Matthew and Mark summarize the relevant parts of the whole story according to the purpose they were writing for. Luke does the same thing, but has a slightly different purpose in mind, and that includes adding the moment when the one thief has a change of heart. It’s relevant to the particular point he wants to make while sharing his account of Jesus. In contrast, Mark was the one to mention that the Crucifixion lasted a whole six hours.
EXTREME MAKEOVER: HEART EDITION
Thus, when it comes to the testimonies of Matthew and Mark versus Luke’s, what we have is not a contradiction, but just limited info from one account to the other. For during those six hours, there was nothing stopping the thief from having a change of heart even though Matthew and Mark never detail it.
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.“
And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, ”Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43, ESV)
The man took responsibility for his own sins and decided he would recognize Christ for who He really is. Because of his humility, repentance, and expression of faith in his heart, Jesus promised the man Paradise.
ABOUT THE SON OF MAN
The Gospels are explicitly about Jesus Christ. His life, His teachings, His sacrifice. There is such a multi-faceted depth to the four Gospels that just reading them “on the surface” will only get you part of the story. And reading any of them exclusively from the others is doing one’s self harm if there’s to be any credible investigation.
Matthew was written primarily for the Jews in order to show that Jesus really is the Messiah as mentioned in the Old Testament prophesies. Mark deals greatly with Jesus’ humanity and is also focused on reaching non-Jewish audiences. Luke’s testimony is for non-Jewish peoples, also, including Jesus’ historical roots (by way of genealogy) as well as His humanity. And John is deeply focused on Jesus’ divinity, being one with God the Father. There are other themes that each includes, but that sums it up.
Another of the other major themes in Luke’s account is that of inclusion (at the very least, as far as it concerns the two thieves). The Jews were often described as racist, looking unfavorably upon anyone who was not one of “God’s chosen people”. We see numerous stories detailing Jesus’ unconventional association with sinners, the lame and the diseased, women, foreigners, and criminals. His didn’t shy away from telling stories that forced these prideful people to confront their problems. And Luke wanted to further detail that Jesus was not above looking favorably on the sinners who showed humility.
It’s not that Matthew or Mark (or John for that matter) didn’t consider this to be an important aspect to tell at length, but it did not fit with the purpose of why they were writing their testimonies.
So when we take these clues into account, we begin to see why Luke saw fit to include the detail of the thief who gave his heart to Jesus. And let’s not forget that the universal theme of the Gospels, and surely the whole Bible, itself, is about Salvation, which the one thief received in full.
Not everyone comes to Christ at the same age. Some accept Him at a tender young age (I did when I was five); others not until years later (my mom not until her twenties and one of my high school history teachers not until his sixties). It makes sense, then, that the man could, at first, join in on the insults one hour, then ask Christ for forgiveness a few hours later. It only took some time and an open, broken heart.
Originally posted October 8, 2012.
You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together. – Deuteronomy 22:11 (NLT)
Spiritually Fashionable
The Bible is full of commands, statements, and references that seem to make absolutely no sense. Especially to us today, as we are technologically, agriculturally, geologically, temporally, culturally, politically, religiously, and linguistically (and probably a few more ally-ishes I can’t think of) greatly removed from the Old Testament days. So it’s really no surprise that a verse like Deuteronomy 22:11 (also Leviticus 19:19) would seem so odd. Just why is wearing wool and linen together such a no-no? Is God against fashionable creativity?
Certainly not, but the purpose for this command does seem arbitrary to the casual mind at a passing glance. The Bible doesn’t offer any explanation. What, if any, relevance does it have for us today? (And why did it matter to the Israelites back then?) After all, this is the Old Testament we’re talking about. Didn’t we do away with all those odd (and to some, even barbaric) traditions?
Stop! … Funnel Time
(Yeah, my headers can get really odd.) I think it would be prudent to do a “little” overview before diving into the details about this fashion conundrum. It’s important to make sure everyone is in on the basic foundation the Law is set upon.
But, because of the grand scope of themes and subjects that the Bible addresses, it’s no easy task (certainly not in my mind) to summarize what the Bible is all about. Is it about love? Is it about God? Salvation? Being good? Is it about Heaven and Hell? We could ask an endless number of questions, and the short answer would almost always be yes. Just how do we narrow it down, though?
Perhaps the best summary answer is that the Bible is about our relationship with God, and how Jesus came to die on the Cross to buy our pardon from the consequences of our sins so that our relationship with the Father in Heaven could be restored.Skipping past all the explanation, that leads us into a little thing called “sanctification”.
I’d Like a Cup of Muddy Water…But Hold the Mud
Sanctification is one of those weird Christianese words that can confuse many people – even Christians – unless its definition is clearly explained. I’ve been a Christian since I was five and it wasn’t until within the last several years did I finally come to a clear understanding of it, myself. It’s just not one of those words that are common amongst most people’s daily vocabulary.
I’ll give you the short of the long of it, though (I’m nice like that, no?). To sanctify, or to be sanctified, basically means to “(be) set apart (from)”.
Let’s say you have a bag of M&M’s and you have the strange habit of separating the colors from one another (admit it! You did this as a kid). You are, in effect, “sanctifying” them. Nooo, you’re not making them holy candies and God won’t strike you down for eating them. You’re setting apart the greens from the reds from the blues…and so on. You are keeping them from mixing from one another. (Trivia: Since 1941, there have been a total of eight standard colors in an M&M’s bag, not including holiday novelties. Presently, there are seven in use.)
A brown M&M would look silly amongst the greens because the standard for that group is that the candy shell must be green. You couldn’t pick up the brown M&M from the greens and say, “Here’s a green M&M!” That’s why God’s Laws were so important. God wanted His people to be easily recognizable as those who reflected God’s image and character, distinct from the other nations who were disobeying God. People looking from the outside in could say, “Yes, those definitely are God’s people,” or “Those people are living exactly as their religious texts say what their God is like.”
#17 – One Thief is Two Thieves: How Many Thieves Accepted Christ? << Previous | MASTER LIST
Originally posted July 7, 2012.
YOU LOOK FAMILIAR
If you’re just coming into my series on Biblical Contradictions from my Master List post, you might have noticed that this is item #45, but it’s actually only my third post so far. I decided to tackle the matter about Judas’ death next for a couple of reasons: 1) The answer is really easy to get to, and 2) it’s a rather well-known topic amongst critics (apparently). It’s also generally known among Christians that Judas died shortly after having betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. So familiarity seemed like a good reason.
As you may know, I’m working on answering the 46 proposed contradictions referenced in this YouTube video (with a few more of my own to be added). The Bible is many things – a deep reference to God’s character, a history book, a moral foundation, a book of prophesies, encouragement, admonishment, a scientific reference, and most importantly, the source of hope for the human race: the promise of God’s Salvation through Jesus Christ. The amazing thing is that it is a multi-faceted book that is woven together very tightly.
Tightly woven or not, making sense of His written Word is no easy task in many cases; and the cases that are simple don’t always seem to make much sense when compared one to another. That’s what I’m attempting to do in this series – to offer answers and clarification so you can make a better-informed decision about the credibility of the Bible and what it has to say about you and God.
THE IDIOT’S GUIDE TO DYING TWICE
So, what’s the deal with Judas’ death? Well, the question is concerning how the Bible depicts how he actually died. Was it from a suicidal hanging or a long plummet to the ground? With rare exception, everyone only dies once (only two people in history never died). So how could Judas, of all people, die twice? This is definitely a matter that appears to contradict logic and basic biological fact.
Now, let’s examine the evidence.
And the first part of an investigation is to understand the context the evidence is found in. Always examine the surrounding context (if you’re not familiar with my writing, I’m huge on context). For there is something far more important than simply addressing the supposed contradiction…more important than discussing how Judas died: the why. Thus, I’ll be combining the hermeneutical and more personal Biblical study approaches. I’ll explain towards the end how this culminates to an important point.
MY NIGHT-VISION GOGGLES ARE BROKEN
Before Judas’ death is mentioned, we see that many of the Jewish priests were plotting to murder Jesus [1]. This isn’t the first time any conspiracy against Jesus was attempted, but things really began to take root now. After a woman named Mary (there sure are a lot of Marys in the Bible) anoints Jesus’ feet with expensive oil perfume, Judas secretly goes off to the priests, unaware of their own plot:
Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray Him.
(Matthew 26:14-16 ESV)
This is a subtle point in the story, but it’s important to recognize. Judas was the guy in charge of the group’s finances. He carried the money bag around (as we see in John 12:6). Despite the three years of walking around with Jesus and seeing all the awesome things He did, Judas was still more concerned about himself. Jesus already knew how Judas’ betrayal would play a part as the event unfolded – He even foretold it [2]. So the evening when Jesus identified who would betray Him, He tells Judas to go do what he had planned to do and to do it quickly (much to the confusion of the other Disciples), and off Judas went to gather up a mob and wait for the chance to betray and arrest Jesus.
Fast-forward through that night and we find Jesus and the Disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane. After praying through blood, sweat, and tears (literally)…
[...] Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the Man; seize Him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed Him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him [3].
Stop and think for a moment. Imagine you are Judas. Imagine the plot you helped to plan. Imagine for a moment that you are a pawn in the priests’ scheme against Jesus (Luke 14:11), but you don’t yet realize just how deep you are in it. Up to this point, your heart is still filled with Satan’s influence [4] and are blinded to the pending consequences of your actions.
Fast-forward some more, as a number of things have happened. After meeting with the high priests, Jesus was finally condemned to die.
Then when Judas, [Jesus'] betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders (Matthew 27:3, ESV).
COMING TO GRIPS WITH REALITY or WHEN REALITY COMES TO GRIPS WITH YOU
I imagine that it was this moment that Judas suddenly realized scope of his sins; how they had done far more than Judas envisioned. That Judas changed his mind once it was revealed that the priests’ plot was to kill Jesus must have been like a knife to the heart, realizing that he was responsible for putting an innocent man – and he knew that Jesus was innocent – through an unjust trial that resulted in Jesus’ fate soon-to-come.
Personally, I do not yet know just what motivated Judas (short of speculation) to plot to betray Jesus in the first place, but it seems very clear that this was not what he had in mind and grief would be an understatement to describe why Judas did what he would do next.
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.
(Matthew 27:3-5, ESV)
FOR ONE LOW PRICE OF $19.99, YOU GET NOT ONE DEATH, BUT TWO! ACT NOW!
The book of Acts starts out with the Disciples discussing who should replace Judas’ place as the 12th Disciple. A side-note is given regarding the matter of Judas’ death.
Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18, ESV).
There are a few things I want to point out here.
1. Acts 1:18 only describes that Judas’ body fell and broke open…disgustingly. It does not say that’s how he died.
2. Given the insight we have on what led up to Judas’ suicide, in my opinion, Judas’ grief was deep enough that he saw fit to take his life – he essentially passed sentence on himself. This seems to me that the preparation needed to hang himself was a sign of him personally accepting his guilt rather than (for example) simply flinging himself off a cliff or other high place out of despair.
3. Acts 1:19 – just one verse later – describes the place where Judas died as a field. Trees most likely occupy fields, which sets up the location and keeps in line with the description of Judas’ death in Matthew 27, thereby adding credibility to the non-contradiction of the matter of how Judas died.
What I’m attempting to illustrate here is the reality of the guilt Judas must have faced as a result of his betrayal and the actions he took per the Bible’s description, thus giving credibility to the Matthew 27 account of his hanging as the sole method of his death.
Where the proposed contradiction is concerned, we only need to look at just a few details to show the contradiction just isn’t so, however: 1) what each verse actually says, 2) the natural way of the body in decomposition, and/or the rope or branch breaking under Judas’ body’s weight, 3) what it would take for his body to burst open so violently.
INVOLUNTARY CADAVER
Let’s glance at Acts 1:19 really quick, for it clarifies something that happened right after Judas threw back the 30 silver coins. After describing that Judas’ body fell from a great height and burst open, it is added, “And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.”
Earlier, in Matthew 27, we read:
But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”
Judas’ betrayal resulted in the priests using the blood money to buy the very field Judas hanged himself in. It was a field of blood because of the nature of the money used to buy it and because of how his body fell and burst open. This offers a distinction between the two accounts surrounding Judas’ death – one was his actual death (hanging), the other was the immediate aftermath (body splat).
Acts 1 makes an assumption of logic: one doesn’t need to be hanging very high off the ground to commit suicide by hanging; just be high enough that the feet don’t touch the ground. And falling from a small height won’t cause his body to burst open. It’s certainly possible that death can occur from a great height, clearly, but all that Acts asserts is that Judas happened to be high enough off the ground that, when his body did fall (when gravity had its way), it was enough for the impact between his body and the ground to be rather…revealing.
Thus, there isn’t a contradiction, but a very rational way for both accounts related to a singular event to co-exist harmoniously. Unfortunately, all this does is to prove the Biblical account of how he died…it doesn’t resolve the horrible way he chose to respond to his terrible mistake. Especially in light of the forgiveness He heard Christ offer to everyone. The same forgiveness he would have been given if he had only asked of it.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Matthew 26:3-5, Mark 14:1-2, Luke 22:1-2, & John 12:9-11
[2] Matthew 26:20-25, Mark 14:17-21, John 13:21-30
[3] Matthew 26:47-50, see also John 18:1-9 & 12
[4] Luke 22:3 & John 13:27
ADDITIONAL LINKS on Judas’ death
Got Questions?
C.A.R.M.
#6 – An Evil Good God: Did God Create Or Use Evil? << Previous | MASTER LIST | Next >> #8 – Damascus Road: Who Heard the Voice On the Road?
Originally written March 28, 2011 on my account, NaitoOfNarnia.Xanga.com.
Minor edits made from original post.
This post is written in reply to a YouTube video suggested to me as a challenge regarding proposed internal Biblical contradictions. I begin this series at the beginning…literally…in Genesis 1 and 2. (Nevermind that this is item #7.)
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
Contradictions in the Bible have been proposed and argued for years on end. Indeed, the original languages the Scriptures were written in still pose many questions for the best of the most honest of experts, even with the latest discoveries in the last 50-100 years. However, many critics (“many” in terms of my experience, at least) tend to harass Biblical claims not because there are actual contradictions (they would have you think otherwise), but due to a misunderstanding of the context of each of the supposed contradicting passages.
The Bible, though, is not a straight-through law book. And its stories often refer to the same events and people in different ways. The Bible is, in fact, a book of books (and letters, to be precise). They were written by different people to different people, at different times, and with different topics or themes to highlight. To read it as a law book, where each law is built off of or a compliment or exception to one another, would be a mistake. When reading – and understanding – the Bible in its entirety, several factors must be taken into consideration:
…and others.
THE LAMB AND THE LAMB OF GOD
For example, in Old Testament times, the basic practice for atonement of sins was to sacrifice a goat or lamb (or other appropriate animal that God called for). In God’s eyes, the shedding of blood was enough to meet the demands of the punishment of sin: death is the ultimate consequence. Through this, those who had sinned, who deserved to die, were spared…but at a cost: the life of an innocent. In the New Testament, we hardly hear about the sacrifice of animals, particularly after Jesus’ sacrifice. Contradiction?
No.
There are two reasons for this, in particular. First, we’re dealing with two different covenants (or promises) that God made with His people, the Israelites, and later the entire world. The Old Testament sacrificial system that God had employed was only ever meant to be temporary. For reasons best covered in another article, this system was never going to be enough to completely deal with the sin issue in human nature. Through this system, the people were covered from God’s wrath, but they could not actually be fully redeemed personally. They were still bound by their sinful nature. Jesus was the ignition for the second covenant that God made with His people – nay, the whole world. Jesus’ sacrifice was meant to be the ultimate sacrifice. It would be through Him that the old sacrificial system would not only be unnecessary, but fulfilled. In other words, Jesus met the demands in full that were required for the punishment of sin that the old sacrificial system could never meet. (Again, that topic would have to be covered in detail at another time.)
Second, if we go back to Genesis 3:15, we see that God intended all along for Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice. God foretells of Eve’s offspring crushing the head of the serpent that Satan is often depicted to as (of course, in this case, Satan actually appeared as a serpent). God never says when exactly this “offspring” would come to be. It isn’t until many millennia later when God finally reveals to Mary (one of Eve’s many offspring generations after the fact) that the “offspring” He spoke of was going to be born through her. So, there is no contradiction here. God only said that it would happen – He never said when. It was simply a matter of time between one sacrificial system and the other, more complete one. Further God is sovereign and has every right to establish the system He deemed worthy until His appointed time for Christ.
GENERALLY SPECIFIC
With that basic understanding, let’s get to the meat (mmm, meat…BBQ…yum) of the article.
Some critics have cited a contradiction about the Bible’s claims of the origins of the universe as noted in Genesis 1 and 2, saying there are two testimonies about how God made the world. At a glance (and I emphasize glance) it’s not surprising some think this. However, this is just not so.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is actually an overview of what God did during the Creation event. Genesis 1:1 supports this thought when it states that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (italics mine). There’s a sense of non-specifics from the get-go. Now, with a close look at Genesis 1, verses 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, and 26, we see God initiating each phase of His creation plan. Each one starts out saying, “God said, ‘Let [this happen]…’” and it happened as He said. But none of the Scriptures in Genesis go into detail. We never know precisely how these parts of Creation responded after God commanded them into existence – whether it was through evolution or if they just appeared at the blink of an eye or if God manifested His works some other way after speaking the creative commands, I don’t know that we’ll ever really know. (While it’s beside the point and also for another time, I will say that the idea of evolution is grossly discouraged in light of God’s personal attention to the creation of Adam and Eve. Clearly, this shows that, in Biblical terms, we did not evolve from other species.) In its essence, Genesis 1:1-2:3 cannot be seen as anything other than a general account of what God did.
READ THE FINE PRINT
It’s always those details you need to look out for.
Genesis 2:4b-6 says:
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. Instead, springs came up from the ground and watered all the land (NLT).
That isn’t a separate creation, but a highly filtered summary of Genesis 1!
First, it starts out saying, “When…”
Then it says, “…and there were no people to cultivate the soil.”
…yet. At this point, Moses just summed up everything he said prior in Genesis 1:1-25.
Moses is stating when or at this point in time the following details took place in light of the afore-mentioned information. He’s getting specific here, not trying to rewrite a rough draft to a good fantasy. Genesis 2:3 closed out the summary of Creation with “And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when He rested from all His work of creation” (NLT). Then, the next section goes on with the details that occurred right at the point in time. That point in time being after God had made the heavens and the earth and the animals (Genesis 1:20-25, 2:19) and just before Genesis 1:26 where he creates Adam. After Moses highlights the outline, he goes back and covers in detail what God did during Genesis 1:26-29.
So now we can see clearly the difference and how there is a difference.
YOU NEED TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY
It’s important to note that how God created the universe is important. That’s part of why God felt it necessary to include it in His written word. He knew that we ought to and would find value in our origins. But how God created everything (in detail) wasn’t the main point. No, while God is what it’s all about, He most desired a relationship with us. That may sound cliché today, but it’s still so very true. I’ll explain why.
Immediately in Genesis 2:7, it says, “…God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life [or the Holy Spirit] into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person” (NLT). But if we go back to Genesis 1:26-27, we see that the Scriptures only say that God created man in His own image; there are no details.
In the summary account, no other parts of Creation have God’s personal “image” imbued into them. They simply are spoken into existence. But God got personal when He created human beings, and this is show in two ways. First, in Genesis 1, it says that God sought to create us in His own image. Then, in Genesis 2, we see that this creative act wasn’t another speaking matter. No, God formed us from the dust and sent His Holy Spirit into us to give us life.
What God is doing is building up to a very amazing climax in the story right from the very first two chapters of His written word for us! What God is saying is, “I’m what it’s all about; you and everything I made is for Me. But I want you to share in the joy that I receive from My creation!” That’s why we don’t have two creation accounts, but a God who loves us so much that He wanted us to know who He had in mind when He got everything set up. And it’s only in Genesis 1:26 that God says anything personal in relation to His creation during the creation process:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us…’” (NLT).
Even in the summary account of Creation, God goes on for a full seven verses in how He made us and what He wanted us to do and what He had given to us already before we were even formed! None of the other parts of the Creation account get that much attention. Then God goes in and explains in detail what He did when He created Adam and Eve in chapter 2. Talk about getting personal!
CLEARING UP LOOSE ENDS
For the unconvinced, I’m sure someone will point out Genesis 2:18-19 as a contradiction in the order of the Creation account. The Scripture reads:
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one (NLT).
As far as the narrative goes in Genesis 2, this sounds like a different creation account. Again, at a glance, I wouldn’t blame anyone for thinking that. In the English translation, it does appear that way. Remember, though, that one of the things we must keep in mind when interpreting Scripture is the writing style of the author and the cultural mindset of the day. Even today, it is not unheard of for someone telling a story to explain something, then go back and “rehash” some previous details.
We already saw in Genesis 1 the order in which God created everything. We know that animals came before man. We also know that Genesis 2 is not a separate creation account in light of verse 4b when it states, “When…”, but rather a detailing of part of the summary.
How are we to take Genesis 2:19 then? Look at it this way. The verse reads, “So the LORD God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man…” The verse does not read that God created the animals after He created man. Moses is implying that it is presently understood that after God created the animals, He created man because he already explained the Creation order. The verse does read that God created the animals and then brought them to Adam…but only after he was created.
Look at it this way, “The LORD God created the animals [and brought them to Adam after he had been formed from the dust] in order to see what Adam would name them.” If you ask me, Moses is trying to avoid a bit of redundancy. Truly, Moses is just bypassing some irrelevant details here.
WRAPPING IT UP
Here’s how we can compare the two chapters in regards to the overall Creation account.
Genesis 1 gives us a structure for the entire Creation order. In my NLT Bible, it gives this diagram:
| CONDITION | ORDER | CONTENT |
| FORMLESS | CHAOS | EMPTY |
| DAY 1 | HEAVENS | DAY 4 |
| (Gen 1:3-5) | (Gen 1:14-19) | |
| Light, Dark | Sun, Moon, Stars | |
| DAY 2 | WATER & SKY | DAY 5 |
| (Gen 1:6-8) | (Gen 1:20-23) | |
| Water, Sky | Birds, Fish | |
| DAY 3 | EARTH | DAY 6 |
| (Gen 1:9-13) | (Gen 1:24-31) | |
| Sea, Land | Animals, Humans | |
| FORMED | COSMOS | FILLED |
| DAY 7 (2:2-3) Rest | ||
Genesis 2 gives us a personal account of what God did as He initiated His relationship with Adam, Eve, and the whole human race.
In contrast, the two chapters can be view in this way:
| GENESIS 1 | GENESIS 2 |
| Chronological Order | Topical Order |
| Outline | Details |
| Creating Animals | Naming Animals |
| Impersonal * | Personal * |
| From “The Big Book of Bible Difficulties” by NL Geisler & T Howe, pg 35. *denotes my addition |
|
In the end, there is no contradiction, but rather two different focuses of attention. It’s easy to see how misunderstandings can occur, though, since the way people wrote back in Biblical days do not always mesh with today’s writing styles and line of thinking. However, It would be a mistake to impose our understandings upon a text written with a completely different style than we are used to. It can be difficult to approach such matters with a “clear bias”, but it must be done if we’re to get a proper view of what the authors of the Bible intended to say.
Recent Comments