لم تقدم العقلانية الإجابات التي توقعها أنصارها بشأن معنى وهدف الحياة، فقد تجاهلت نواحي الحياة التي تمتد إلى ما هو أبعد من المنطق. أما الوجودية، التي تركز على مكان الإرادة والمشاعر، فقد ظهرت في بداية القرن العشرين كرد فعل للعقلانية. وقد قدمت الوجودية افتراضاتها بداية من حقيقة الوجود الإنساني، لكي تفسر الحياة بأكثر حماسة وشمولية.
من ناحية، تعتبر الوجودية بالفعل مضادة للفلسفة، إذ ان أنصارها يرفضون فرض صيغ أو أنظمة خارجية تقوم بتقيد التعبير الحر عن الوجود الإنساني. لذلك، فبخلاف المناهج الطبيعية وفوق الطبيعية التي قد تتميز بأنها “ذاتية نظرية” كثيراً ما تكون غير واعية لمنهجها الذاتي في التفسير، فإن الوجودية تكون “ذاتية متعمدة وظاهرة بوضوح” كمبدأ عمل أساسي لها.
يوجد للوجودية تعبيراتها العلمانية والمسيحية. فالوجوديون العلمانيون، من أمثال جان بول سارتر (1905-1980)، وألبرت كاموس (1913-1960)، كانوا يعتقدون أن الحياة ليس لها معنى موضوعي بعيداً عن الخبرة الحالية. وبدون نقطة موضوعية مرجعية، قادت الوجودية العلمانية إلى العدمية، واليأس من وجود أي معنى للحياة.
الوجودية المسيحية أيضاً تستقي المعنى والحق من الخبرة الشخصية، لكنها تزعم أن أكثر التجارب الأساسية في الحياة هي اللقاء مع الله. فهم يزعمون أن إعلان الله للبشر هو إعلان شخصي، وداخلي، واختباري. الليبرالية اللاهوتية، التي طغى عليها المنهج العقلاني، تم تحديها واستبدالها شرعياً بالوجودية في السنوات التي تلت الحرب العالمية الأولى.
وقد كان المنهج السائد في الخط الرئيسي من اللاهوتيين البروتستانت خلال النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين في فهم الكتاب المقدس، هو المنهج “الوجودي”.
اللاهوتيون الوجوديون
كارل بارث
يُعتبر سورن كيركجارد (1813-1855)، الفيلسوف الدنماركي، هو أب الوجودية المسيحية. لكن كارل بارث (1886-1968) ربما كان هو أكثر الأشخاص المؤثرين في هذه الحركة. كان بارث بوضوح من أنصار المنهج فوق الطبيعي، من حيث أنه كان يؤكد بشدة على العناصر المعجزية، مثل قيامة المسيح (رغم أنه لم يعتبر القيامة حدثاً يمكن التحقق منه تجريبياً في المكان والزمان، كما فعلت العقيدة الكلاسيكية). لقد اعترف بارث في منهجه بما هو فوق طبيعي؛ ومع ذلك، فقد كان أيضاً من الأنصار المدققين للمنهج الطبيعي.
وبدمج الطبيعي مع ما هو فوق الطبيعي، تم تسمية الحركة “التقليدية الجديدة”. فهي “تقليدية” في تأكيدها على ما هو فوق طبيعي، و”جديدة” في تمسكها بالافتراضات الطبيعية فهي تفسير الكتاب المقدس. استطاع بارث أن يدمج هذين المنهجين غير المتفقين بواسطة فصل الحق الكتابي عن المنطق والتاريخ.
فقد علم بارث أن العناصر فوق الطبيعية في الكتاب المقدس لا يمكن أن تكون حقيقية بالفعل إلا عندما يتم قبولها بواسطة المفسر، بالإيمان، على أنها كلمة من الله. وعندها تصبح “القفزة غير العقلانية للإيمان” ضرورية لكي يختبر الإنسان شخصياً كلام الله.
وهكذا فإن الوجودية المسيحية هي محاولة لأن يكون الإنسان في منتصف الطريق بين العقيدة التقليدية والليبرالية، وبين المنهج فوق الطبيعي والمنهج الطبيعي. تعتقد النظرة الوجودية للكتاب المقدس أن الكتاب المقدس هو بالحقيقة أداة إعلان الله للبشر. فالله يوصّل رسالته بواسطة الكتاب المقدس.
لكن الكتاب المقدس، في حد ذاته، لا يمكن أن نسميه إعلان الله. لأنه لكي يصبح الكتاب المقدس كلمة الله بالكامل، يجب أن يتم قبوله بواسطة شخص ما؛ تماماً مثل الصمغ الذي يصنع من الإيبوكسي والمقوي، فهو يصبح صمغاً فقط عندما يختلط العنصران معاً بطريقة سليمة. بنفس الطريقة، يصبح الكتاب المقدس إعلاناً، فقط عندما يتم مزجه بصورة سلمية مع إيمان القارئ أو السامع، فالكلمة في حد ذاتها لن تلصق.
وإلى أن يستجيب عقل بشري لكلمات الكتاب المقدس، لا تكون إلا كلمة الله “المحتملة”. وهكذا فإن “المزج” هو حقاً الذي يقرر حق وسلطة النص. لهذا السبب، فإن الوجودي الذي يقوم بالتفسير لا يجب أن يتحدث عن الكتاب المقدس على أنه “كلمة الله”، بل على أنه “يصبح” كلمة الله.
رغم أن المنهج الوجودي للكتاب المقدس يزعم أنه فوق طبيعي أولاً وقبل كل شيء، إلا أن توجهه الأساسي طبيعي من زاويتين. الأولى، أن المفسرين الوجوديين يستخدمون عامة الوسيلة النقدية – التاريخية، التي كما رأينا، تكون مبنية على افتراضات طبيعية مسبقة.
ثانياً، أن المفسر بادعائه السلطة الناجمة عن أهمية وضعه، يقوم في النهاية بالتحكم في المعنى، إذ ان الكتاب المقدس وحده ليس إعلاناً، فهو يصبح إعلاناً في عملية التقاء المفسر معه. وبذلك، فبافتراضاتهم الطبيعية، يعتنق الوجوديون نظرة للكتاب المقدس لا تماثل النظرة التي يعتقدها الكتاب المقدس نفسه عن نفسه.
لأنه بالنسبة لهم، يعتبر الكتاب المقدس سلطة غير مستقلة، لكنها خاضعة لحكم المفسر الذي يحدد أي من عناصر الكتاب المقدس هو الحق، وبالتالي هو كلمة الله الجديرة بالثقة.
رودلف بلتمان
إن المفسرين الذين يتعاملون مع الكتاب المقدس بحسب المنهج الوجودي يحاولون عادة أن يطهروا الكتاب المقدس من جميع العناصر التي لا تتفق مع نتائج نقدهم التاريخي الطبيعي. فإذا كان هناك أي شك بشأن الأساس الطبيعي للتفسير الوجودي، فإن مثل هذا الشك تم استعباده تماماً بواسطة تصاعد حركة رودلف بلتمان (1884-1976) وتلاميذه.
ذهب منهج بلتمان “بتخليص اللاهوت من الأسطورة” إلى ما هو أبعد من الوجوديين الأوائل، في إنكار المصداقية التاريخية لجميع العناصر فوق الطبيعية في الكتاب المقدس، بما فيها قيامة المسيح. فقد جادل بلتمان أنه على الرغم من السمة الطبيعية الكلية لكتب المقدسة، إلا أن تلك العناصر الطبيعية تشير إلى واقع أسمى، كان مخفياً في أسطورة.
فإن بعض العناصر في الكتاب المقدس لا يمكن أن يتم التعامل معها على أنها تاريخ رصين. فعملية فصل الأسطورة عنه وتقرير الأمور المهمة الباقية كان مهمة المفسر، كما يزعم بلتمان، وهكذا أصبحت عملية تخليص اللاهوت من الأسطورة هي الموضوع السائد للوجوديين بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية.
لا يكون واضحاً دائماً عملية استخدام أحد مفسري الكتاب المقدس أو الوعاظ لمنهج وجودي. فإحدى سمات هذا المنهج هي استخدام كلمات تقليدية بمعان غير تقليدية. فمثل هذا الشخص قد يعلم عن الميلاد الجديد، لكن يكون في ذهنه مفاهيم روحية تتكرر مرات ومرات. وقد يحدث عن أمور شيطانية لكنه لا يشير إلى أي كائن فوق طبيعي لكن يشير إلى قوى شريرة في المجتمع.
النظرة العالمية للمفسر
انتقل القادة في المنهج الوجودي مؤخراً إلى تحليل كيفية عمل التواصل البشري. وهذا يتبع الاتجاه العام للمحدثين، بأن يصرفوا الانتباه عن النص القديم وعن مؤلفه، وأن يزيدوا من التركيز على المفسر؛ أي أن يقوموا بالتركيز على دور المتلقي للمعلومات أكثر من تركيزهم على دور المرسل.
إن الله يرغب بالتأكيد أن تتغلغل كلمته بعمق وبطرق مغيرة للحياة في مفسري القرن العشرين، لكن تطبيق الكتاب المقدس يجب أن يتبع تفسيراً أميناً لمعنى النص، وليس أن يقرره. يخطئ المنهج الوجودي في إعطاء المفسر سلطة مساوية لسلطة النص، إن لم تكن أكثر. بهذه النظرة، يكون إسهام المفسر جزءًا سلطوياً في المزيج الذي يشكل الكلمة التي من الله.
إن الذين يدرسون ظاهرة فهم فكر شخص آخر يدركون أن المتلقي لأية معلومات يسمع بمجموعة من الافتراضات المسبقة التي تشكل نظرة عالمية. هذه النظرة العالمية هي عدسة يرى الشخص من خلالها كل الواقع. فهي تمثل قنوات للفكر، تفسر الخبرات، وتوجه السلوك. تعمل هذه العدسة باستمرار، لكن نادراً ما يتم ملاحظتها.
الأكثر من ذلك، إن اللغة التي يستخدمها المرء يكون لها معنى، فقط بالنسبة للشخص الذي يفهم النظرة العالمية للمتحدث أو الكاتب. لذلك فإن التواصل الفعال لا يحدث إلا عندما تكون اللغة المستخدمة بواسطة المرسل (مؤلفي الكتاب المقدس في هذه الحالة) متصلة مباشرة بالنظرة العالمية للمتلقي (مفسر الكتاب المقدس). فاللغة تصبح مفهومة فقط عندما يستطيع المتلقي أن يفهم النظرة العالمية للمرسل، وبذلك يسمع الكلمات في سياق النظرة العالمية للمرسل.
وحيث أن تأثير النظرة العالمية للشخص يكون شديد العمق والتغلغل، فقد يئس البعض من إمكانية وجود تواصل مفهوم بين البشر من حقب وثقافات مختلفة. بل الحقيقة أن أصحاب النظريات الأكثر تطرفاً قد يئسوا من إمكانية وجود تواصل دقيق بين الذكور والإناث من نفس الثقافة أو حتى بين أي شخصين.
لكن الوجودي المتدين يؤمن أن المشكلة تحل عندما يأتي الدارس للنص الكتابي القديم بحياته الشخصية إلى تلك العملية من الفهم، بحيث ينتج “المزج” بين النص القديم والاستجابة الشخصية المعاصرة، كلمة صحيحة من الله.
يزعم المنهج الوجودي أن الحياة الشخصية للمفسر تلعب دوراً تشكيلياً في معنى أي عملية توصيل للمعلومات. فالمفسر يصل دائماً إلى تفسير يتكون إلى درجة ما من مزيج من أفكاره الخاصة وأفكار المؤلف الأصلي. فحيث أن المفسر قد تفاعل مع النص، فإن النص يعيد تشكيل فكر المفسر، لكن بسبب تفاعل النص مع المفسر، يعيد المفسر تشكيل رسالة النص.
بحسب هذا الاتجاه الوجودي، لا تعد الفجوة بين النص والمفسر أمراً مؤسفاً، بل أنها تمثل الديناميكية التي تنشط كل تفسير. السبب في ذلك هو أن المنظور الجديد، المفترض أنه أوسع، الذي يحدث نتيجة التفاعل بين النص والمفسر، يصبح هو الأساس الذي عليه يحدث اللقاء التالي مع النص.
التفسير الجديد والدائرة التفسيرية
تم إعطاء اسم “التفسير الجديد” لعملية تطبيق المنهج الوجودي على ظاهرة الفهم البشري. ويطلق عليه “جديد” لأنه يأتي بالمفسر إلى دور تشكيلي في عملية التفسير. ويطلق عليه “تفسير” في صيغة المفرد، لأنه لا يعنى بالإرشادات أو الوسائل التي بها يعين المرء معنى النص – وهي المهمة التقليدية للتفسيرات (بصيغة الجمع) – ولكنه يعنى فقط بهذا المنهج أو النظرية المنفردة في فهم الفكر البشري.
يوضح التفسير الجديد مشكلة “الدائرة التفسيرية”. تتضح الناحية الدائرية للتفسير عندما يسأل المرء “أيهما جاء أولاً، النص أم سياق المفسر؛ أفكار المؤلف القديم أم أفكار المفسر؟” وهذا سؤال مشروع ويمكن أن ينبه المفسر لخطأ افتراض أن الكتاب المقدس يمكن قراءته بطريقة شديدة الموضوعية مما يجعل التفسير حراً من التحيز أو البقع المظلمة.
لكن هناك اختلاف جوهري بين منظور التفسير الجديد والمنهج التاريخي لفهم الكتب المقدسة، كما هو معروض في هذا الكتاب. يقول التفسير الجديد أنه لا يوجد طريق للخروج من هذه الدائرة، فلا توجد موضوعية في التفسير، ولا معنى ثابت في النص بمعزل عن مدخلات المفسر. لكن الكتاب المقدس هو توصيل لمعلومات من الله، واللغة البشرية الموحى بها في النص مؤيدة ومدعّمة بحقه ومصداقيته وعدم تغيّره.
فالنص صادق بطريقة موضوعية، ومستقل عن تفسير أي شخص له. وهكذا فإنه بالنسبة للذين يقبلون السلطة المستقلة للكتاب المقدس، لا يحاول المفسر أن يختلق معنى جديداً، رغم أنه يحاول أن يفهم ويطبق المعنى الموضوعي لمقطع كتابي بطريقة أكثر أصالة مما كان يحدث في الماضي. ربما يكون هناك بهذه الطريقة تفسير جديد سليم. للكن لا يكون هناك إعلان سلطوي جديد لحق الله.
لكن قبول الحق المستقل الموضوعي للكتاب المقدس لا يحل بالكامل المشكلة التي تثيرها “الدائرة التفسيرية”. فكيف يمكن لأي مفسر يعنق حشداً من الافتراضات المسبقة الواعية واللاواعية، أن يعرف أنه ينظر للنص من منظور الله، غير متأثر بتحيزاته الشخصية؟ يصدق التفسير الجديد عندما يزعم أن النص ليس سلبياً. بمعنى أن النص ليس مجرد موضوعاً للفهم، لكن الكتاب المقدس كتاب حي، يفحص ويفسر المفسر.
كما يصدق التفسير الحديث أيضاً عندما يرضى بأن يشترك النص مع المفسر في العملية. فكما أن المسيحي الحديث لا يولد في العائلة كامل النمو، ولكنه ينمو في التقوى طوال حياته، كذلك أيضاً النمو في الفهم وتطبيق الكتاب المقدس، يستمر طوال رحلة المسيحي. لكن التفسير الجديد معيب بصورة خطرة، لأنه ينكر موضوعية الحق ويرفض السلطة المستقلة للكتاب المقدس.
رغم أن الجزء القديم من عملية التفسير (النص الموحى به) والعنصر الحديث (دور المفسر) لا يمكن الفصل بينهما، إلا أنه يمكن ويجب التمييز بينهما. فسلطة الله تقف خلف الكلمة التي تم التحدث بها في السياق القديم؛ ولكنها لا تقف خلف ما يأتي به المفسر إلى النص. الكتاب المقدس حق وسلطوي؛ لكن التفسير قد يكون كذلك أو لا يكون.
بحسب التفسير الجديد، يقفز المفسر إلى عملية دائرية دائمة في التفسير، ويتحرك فيها بواسطة عدم يقينية وتعقيدات السياق الحالي، متأثراً بالنص القديم. لكن بحسب الوسيلة التي ينادي بها هذا الكتاب، يعترف المفسر بحق ومصداقية وسلطوية الكتاب المقدس الذي أعطي في السياق القديم، ويستخدم ويوظف الإرشادات لأجل التفسير المناسب الذي يجعل النص يتحدث عن نفسه.
رغم أن المفسر لا يكون حراً على الإطلاق من تأثير السياق الحالي، إلا أن معنى النص السلطوي يكون موجوداً ويكون عليه اكتشافه. يمكن للمسيحي أن يكون واثقاً من تقدمه نحو الفهم والتطبيق السليم للكتاب المقدس، لأن المسيحي يتحرك نحو هدف ونقطة ثابتة، وليس نحو هدف متحرك بالتفسير الوجودي.
الأكثر من ذلك، يمكن للمفسر المسيحي أن يكون على يقين تام من معنى التعاليم الأساسية العظيمة للكتاب المقدس – مثل وضوح إعلان الله. إن اليقين لا يتطلب معرفة مرهقة بكل حق الله. بكلمات أخرى، يمكن للمسيحي أن يفهم حق الله ويعيش في ضوئه بدون أن يزعم أنه فهم واستوعب بالكامل كل حق الله. هذا التمييز يساعد المسيحي على تجنب الشك القوي من ناحية، على عدم التهاون في العقيدة في التفسيرات موضع الخلاف، من ناحية أخرى.
تنشأ العديد من المفاهيم والتحذيرات عند تقييم التفسير الحديث. أولاً، يجب على المفسر أن يحمي الاستقامة والسلطة المستقلة للنص الكتابي بأي ثمن. ثانياً، إن تفسير الكتاب المقدس لا يمكن أن يتم بموضوعية كاملة. ثالثاً، يجب على المفسر أن يقترب إلى النص ويتعامل معه باتضاع.
رابعاً، حيث أن المفسر ليس هو الشخص الوحيد الذي يقوم بتفسير الكتاب المقدس، فإنه يجب أن يدرك قيمة وأهمية الكنيسة في التفسير. خامساً، تفسير الكتاب المقدس هو عمل يستمر طوال الحياة، حيث ينتقل بنا الله من درجة من المعرفة إلى أخرى. سادساً، يمكن للكنيسة أن تنال اليقين بدون الحاجة لأن تفهم تفسير الكتاب المقدس كله. وسابعاً، يجب تجنب الجزم بالرأي في الأمور التي لم تتضح بواسطة الكتب المقدسة.
إن التفكير الوجودي، السائد بواسطة بارث، ثم بلتمان، وأخيراً بواسطة التفسير الحديث، لم يعد له اتجاه سائد. بل بدلاً من ذلك، ينقسم مجال النقد التاريخي بين الكثير من المناهج والاتجاهات، ليس جميعها وجودي.
ففي البحث عن نماذج جديدة لعبور الفجوة من الوثائق القديمة إلى الفكر الطبيعي المعاصر، يسعى العلماء نحو النقد الأدبي، واللغوي، وفلسفة اللغة، والعلوم الاجتماعية. لكن لم يأت منهج ما إلى وضع السيادة والهيمنة بعد. من ناحية أخرى، يتجه العديد من العلماء الإنجيليين السابقين نحو منهج بارث القديم.
رغم أن الوجوديين في القرن العشرين قد شرعوا في استعادة كلمة الله من حطام العقلانيين، فإنه بنهاية القرن أصبحوا في مثل ذلك التدمير لأية كلمة موضوعية صادقة وسلطوية من الله. ربما يكون هذا نتيجة حتمية لمحاولة بشر محدودين ساقطين أن يبحثوا في أنفسهم عن إجابات، الأمر الذي يعتبر عيب قاتل للمنهج الوجودي. ففي النهاية لا يمكن أن نهرب من الذاتية، وخاصة ذاتية المنهج الطبيعي.
مراجع مختارة للمزيد من الدراسة
أكتيميير، بول جي. An Introduction to the New Hermeneutic. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1974.
بارث، كارل. Church Dogmatics المجلد الأول، The Doctrine of the Word of God ترجمة جي تي طومسون. New York: Scribners, 1936.
برونو، إميل. Truth as Encounter. ترجمة إيه دبليو لوس ودي كارنز Philadephia: Westminster, 1964.
بولتمان، رودلف. The Problem of Hermeneutics في Essays Philosophical and Theological ترجمة جي سي جي جريج، الصفحات 234-61. London: SCM.1955.
جرونلر، وريس جوردون. Meaning and Understanding: The Philosophical Framework for Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1990.
سيلفا، مويزس. Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation. In the Light of Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
روبينسو، أنتوني. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
قائمة أغسطينوس وقانونية العهد الجديد – القمص عبد المسيح بسيط (397 م)
قائمة أغسطينوس وقانونية العهد الجديد – القمص عبد المسيح بسيط (397 م)
كان القديس أغسطينوس أسقفاً لهيبو على ساحل الشمال الغربي لأفريقيا. وكان مثل القديس جيروم يرى أن الأسفار المقدسة جزء من الإيمان والعقيدة المسيحية، ويقدم لنا قائمة باللغة اللاتينية[1] لقانونية أسفار الكتاب المقدس بعهديه، في كتابه، في العقيدة المسيحية، الكتاب الثاني الفصل الثامن حوالي عام 397م. نأخذ منها هنا القانون الخاص بالعهد الجديد:
بعدما سرد أسفار العهد القديم، يتكلم عن أسفار العهد الجديد قائلاً: ” العهد الجديد يحتوى على التالي: الأربعة أناجيل بحسب متى، بحسب مرقس، بحسب لوقا، وبحسب يوحنا. الأربع عشرة رسالة لبولس، واحدة للرومان وأثنتين لكورنثوس وواحدة لكل من غلاطية وأفسس وفيلبي وأثنتين لتسالونيكي وكولوسي وأثنتين لتيموثاوس وواحدة لتيطس وواحدة لفليمون وواحدة للعبرانيين. أثنتين لبطرس وثلاث ليوحنا وواحدة ليهوذا وواحدة ليعقوب. كتاب واحد لأعمال الرسل وكتاب واحد لرؤيا يوحنا[2] “[3].
مما سبق يتضح لنا أن القديس أغسطينوس قد وضع جميع أسفار قانون العهد الجديد كما كانت معروفة في عصره وزمنه وكما هي بين أيدينا الآن. و نلخص ما سرده اباء الكنيسة عن الاسفار في قانون العهد الجديد كالآتي:
(11) قائمة قوانين الرسل (380م):
هذه القائمة هي سلسلة من الإضافات التي حررها المحرر النهائي للكتاب السيرياني عن الترتيبات الكنسية والمسمى ” بقوانين الرسل “. وترجع قيمة هذا الكتاب في اعلامنا بأنه يعبر عن رأي جزء من الكنائس السريانية بالقرب من نهاية القرن الرابع. وتذكر قائمة الأسفار القانونية في القانون رقم 85 والذي اضيف حوالي سنة 380م. وفيما يلي نص القانون:
“قانون 85: فلتدع الأسفار التالية مكرمة ومقدسة من الكل، سواء من رجال الدين أو العلمانيين (قائمة أسفار العهد القديم) وأسفارنا المقدسة التي للعهد الجديد وهى أربعة أناجيل لمتى، مرقس، لوقا ويوحنا والأربع عشرة رسالة لبولس، رسالتين لبطرس، ثلاث ليوحنا، واحدة ليعقوب وواحدة ليهوذا ورسالتين لأكليمندس والدساتير المهداة إليكم، الأساقفة، من قبلي أنا أكليمندس في ثمانية كتب والتي ليس من المناسب أن تكون علانية أمام الكل بسبب الأسرار التي بها؛ وأعمالنا نحن الرسل “.
ويُعلق بروس ميتزجر قائلا:
“علاوة على ذلك، فان مخطوطات للنسخة العربية من دساتير الرسل (محتمل أن تكون كتبت في مصر) تختلف من حيث قائمة الكتب القانونية. ثلاث مخطوطات من القرنين الثالث والرابع عشر لا تذكر رسالتي أكليمندس. وفي مخطوطات أخرى، بعد ذكر رؤيا يوحنا، القائمة تحتوى رسالتي أكليمندس في سفر واحد “[4].
لماذا مات المسيح على الصليب ؟ سؤالاً يبدو بسيطاً ولكن قد لا تكون تعرف أعماق الإجابة
لماذا مات المسيح على الصليب ؟ سؤالاً يبدو بسيطاً ولكن قد لا تكون تعرف أعماق الإجابة
بدون هذا الموت لصار سرّ التدبير بالجسد بلا منفعة لنا. القديس كيرلس السكندري[1]
لم يمت المسيح لأنه كان مضطراً أن يموت. لقد فعل كل شيءباختياره طِوعاً. موت المسيح وقيامته أدَّيا إلي: 1 – غفران الخطايا والمصالحة مع الله؛ 2 – التحرر من سلطان الموت؛3 – الوعد بتجديد العالم كله؛ 4 – القيامة العامة؛ 5 – النُصرة علي الشيطان وكل أسلحته؛ 6 – سحق الجحيم.
د / عدنان طرابلسي[2]
لو لم يكن قد وُضع المسيح للموت، ما كان يُمكن للموت أن يموت. لقد انهزم الشيطان بذات نصرته، لأن الشيطان فرح عندما خدع الإنسان الأول فطرحه في الموت. بخداعة الإنسان الأول قتله. وبقتله الإنسان (آدم) الأخير فقد الأول الذي في شباكه.
القديس أغسطينوس[3]
طبيعتنا البشرية منذ السقوط دخل إليها الموت وانتشر في كل طبيعتنا كسلطان وسلاح الخطية، فيقول الكتاب (النفس التي تخطئ هي تموت.. حزقيال 18: 4) ويقول القديس باسيليوس: إن الطبيعة البشرية هي حائط وقد هزته صدمة الخطية، فمال إلي السقوط، ولا يمكن إعادة بنائه إلا بهدم ونقض بنيانه، لذلك سمح الله أن يكون الموت الحسي ناقضاً للحائط المُزعزع ليُعيد بناءه بالقيامة العامة إعادة وثيقه ومؤيده[4].
ولكي يرفع الله حكم الموت هذا عن البشرية – التي حكمت به علي نفسها – فبتجسده وكابن الله جمع البشرية في ذاته، كما سبق وقلنا، فقد ترك جسده هكذا بحيث يمكنه أن يعاني الآلام البريئة والموت، لأنه كما قلنا أراد أن يحسم أمر هزيمتنا بعدل، وكأول يبدأ بقيامته بالجسد الذي وحده بعدم التألم وعدم الموت وعدم القابلية للفساد، من أجل الجنس البشري كله هذا الذي صار هو باكورته،كما يقول ساويرس الانطاكي[5] .
ويُضيف أثناسيوس الرسولي: وهكذا إذ اتخذ جسداً مماثلاً لطبيعة أجسادنا، وإذ كان الجميع خاضعين للموت والفساد، فقد بذل نفسه للموت عوضاً عن الجميع، وقدمه للآب. كل هذا فعله من أجل محبته للبشر، أولاً: لكى إذ كان الجميع قد ماتوا فيه، فإنه يُبطل عن البشر ناموس الموت والفناء، ذلك لأن سلطان الموت قد استُنفد في جسد الرب، فلا يعود للموت سلطان على أجساد البشر (المماثلة لجسد الرب). ثانياً: وأيضًا فإن البشر الذين رجعوا إلى الفساد بالمعصية يعيدهم إلى عدم الفساد ويحييهم من الموت بالجسد الذى جعله جسده الخاص، وبنعمة القيامة يبيد الموت منهم، كما تبيد النار القش[6] .
ويقول إيريناؤس: ولأن الجميع اقتيدوا إلى الموت بسبب عصيان أبونا الأول، آدم، كان مناسباً وضرورياً أن يَبُطل نير الموت بواسطة طاعة ذاك، الذي صار إنساناً من أجلنا. وبسبب أن الموت ساد على الجسد، كان من الضروري أن يُهزم الموت بواسطة الجسد ويَخلُّص الإنسان من سطوته. وهكذا صار الكلمة جسداً لكى بواسطة الجسد الذى استعبدته الخطية، يُخلّصنا (المسيح) من الخطية كي لا نعود نُستعبد من الخطية. لذلك أخذ ربنا جسداً شبيهاًبجسد أبينا الأول، لكى بجهاده –عوضاً عن أبوينا الأولين – ينتصر على ذاك الذي في آدم جرحنا جرحاً مُميتاً[7]. [8]
فدخول الرب إلي جسد وموته بهذا الجسد أصبح فخاً للموت به هزم الرب الموت وسلب كل قوته، ويقول كيرلس الأورشليمي: الرب تألم من أجلنا، وما كان الشيطان ليتجرأ أن يظهر له لو كان قد عرفه انه ابن الله. لذلك فالجسد صار الصنارة التي اصطاد بها الموت، حتي أن الحيه التي كانت تُريد أن تبتلع هذا الجسد، تقيأت ما سبق أن ابتلعته (أي الناس الذين ماتوا قبل مجيء المخلص وانتهاء سلطان الموت )[9].
ويضيف أمبروسيوس: (إذ تشارك الأولاد في اللحم والدم اشترك هو أيضاً في نفس الشيء لكي يبيد بالموت ذاك الذي له سلطان الموت .. عبرانيين 2: 14)… وكيف يكون ذلك إلا بواسطة الجسد الذي به قد صار مشاركاً لنا ؟، وبماذا شاركنا إلا بالموت الجسدي؟، إنه كسر سلاسل الموت لأنه باحتمال المسيح للموت حدث موت للموت[10]. وهذا أيضاً ما قاله أغسطينوس: لقد هُزم الشيطان بذات نصرته… بخداعة الإنسان الأول ذبحه، وبذبحه للإنسان الأخير فقد الإنسان الأول من شبكته![11].
ويُضيف القديس يوحنا فم الذهب: “جرد الرئاسات والقوات بنفسه“، معناه أنه جرد قوات الشيطان، لأن الطبيعة البشرية كانت قد خضعت لها، أو إن صح التعبير كان مفروضًا عليها دَين (صك)، فعندما صار إنساناً لم يكن مديناً بهذا الصك – لكن ما معنى “شَّهر بهم”؟ معناه أنه حقا قد شُهر بالشيطان الذي جعل من نفسه هُزءً وخزياً. لأنه إذ توقع أن يظفر بالرب، خسر حتى ما كان لديه، وحينما سُمِّر الجسد (المقدس) على الصليب، قام الموتى. هكذا تلقى الموت نفسه ضربة قاصمة من جسد ميت. وكبطلٍ مقدام، وحينما عرف أنه طرح عدوه أرضاً، وأمسك به بقبضة مميتة، (مات الموت) هكذا كان موت المسيح إنما هو خزي للشيطان.
لم يختبر الملائكة شيئا من هذا القبيل، فقد قام هو بكل شيء لأجل هذا القصد، مُظهِراً أن لموته إنجاز عظيم وقدير – وكان إن صح التعبير – ثمة صراع واحد: فقد جرحَ الموتُ المسيحَ – لكن المسيح المجروح أمات الموت[12].
ويقول القديس مارإفرام: لقد جعل نفسه خاضعًا للموت حسب الجسد، محتملاً إيَّاه بإرادته، حتى يكسر سلطان الموت بغير إرادته (أي إرادة الموت)! حمل صليبه وسلك هكذاكما يريد الموت، وعلى الصليب إذ صرخ أحضر الموت بغير إرادته من الجحيم! حمل النصرة على الموت، في نفس اللحظة التي فيها قتل الموت الرب، وبنفس الوسيلة (الصليب)![13]… هذه هي الثمرة التي حطمت الموت، فإذ اِبتلعها مزقته، وقدمت حياة لمن أُرسلت إليهم!. وكما أنه متى اِضطربت معدة إنسان، تقيَّأ ما بها من حلو ومرّ، هكذا إذ اِضطربت معدة الموت، تقيأ “دواء الحياة” الذي اِشمئز الموت منه، كما خرج معه أولئك الذين تلذذ الجحيم بوجودهم فيه![14].
وبموت المُخَلِّص بالجسد أعطانا عربون القيامة في قيامته أيضاً من الموت وهي العلامة الصارخة علي موت الموت وانقضاء سلطانه علي البشرية، ويقول أغسطينوس:نتمتع في آلام الرب وقيامته بالعبور من هذه الحياة القابلة للموت إلى الحياة الأخرى الخالدة، أي من الموت إلى الحياة[15]. ويضيف القديس كيرلس السكندري: إن موت المسيح قلب الأمور بصورة غير متوقعه. لأن آلامه قد أُعدت كفخ لاصطياد الموت، وموت الرب صار مصدر تجديد الجنس البشري إلي عدم الفساد وجدة الحياة[16].
ولأن الموت كان هو سلاح الخطية الفتاك، فبموته بطل سلطان الخطية– نعم نخطئ – لكن لم نعد نموت بخطايانا بل بمجرد العودة إلي الله المُعلن في وجه يسوع يُمحي كل أثر لخطايانا، كما يقول القديس كيرلس السكندري: ماذا كان الأمر المملوء بالحكمة بالنسبة لنا وماذا كانت مشيئة الآب المُخلصة؟ كان هذا الآمر وتلك المشيئةأن يموت الموت بموت المسيح عنا، وهكذا تبطل الخطية ويهلك كل من تسبب فيها منذ خلقة الإنسان، أي الشيطان، ويصير الخلاص الكل بواسطة دم المسيح الكريم. ولهذا نجد أن الرسول يضيف قائلاً عن الابن: (وَلأَجْلِ هَذَا هُوَ وَسِيطُ عَهْدٍ جَدِيدٍ، لِكَيْ يَكُونَ الْمَدْعُّوُونَ – إِذْ صَارَ مَوْتٌ لِفِدَاءِ التَّعَدِّيَاتِ الَّتِي فِي الْعَهْدِ الأَوَّلِ – يَنَالُونَ وَعْدَ الْمِيرَاثِ الأَبَدِيِّ. لأَنَّهُ حَيْثُ تُوجَدُ وَصِيَّةٌ يَلْزَمُ بَيَانُ مَوْتِ الْمُوصِي. لأَنَّ الْوَصِيَّةَ ثَابِتَةٌ عَلَى الْمَوْتَى، إِذْ لاَ قُوَّةَ لَهَا الْبَتَّةَ مَا دَامَ الْمُوصِي حَيّاً.)[17].
و يضيف القديسإكليمندس السكندري: الإنسان كان حراً ببساطته، أصبح مقيداً بالخطايا. لذلك أراد الرب أن يحرره من القيود (رباطات الظلم). وبالتحافه بالجسد… هزم الحيه وأسر الموت المستبد، و أروع شيء عمله هو فك أسر الإنسان وتحريره بعد أن كان أسيراً للفساد. ياللسرّالعظيم! لقد تنازل الرب وارتفع الإنسان، الذي سقط من الفردوس يربح مكافأة أعظم، إنها السماء عينها !! [18].
ويضيف القديس أثناسيوس: وحينما صارت مشيئة الآب السمائي أن تُدفع الفدية – الكفارة – عن الجميع، لكي تُمنح النعمة للجميع، لذلك أخذ الكلمة بالحق… جسداً ترابياً… لكي كرئيس كهنة يستطيع أن يقدِّم نفسه (بجسده) إلى الآب ويطهِّرنا من الخطايا جميعاً في دمه[19]. ويكمل قائلاً: فالعالم كان في ما سبق مُداناً، وكان تحت القضاء والدينونة من قِبَل الناموس، وأمَّا الآن فقد وضع “الكلمة” على نفسه عقاب الدينونة هذه، وإذ تألَّم في الجسد من أجل الجميع منح الخلاص للجميع[20].
وأخيراً فقد تساءل البعض قائلين: كيف يُمكن لجسد بشري أن يهب لنا كل هذه الخيرات أو يغلب الموت؟ ويجيب ق . كيرلس عمود الدين قائلاً : يا أحبائي لتعلموا أن لجسم المسيح تأثير في خلاص الإنسان، لأن جسد الكلمة، المسيح العظيم، هو جسم الحياة المتسربل بالقوّة والسلطان، وكما أن الحديد إذا ما لمس النار بدت فيه مظاهر الناروقام بوظائف النار، كذلك جسد الكلمة المسيح تجلَّت فيه الحياة، وكان له السلطان على محو الموت والفساد[21].
لقد صلب الموت بإعطاء الحياه، وجذب بذلك الإنسان بعيداً عن الدمار ورفعه إلي السموات.
القديس إكليمندس السكندري[22]
[1]sur la l aux cor ., xv , 12 , pg . 74 , 897 . دراسات في آباء الكنيسة للراهب باسيليوس المقاري . ص 611
[2]سألتني فأجبتك ج1 ص 547
[3]The Ascension, 263 الحب الإلهي. للأب تادرس يعقوب . ص 689
[4]القديس باسيليوس الكبير. ج2 الرهبنة والنسك والحياة الفاضلة المقدسة. الأب تادرس يعقوب مالطي . ص 610 . m.a.orphanos; creation and salvation according to st. basil of caesarea , Athens 1957
[5] مجمع خلقيدونيةإعادة فحص، مرجع سابق. ص 413 . lapolemique …. I , p. 70
[6] تجسد الكلمة 4:8 ترجمة د/ جوزيف موريس فلتس؛ إصدار المركز الأرثوذكسي للدراسات الآبائية. ص22
[7] في هذه الفقرة لخص إيريناؤس جوهر تعليمه عن المسيح والخلاص. فتجسد المسيح له المجد كان ضرورياً لكى ينقل عدم الفساد إلى البشر ولكى يَبطُل الشر الآتي من عصيان آدم. وهذا الأمر قد شرحه فيما بعد القديس أثناسيوس في كتابه “تجسد الكلمة”: [ لأن المخلّص تمّم بتأنسه عمليتي المحبة: (أولاً): أنه أباد الموت من داخلنا وجدّدنا ثانية. (ثانيًا): أنه إذ هو غير ظاهر ولا منظور، فقد أعلن نفسه وعرّف ذاته بأعماله في الجسد، بأنه كلمة الآب، ومدّبر وملك الكون ] تجسد الكلمة، المرجع السابق، 5:16. والقديس أمبروسيوس أسقف ميلان يصف لنا المسيح بأوصاف توضح نتائج التجسد بالنسبة لنا: [ المسيح هو لنا كل شيء… إذا أردت أن تبرئ جرحك، فهو الطبيب الشافي؛ إذا أردت أن تروى عطشك الشديد، فهو ينبوع الماء الحي؛ إذا كنت في حاجة إلى معونة، فهو القوة الحية الفعّالة؛ إذا كنت ترهب الموت، فهو الحياة القاهرة للموت؛ إذا كنت تخشى الظلام، فهو “النور الحقيقي”؛ إذا كنت جوعانًا، فهو قوت الحياة ] (PL16, 305).
[8]الكرازة الرسولية. ترجمة د/ نصحي عبد الشهيد؛ د/ جورج عوض ابراهيم. فقره 31
[9] دراسات في آباء الكنيسة. للراهب باسيليوس المقاري . ص 313
[10] القديس أمبروسيوس أسقف ميلان شرح الإيمان المسيحي مترجم عن: N & PN Fathers 2 sertes vol. 10 p199. ج2 . 3 : 85 . ص 46
[11]Sermon 261:1. الشيطان ونصرتنا عليه. الأب تادرس يعقوب مالطي . ص 304
[12]Homilies on Colossians, homily 6.المرجع السابق. ص 305
[13]الحب الالهي. للأب تادرس يعقوب مالطي ص 689
[14]المرجع السابق. ص 690
[15]Letters, 55 المرجع السابق ص 305
[16]شرح انجيل يوحنا ترجمة د/ نصحي عبد الشهيد، د/ جوزيف موريس فلتس، إصدار المركز الأرثوذكسي للدراسات الآبائية. ج2 ص 467
[17]حوار حول الثالوث. الجزء الرابع الحوار الخامس. ترجمة د/ جوزيف موريس فلتس. مترجم عن EIIE ., VOL .8 , P. 402 : 505 . إصدار المركز الأرثوذكسي للدراسات الآبائية ص 10، 11
[18]grenstead , A short history of the doctrine of the atonement . p 28
[19]حقبه مضيئه في تاريخ الكنيسة، مرجع سابق ص 656 نسخه الكترونيه .. Athanas., C. Ar., II, 7.
[20]المرجع السابقص 658 نسخه الكترونيه.. Athanas.,C. Ar., I, 60.
[21]عظه 36 . عن كتاب الحب الالهي للاب تادرس يعقوب
[22]grenstead , A short history of the doctrine of the atonement . p 27
لماذا مات المسيح على الصليب ؟ سؤالاً يبدو بسيطاً ولكن قد لا تكون تعرف أعماق الإجابة
MATTHEW 16:18—Is Peter the rock on which the church is built?
PROBLEM: Roman Catholics use this passage to support their belief in the primacy of Peter, that is, that he is the rock on which the church is built. But Paul said the church is built on Christ, not Peter (1 Cor. 3:11). Is Peter the “rock” in this passage?
SOLUTION: There are different ways to understand this passage, but none of them support the Roman Catholic view that the church is built on St. Peter, who became the first Pope—infallible in all his official pronouncements on faith and doctrine. This is evident for many reasons.
First of all, Peter was married (Matt. 8:14), and Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry.
Second, Peter was not infallible in his views on the Christian life. Even Paul had to rebuke him for his hypocrisy, because he was not “straightforward about the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:14).
Third, the Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).
Fourth, the only sense in which Peter had a foundational role in the church, all the other apostles shared in the same way. Peter was not unique in this respect. For Paul declared that in this sense the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [not just Peter’s]” (Acts 2:42). Even “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) were also given to all the apostles (cf. Matt. 18:18).
Fifth, there is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6–11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (cf. Acts 15:13–21). In any event, Peter is never referred to as the “pillar” in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of “pillars” (plural), such as, “James, Cephas, and John” (Gal. 2:9). Peter (Cephas) is not even listed first among the pillars.
Sixth, many Protestant interpreters believe that Jesus’ reference to “this rock” (Matt. 16:18) upon which His church would be built was to Peter’s solid (rock-like) testimony that Jesus was “the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). But even if this rock has reference to Peter (Petros, rock), which is certainly a possible interpretation, he was only a rock in the apostolic foundation of the church (Matt. 16:18), not the rock. Nor is he the only apostolic rock. Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock (“cornerstone,” 1 Peter 2:7). And Paul notes that the other apostles are all part of the “foundation” (Eph. 2:20).
Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture
Wayne A. Grudem
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God for Christians today? And in what way should we perceive the nature and character of the Bible as we read it today? More specifically, how should we today think of the truthfulness of the Bible?
In order to answer those questions it will be profitable first to look at the Old Testament text on its own terms, asking initially not the theological question, “What should we believe today?” but the literary and historical question, “What views of God’s word(s) are presented in the Old Testament text itself?” Then we can ask, “What views of the Old Testament text and of the emerging New Testament writings are found among the New Testament authors?”
After those questions have been answered in some detail, we can go on to attempt the formulation of a doctrine of Scripture, asking whether or not it it possible to decide what Christians today should think about the nature and character of the Bible, with particular focus on the question of the truthfulness of the Bible.
OLD TESTAMENT REPORTS OF DIRECT SPEECH FROM GOD TO MEN AND WOMEN
The Old Testament records several instances of speech from God to individual people. The most familiar instance is probably the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai:
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
“You shall have no other gods before me.
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image …” (Exod. 20:1–4).1
But there are many other examples, such as the speech by God to Adam and Eve both before and after the Fall (Gen. 1:28–30; 3:9–19), the call of Abram (Gen. 12:1–3), subsequent lengthy conversations with Abram in which God’s covenantal provisions are established (Gen. 15:1–21; 17:1–21; note also Abraham’s remarkable conversation with the Lord in Gen. 18:1–23), the extensive dialogue between God and Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:23), the revelation to Samuel concerning the doom of Eli’s house (1 Sam. 3:10–14), the conversation with Elijah at Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:9–18), God’s detailed (and poetic) response to Job (Job 38–41), and frequent conversations between God and the prophets (Isa. 6:8–13; Jonah 1:1–2; 3:1–2; 4:1–11, et al.). In addition, large sections of the legal code found in the Pentateuch are represented as words spoken directly by God to Moses (see, for example, Exod. 20:22–23:33).
This list could be greatly expanded, especially from passages in the Prophets, but enough examples have been given to establish two points. First, the Old Testament frequently portrays God as communicating with people by using actual spoken words, not simply by communicating ideas or thoughts somehow apart from individual words. This concept of verbal communication from God was quite often opposed by scholars of a previous generation,2 so much so that James Barr in 1963 said in protest:
Direct verbal communication between God and particular men on particular occasions … is, I believe, an inescapable fact of the Bible and of the OT in particular. God can speak specific verbal messages, when he wills, to the man of his choice.… If we persist in saying that this direct, specific communication must be subsumed under revelation through events in history and taken as subsidiary interpretation of the latter, I shall say that we are abandoning the Bible’s own representation of the matter for another which is apologetically more comfortable.3
Second, these passages never view human language as a barrier to effective communication by God. There is no hint that some inadequacies inherent in human language may be used as a legitimate reason to disbelieve or to disobey anything God has said. The appropriate response, according to the Old Testament writers, is, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do” (Exod. 24:3). Similarly, Abram’s belief in God’s seemingly impossible promises is commended: “And he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6).
So the Old Testament text speaks frequently of direct verbal communication from God, communication that demands absolute belief and absolute obedience. God is viewed as the Creator and Lord of human language (“Who has made man’s mouth?” [Exod. 4:11]), who is able to use language however He wills in order to accomplish His purposes.
OLD TESTAMENT REPORTS OF PROPHETIC SPEECH (GOD’S WORDS SPOKEN BY MEN)
PROPHETS ARE VIEWED AS AUTHORITATIVE MESSENGERS OF GOD
The Old Testament prophets are most frequently pictured as messengers sent by God to speak God’s words to people.4 James F. Ross lists several discernible characteristics of a “messenger speech” (Botenspruch) in the Old Testament narratives:5 an introductory formula (“thus says Yahweh”), a standard conclusion (“says Yahweh”), the frequent use of the verb šālaḥ (“send”) to indicate that the prophet is sent by God,6 and a commissioning narrative in which Yahweh tells the prophet, “Go and say to __________, ‘Thus says Yahweh.…’ ” Ancient Near Eastern parallels, especially those found in the Mari and Ras Shamra texts, provide additional examples of prophets as messengers of a god. (However, the evidence from such sources is not completely unambiguous.)7
It is characteristic of this kind of messenger that his words possess not merely his own personal authority but the authority of the one who sent him. So it is with the Old Testament prophets: their words carry the authority of Yahweh Himself, because He has called them as authoritative messengers who will speak for Him.8
Lindblom is no doubt correct when he points to the “council [sôd] of Yahweh” as a reference to the source of a prophet’s speech: “That the prophets are in possession of the divine word depends on the fact that they are admitted to the sôd of Yahweh.… Thus the words of the prophets are words which they have heard directly from Yahweh.”9 But more basic even than this council to Old Testament thought is the simple hearing-speaking pattern Lindblom describes: “Yahweh speaks to the prophet, the prophet hears what Yahweh says, and then he pronounces what he has heard to the listening people.”10
The Old Testament text, then, together with parallels in Ancient Near Eastern literature, portrays the prophets as messengers sent by God and bearing God’s authority in the message He has given them to deliver.
“THUS SAYS THE LORD” AS A ROYAL DECREE FORMULA
The frequent use of the introductory formula (“thus says Yahweh [or the Lord]”) or its equivalent is a further indication of the high degree of authority and reliability claimed for the words the prophets spoke in God’s name.11 This formula is one that would have been used in the Ancient Near East to introduce an edict issued by a king to his subjects.
An extrabiblical parallel to this phrase is seen by J. S. Holladay in the Neo-Assyrian phrase “Amāt šarri ana ____________” (“Word of the king to _____________”). This phrase is “almost invariable in the letters of the king to his subjects,” says Holladay. “That amāt šarri is an especially authoritative, compelling mode of address (equivalent to ‘edict of the king’) is shown (a) by the fact that it appears as an introductory formula only in the king’s letters …, (b) by the fact that, when the king addresses his letters to presumed equals … he invariably uses the introductory formula normally reserved for more personal or familial communication.”12
In the Old Testament text itself, this royal decree formula is used in an interesting conflict between Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, and Yahweh, the king of Israel, in Isaiah 36–37. The Rabshakeh’s statement: “Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria …” is set against Isaiah’s statement: “Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel …” (Isa. 36:4; cf. 36:13–14, 16; 37:6, 21). The “messenger verb” šālaḥ) is used several times (Isa. 36:2, 12; 37:14 of Rabshakeh; cf. 37:21).
On another level, Hezekiah is the king who sends (wayyišlaḥ, Isa. 37:2) messengers to Isaiah saying, “Thus says Hezekiah” (Isa. 37:3).
Royal messengers from Ben-hadad also use this introductory formula in 1 Kings 20:2 (3), 5: “Thus says Ben-hadad.” There is a response in kind to Ahab the prophet (1 Kings 20:13, 14, 28). However, once Ben-hadad has been defeated, he cannot use the royal decree formula, but instead sends messengers who say, “Your servant Ben-hadad says” (1 Kings 20:32)!
The formula is also used by Pharaoh’s taskmasters to report Pharaoh’s edict to the people (Exod. 5:10; note that the Lord sends messengers to speak to Pharaoh in the same way: Exod. 4:22; 5:1, et al.). In Jeremiah 28:2, 11, however, a false prophet uses the formula with disastrous consequences (v. 17).
The formula “Thus says the Lord,” appearing hundreds of times in the Old Testament,13 is a royal decree formula used to preface the edict of a king to his subjects, an edict that could not be challenged or questioned but simply had to be obeyed. God is viewed as the sovereign king of Israel, and when the prophets speak, they are seen as bringing the divine king’s absolutely authoritative decrees to His subjects.
IT IS THOUGHT THAT EVERY WORD THE PROPHET SPEAKS IN GOD’S NAME MUST COME FROM GOD
The distinguishing characteristic of a true prophet is that he does not speak his own words or “words of his own heart,” but words that God has sent (šālaḥ) him to deliver (Deut. 18:18–20; Jer. 14:14; 23:16–40; 29:31–32; Ezek. 13:1–19; cf. Num. 16:28).14 Throughout the Old Testament there is an emphasis not simply on the general content of prophetic speech as coming from God, but on the very words themselves. God says to Moses, the archetypal Old Testament prophet,15 “I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak” (Exod. 4:12; cf. 24:3). The same is said of other prophets: “I will put my words in his mouth” (Deut. 18:18; cf. vv. 21–22); “I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer. 1:9); “The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak” (Num 22:38; cf. 23:5, 16); “You shall speak my words to them” (Ezek. 2:7; cf. 3:27).
This emphasis on the actual words spoken by the mouth of the prophet indicates something more than a conviction that ideas have been given by God to the prophet, who will then express the ideas in his own words. Not just the general message but also the very words in which it is expressed are seen as coming from God. Any prophet who spoke a word “not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16) was a false prophet. And “the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak … shall die” (Deut. 18:20). The people refused to listen to “the words of the Lord which he [the Lord] spoke through [beyad] Jeremiah the prophet” (Jer. 37:2). Many similar examples could be given (see 1 Kings 16:34; 2 Kings 9:36; 14:25; 17:23; 24:2; 2 Chron. 29:25; Ezra 9:10–11; Neh. 9:30; Zech. 7:7, 12, et al.), but the point is clear: When a prophet speaks, the people are to think of the words as words that God Himself is speaking to them.
WHAT THE PROPHET SAYS IN GOD’S NAME, GOD SAYS
One more indication of the absolute divine authority attributed to prophetic speech is seen in the frequency with which God is referred to as the speaker of something a prophet said. In 1 Kings 13:26, “the word which the Lord spoke to him” is the word the prophet had spoken in verse 21. Similarly, Elijah’s words in 1 Kings 21:19 are referred to in 2 Kings 9:25–26 as the oracle that “the Lord uttered … against him,” and Elijah is not even mentioned. To obey “the words of Haggai the prophet” is equivalent to obeying “the voice of the Lord” (Hag. 1:12; cf. 1 Sam. 15:3, 18).
An Old Testament Israelite listening to the words of a prophet, then, viewed the words as not merely words of a man but also words that God Himself was speaking through the prophet. The Old Testament text indicates that these words were to be accorded the same status and character as direct speech from God. For God to speak through a prophet was to use a different means of speaking to people than when He spoke directly to the people with a voice out of heaven at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20:22; Deut. 5:22–26). But the speech that came forth was exactly the same in terms of its character and status. Whatever could be said about the authority, power, truthfulness, or purity of one form of divine speech could also be said about the other.
PROPHETS OFTEN SPEAK FOR GOD IN THE FIRST PERSON
If the Old Testament prophets are seen as God’s royal messengers, and if they speak as though they are delivering unchallengeable edicts from a divine King to His people, and if it is frequently claimed that the very words of their messages have been given them by God, then it is not surprising that the prophets often speak for God in the first person (2 Sam. 7:4–16; 1 Kings 20:13, 42; 2 Kings 17:13; 19:25–28, 34; 21:12–15; 22:16–20; 2 Chron. 12:5, and the Latter Prophets, passim). The manner in which the prophet’s words are so completely identified with Yahweh’s words is seen when the prophet says things like, “You shall know that I am the Lord” (1 Kings 20:13), or, “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5). Clearly no Israelite would have thought that the prophet was speaking his own words in such cases; he was simply repeating the words of the one who had sent him.16
GOD IS OFTEN SAID TO SPEAK “THROUGH” THE PROPHET
This identification of the prophet’s words with Yahweh’s words is so strong in the Old Testament that often we read of God’s speaking “through” a prophet. That is, the prophet himself is speaking, but his words are also thought to be words that God is speaking to the people. Israel mourned for Jeroboam’s son, “according to the word of the Lord, which he [the Lord] spoke by [beyad] his servant Ahijah the prophet” (1 Kings 14:18). Zimri destroyed the house of Baasha, “according to the word of the Lord, which he [the Lord] spoke against Baasha by Jehu the prophet” (1 Kings 16:12).
TO DISBELIEVE OR DISOBEY ANYTHING A PROPHET SAYS IS TO DISBELIEVE OR DISOBEY GOD
If prophetic words are viewed as God’s words in the Old Testament, then we would expect to find some indications of moral obligations placed on the hearers, obligations to hear these words and unquestioningly believe them and obey them. In fact, several indications of this sort are found in the Old Testament.
According to Deuteronomy 18:19, the Lord says of the coming prophet who would be like Moses: “Whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19).
When Saul disobeyed Samuel’s command to wait seven days at Gilgal “until I come to you and show you what you shall do” (1 Sam. 10:8), Samuel rebuked him: “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you … now your kingdom shall not continue … because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (1 Sam. 13:13–14). To disobey the prophet’s words is to disobey God.
In 1 Samuel 15:3, God spoke through Samuel and commanded him to destroy the Amalekites, and to “utterly destroy all that they have.” Again when Saul disobeyed, Samuel asked, “Why then did you not obey the voice (qôl) of the Lord?.… Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king” (1 Sam. 15:19, 23).17
To disobey a command of one of “the sons of the prophets” who is speaking “by the word of the Lord” (1 Kings 20:35) is to disobey “the voice of the Lord,” and can lead to sudden death (1 Kings 20:36). When the people demand a king instead of Samuel the prophet, God says to Samuel, “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them” (1 Sam. 8:7): To reject God’s prophet is to reject God.
The parallelism in 2 Chronicles 20:20 indicates an equivalence between obeying God’s prophets and obeying God:18
“Believe the Lord your God, and you will be established;
believe his prophets, and you will succeed.”
In fact, to reject a prophet’s words is to invite certain destruction by God (2 Chron. 25:16; Isa. 30:12–14; Jer. 6:10–11; 16:19; 36:29–31).19
In summary, the words that a prophet speaks in God’s name are throughout the Old Testament said to be words that God also speaks. What the prophet says in God’s name, God says. To disbelieve or disobey anything a prophet says in God’s name is to disbelieve or disobey God.
WRITTEN WORDS FROM GOD
In addition to Old Testament records of direct speech by God, and of God’s words spoken by men and women, there are several accounts of the writing of words that were then taken to be God’s words in written form. Once again, the evaluation of the character of these words (they are both human and divine) and of their truth-status (they must be believed and obeyed) seems indistinguishable from the evaluations of direct divine speech and of divine speech spoken by people.
There is first the account of the giving of the two stone tablets by God to Moses: They were “tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exod. 31:18). “And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exod. 32:16; cf. Exod. 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4). Clearly, these words are seen as having absolute divine authority. The written words on the tablets are God’s own words.
But there are also reports of men writing down words that God told them to write, words that are then understood as God’s words. In most of the following instances the attribution of authorship to a prophet seems also to be significant, especially when viewed through the eyes of an Old Testament Israelite who had the high regard for the divine authority of prophetic words that was outlined in the preceding section.
Exod. 17:14 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book.’ ”
Exod. 24:4 “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.”
Exod. 34:27 “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ ”
Num. 33:2 “Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the Lord; and these are their stages according to their starting places.”
Deut. 31:22 “So Moses wrote this song the same day.”
Deut. 31:24 “When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book, to the very end …”
Josh. 24:26 “Joshua wrote these words [the statutes and ordinances, and the words of covenant renewal, v. 25] in the book of the law of God.” (See 1 Kings 16:34; Josh. 1:5, 16–18, on Joshua as a prophet.)
1 Sam. 10:25 “Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the Lord.”
1 Chron. 29:29 “The acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles [diḇrê] of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer.”
2 Chron. 9:29 “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jereboam the son of Nebat?”
2 Chron. 12:15 “Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the Chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer?”
2 Chron. 13:22 “The rest of the acts of Abijah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the story [miḏraš] of the prophet Iddo.”
2 Chron. 20:34 “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel.” (Jehu the son of Hanani is called a prophet in 1 Kings 16:7.)
2 Chron. 26:22 “Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, from first to last, Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz wrote.”
2 Chron. 32:32 “Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.”
This brings us well into the period of the classical or “writing” prophets.20 The degree to which their speeches were primarily oral, or both oral and written from the beginning, need not concern us here.21 But it is certain that there was at least some writing of prophecies either before or immediately after the oral delivery, and sometimes transcription of the words during the delivery by the prophet’s followers.
For example, God said to Jeremiah, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you” (Jer. 30:2). God commanded Isaiah concerning what had been revealed, “And now, go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come, as a witness forever” (Isa. 30:8; cf. Jer. 29:1; 36:1–32; 45:1; 51:60; Ezek. 43:11; Hab. 2:2; Dan. 7:1). Lindblom says, “We must, in fact, allow for the existence of both oral and written transmission from the beginning, though it may be that the former predominated in the earliest period.”22
The purpose of this writing seems to have been intimately connected with the covenant relation between Israel and Yahweh. The words of the prophets were said to be written down as a witness to the covenant: an authoritative record of the provisions of the covenant, of the ratification by the parties involved, and of subsequent covenant-related behavior by Yahweh and the people. So the writing can be called “the book of the covenant” (Exod. 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2, 21; 2 Chron. 34:30), and Isaiah wrote in a book that it might be a witness against the people forever (Isa. 30:8; cf. Deut. 31:19, 26). The provisions of covenant behavior are often written in a book (Exod. 34:27; Josh. 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Ezek. 43:11), and the historical narratives themselves may be seen as a record of activities performed by members of the covenant bond.23 The latter prophets, then, are seen as covenant messengers of Yahweh reminding Israel of the terms of their covenant relationship and calling them to obedience to these terms.
This writing function is closely linked to the conception that the words of prophecy are God’s words. As Lindblom says, since the prophets regarded their utterances as Yahweh’s words, they thought they were significant for all times.24 Furthermore, their written words seem to have been considered just as authoritative as their spoken words. When Moses read the book of the covenant to the people, they responded, “All that the Lord has spoken [dibber] we will do” (Exod. 24:7). Later in the Old Testament narrative, the law of Moses (presumably this refers to the written law) is said to have been commanded by the Lord (2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Neh. 8:14; Mal. 4:4). The written words are seen as God’s words in every way that direct speech by God and God’s speech through the mouths of people are seen as God’s words. The form of communication differs, but the character, authority, and truth status of the words do not.
Regarding the introductory formula “the word of the Lord which was to Hosea” (Hos. 1:1; cf. Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1), Procksch writes, “It certainly implies that the whole book is regarded as ‘the word of the Lord.’ In the written form no distinction is made between the divine voice in the prophet and its expression in poetry, saying, and address. We have here a transition to the final view that not merely the prophetic book, but in the last resort the whole of the Old Testament is the Word of God.”25
FURTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD
Up to this point we have seen indications of the kind of status and authority attributed to three forms of God’s word in the Old Testament account:
Direct speech by God to men
God’s words spoken by men
God’s words written, usually through the writing activity of prophets26
We have not yet tried to specify how much of our present Old Testament consists of records of these three types but only to define the characteristics attributed to each type by the Old Testament authors.
There are now some remaining texts that make further statements about the nature or character of “God’s word” or “God’s words.” In each of these texts that follow, one must ask, to which words of God is the writer referring? The initial referent cannot be the entire Old Testament, for at the time these passages were written the Old Testament was not complete.
On the other hand, when the Old Testament authors made statements about the character of God’s word they probably did not intend to distinguish among God’s words written, spoken by men, or spoken directly by God. The same characteristics were applied to each (see above), and what could be said of one could be said of the others. Statements not further specified by context, therefore, can legitimately be thought to refer to God’s words in all three forms.
Nevertheless, God’s words directly spoken and God’s words spoken by men were not available for repeated hearing and inspection by others, or even by the initial hearers, at any time subsequent to the initial utterance (except through secondary oral reports or written records). So it would be primarily God’s word written that an Old Testament author would be able to read or hear, ponder, meditate on, and write about. This is relevant for our investigation, because we are attempting to discover attitudes toward God’s word written in Scripture.
NUMBERS 23:19; 1 SAMUEL 15:29
Balaam said to Balak, “God is not a man, that he should lie [kāzab, Piel] or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num. 23:19). The context shows Balak trying to get Balaam to curse Israel and thus nullify his earlier blessing (vv. 7–11). Although Balaam himself is not fully righteous in the entire episode (Num. 22:22, 34), he is certainly seen as a prophet who speaks God’s words (Num. 22:35; 23:5, 12, 26; 24:2–4, 13, 15–16). The statement “God is not a man, that he should lie” is itself part of a prophetic utterance, spoken in response to the question in verse 17, “What has the Lord spoken?”
In this context, the purpose of saying that God does not lie is to tell Balak that there can be no falsehood in the previous prophecy that could be nullified by later prophecies. What God had predicted would certainly happen, for God does not lie.
This passage therefore refers to human words spoken by a prophet in God’s name as God’s words. It further says of those prophetic words that the normal human proclivity for lying does not apply to them; even though they were spoken by human lips they can only rightly be assigned a truth-status that stands in clear contrast to one that normally describes human speech: the words of people contain lies, but God’s words spoken by people do not.27
Furthermore, Numbers 23:19 claims much more than the fact that God did not lie in the prophecy of Numbers 23:7–10. For the statement “God is not a man, that he should lie” is a general statement used to demonstrate the specific fact that He did not lie in the prophecy of verses 7–10. But as a general statement it speaks of the character of God’s speech in all circumstances. It is because God never lies that Balak should be assured that God did not lie in the first prophecy. (Otherwise Balak might hope that one of these rare exceptions where God could lie would be in the first prophecy.) So Numbers 23:19 is an affirmation that in any case in which God speaks through human lips, there will be no “lie” or factually untrue statement in the speech. It will be completely truthful, and will faithfully correspond to reality.28 In terms of its reliability and truthfulness it is to be treated as divine speech, not human speech.
First Samuel 15:29 is a similar passage. Samuel, speaking as a prophet, had told Saul that God had rejected him from being king of Israel (v. 23). Saul begged Samuel to change the verdict (v. 25) and grabbed Samuel’s robe to prevent him from leaving (v. 27). The robe tore, and Samuel reaffirmed the judgment (v. 27). Then he said, “And also the Glory of Israel29 will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (v. 29).
Once again the statement affirms the unchanging reliability of God’s words spoken by men. Once again there is a contrast between human failure to live up to what one promises and divine faithfulness to every promise. Once again a divine standard of reliability and truthfulness is applied to prophetic speech, and a human standard is explicitly rejected.30
DEUTERONOMY 4:2; 12:32
Deuteronomy 4:2 records Moses as saying, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Similarly, Deuteronomy 12:32 (13:1) says, “Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it” (cf. Deut. 32:46).
It is significant here that the words of God spoken by Moses and, according to Deuteronomy 31:24, the words of God that Moses wrote in the Book of Deuteronomy, are seen to be unique and important in their entirety. The prohibition against adding to the commands indicates a unique kind of authority; no other words are fit to be added by the people themselves, for no other words are seen as having an equivalent status; these words are unlike all other human words.
The prohibition against taking from the commands indicates a view that no parts of the spoken (or written) words of God are unimportant or insignificant. If anyone were to try to “take from” these words, it might often involve the taking of minor, less central or less significant details. Yet even that is forbidden, for all of God’s words spoken or written through Moses are thought to be valuable.
PSALM 12:6 (7)
In the midst of despair over the faithlessness of people (Ps. 12:1–4), the psalmist exclaims:
“The words31 of the Lord are words that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Ps. 12:6 [7]).
The term used to speak of God’s words is not dāḇār (“word, thing”), but ʾimrâh (“word, utterance”), a term that places emphasis on the actual words spoken or written as opposed to the general content of a message.
What words is the writer referring to? The immediate reference is to the message of comfort and deliverance in the preceding verse. This is not a quotation from elsewhere in the Old Testament, nor is it likely that a prophet was nearby providing a ready answer to his plea for help. Apparently verse 5 (6) is direct speech from God that came to the psalmist in a manner for us unexplained. Yet even if the primary reference is to direct speech from God, the general statement is one that has implications beyond its immediate reference to the preceding verse. The psalmist knows that the comforting words of the Lord in verse 5 (6) are pure because he is convinced that in general the words of the Lord are pure. Whatever words can be called “words of the Lord” are, according to the psalmist, “pure.”
This attribution of purity is exceptionally strong. The term ṭāhôr (“pure”) is used to describe freedom from imperfections or impurities, as with pure gold (Exod. 25:11, 17, 24, et al.), a pure heart (free from evil motives and desires, Ps. 51:10 [12]; cf. ṭāhēr in Ezek. 36:25), or ritual purity or cleanness (Lev. 10:10, 14; 13:13, 17; Deut. 14:11, 20; Mal. 1:11, et al.). Here the psalmist compares the purity of God’s words to the purity of silver that has been refined in a “furnace of clay” or a “furnace on the ground.”32 The extremely hot furnace would enable the silver to be purged of all impurities; so the metaphor is apt. In order to prevent us from missing the point, he adds the phrase “purified seven times.” Using a number that probably indicates a “perfect” number of times,33 the psalmist is expressing in a forceful way the concept of absolute purity, total freedom from impurity or imperfection.
Against the contrasting background of unfaithful and lying words spoken by “every one” among the “sons of men” (vv. 1–2), this affirmation of absolute purity acquires a clear epistemological aspect: All human beings’ words contain lies and falsehood, but the words of the Lord do not, for they are absolutely free from any impurities in the sense of unreliable or untruthful speech. With respect to truthfulness, the words of the Lord are as pure as “silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” There is no untruthfulness in them.
This conclusion indicates how foreign it would be to the thought of at least some Old Testament authors to argue, as some do today,34 that because God’s words come to us in human language and through human spokesmen the words may therefore contain some degree of untruthfulness, such as factual errors in areas unrelated to “faith and practice,” or misstatements of fact in matters unrelated to or only distantly related to the central purpose. The psalmist takes care to point out the great contrast between the total truthfulness of God’s words and the falsehoods found in all merely human words. It is all God’s words, argues the writer in Psalm 12:6 (7), that are pure from falsehood: Every word God speaks, no matter on what subject and no matter how tangentially related to the central purpose of a particular message, is free from falsehood: His words are as pure as perfectly refined silver.
The same word (ʾimrâh) that occurred in a plural form in Psalm 12:6 (7) is here used in a singular form to affirm a similar statement: “The word of the Lord [ʾimraṯ-YHWH]35 is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him” (18:30 [31], niv). The “word” the psalmist refers to seems to be the written words of God, the “statutes” and “ordinances” that he claims to have continually looked at (v. 22). “The word of the Lord” seems to be used here in a collective sense (see BDB, p. 57) to refer to all the words of God, especially written words that the psalmist had available to him at that time.
To say that the word of the Lord is “flawless” is again to indicate its freedom from imperfection. The verb ṣārap̱ commonly means “to refine, smelt, test,” and is used to refer to the refining of silver by fire (Ps. 12:6[7]; Jer. 6:29–30; Zech. 13:9). The passive participle (ṣerûp̱âh) used in 18:30 [31] indicates that God’s words are words from which all impurities have been removed: the words are “pure,” or “flawless.”
The context again emphasizes the reliability of God’s words as the aspect of purity that the psalmist is especially concerned with. God had promised to reward righteous living and obedience to Himself, and in verses 20 and 24 there is a recounting of God’s faithfulness to these promises. Again, the idea of “purity” suggests that according to the writer of this Psalm, there was nothing in God’s word that could not be relied on or trusted: God’s words are pure, and no unreliable statements can be found in them.
Psalm 119:140 says, “Your word is very pure [ṣerûp̱âh] and your servant loves it.” As in Psalm 18:30 (31), the word referred to is the written word of God. That is even more clear in this Psalm, since the subject of the entire Psalm is the law of God, the “statutes,” “commandments,” “ordinances,” etc., that the psalmist has available for meditation and repeated inspection (vv. 6, 15, 18, 23, et al.). As in Psalm 18, the word of God is said to be “pure”; in fact, here it is said to be “very pure.” This emphasis indicates that the psalmist saw no element of untruthfulness or unreliability in the written words of God to which he had access, even though they were in human language and written by imperfect human beings. Ordinary human error did not attach to these words; unlike all other human words, these were “very pure.”
This affirmation is even stronger in Proverbs: “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Prov. 30:5–6). The first line again uses ṣerûp̱ah to indicate the flawlessness and purity of God’s words. The range of reference is more explicitly broad here: it is “every” word of God (that is, every utterance or speech from God to men), that is free from imperfection. According to the writer of this proverb, God always speaks in words that are pure, and no impurity exists in any part of His speech.
The next line, “he is a shield to those who take refuge in him,” suggests the trustworthiness of God’s words: to rely on every word spoken by God is to rely on God Himself, who will not fail those who trust Him. It is significant that in most contexts where the purity of God’s speech is emphasized, this element of reliability lies near at hand. This fact suggests that the kind of purity intended is a purity from error, falsehood, or deception, elements that would make God’s words unreliable. Other kinds of purity that might be imagined—a “mechanical” purity in the flawless copying of manuscripts, for example, or a “sophisticated grammatical purity” in the polished use of academically acceptable grammatical constructions, or a “stylistically uniformitarian purity” in the use of one impersonal, unvarying style of writing throughout all of God’s written words—are not in view in the contexts we have examined. These considerations do not appear to have been of interest or concern to the Old Testament authors; in fact, there is no indication that these authors would have thought of such kinds of “purity.” The purity is rather in regard to reliability or truthfulness.
I must emphasize that the Bible’s insistence that God speaks pure words and is always truthful does not preclude Him from using a wide diversity of literary and/or oral devices: parable, phenomenological language, metaphor, hyperbole, and so forth. “True words” can include hyperbolic words, for instance; but they must be recognized as such and interpreted within that framework. If a narrative (for example, the story of the prodigal son) is not historical narrative, but belongs to some other genre, then the truthfulness of the narrative is measured by its conformity to reality once it has been interpreted within the framework of the genre to which it gives evidence of belonging. These are hermeneutical issues largely dealt with by another chapter in this volume. In this chapter, I assume that these hermeneutical cautions are understood and do not have to be repeated constantly, and I recognize that in some instances they are difficult to apply. But once granted, they do not adversely affect the main point of this chapter but contribute to its applicability to all of the various literary styles and forms found in Scripture.
On the other hand, there is no hint from these Old Testament passages that the flawless reliability or truthfulness of God’s words are limited to certain matters, such as matters of “faith and practice,” or the “main points” of each message, or certain kinds of “revelatory” material. It is “every word” of God that is flawless (Prov. 30:5), not just some words, and these words are “flawless” and “pure,” not marred by impurities in unreliable statements about minor details. Far from having small parts that are untruthful, God’s words are said to be “very pure” (Ps. 119:140), “like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Ps. 12:6). This kind of statement excludes the possibility of any untruthfulness on seemingly minor details.
PSALM 119:89
Psalm 119 is an extensive discussion of the qualities of the written words of God that are available to the psalmist (see above, p. 32). In this context, he says, “For ever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Ps. 119:89). This is an unusual statement, because the context shows that “your word” refers to God’s written words. How could he say that the words he reads are forever fixed in the heavens?
The word niṣṣāḇ (“fixed,” a Niphal participle from the root nṣb) means “to stand, to be stationed,” and here means “to stand firm.”36 God’s word stands firm forever in the heavens, the place of God’s abode. This implies that according to the psalmist God’s written words are actually a copy of words that God in heaven has permanently decided on and has subsequently caused to be committed to writing by men. Briggs writes of this verse, “The divine Law was everlasting, preexistent in heaven before it came down to earth as the latter rabbins understood it … immutable for all future time in generation after generation of mankind.”37
This immutability and perpetual establishment in heaven of these written words of God surely implied total reliability and truthfulness to the mind of the psalmist. For he was convinced that God hated all falsehood and untruthfulness (Ps. 119:43, 69, 86, 160, 163; cf. Ps. 62:4; Prov. 13:5; Zeph. 3:13, et al.). Therefore, he could see God’s written words remaining forever in heaven by God’s pleasure only if they were words wholly devoid of falsehood, words that would forever remain as a reminder of God’s love for absolute truthfulness in speech.
PSALM 119:96
“I have seen a limit to all perfection, but your commandment is exceedingly broad,” writes the psalmist. The contrast is between all the human or creaturely works that he observes and God’s written commandments, the subject of the psalm. The perfection (tiḵlâẖ) of all that he sees has an end or limit (qēṣ), but God’s commandment is different: he can see no limit, so far-reaching is its perfection. It is unlimited in its perfection. Once again the author sees a qualitative contrast between God’s written words and all other works, including all other human words. God’s written words are unlimited in their perfection; no other words can be assessed in that way.
PSALM 119:160
“The sum of your words38 is truth, and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever” (Ps. 119:160). The second clause is similar in meaning to Psalm 119:89, except that it specifies “every one” of God’s ordinances rather than calling them collectively God’s “word.”
The first clause speaks of the truth of God’s words. “Sum” is used elsewhere to refer to the total of a census count (Exod. 30:12; Num. 1:2, 49, et al.). It here represents the result obtained by combining and evaluating all of God’s words: the result is “truth.” The word used here (ʾemeṯ) is the most common word for “truth” in the Old Testament and can signify both epistemological truth (truth as opposed to lies and falsehood, Deut. 13:14 [15]; 17:4; 22:20; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 18:15; Ps. 15:2) and ethical truth (truth or faithfulness as opposed to sin, Gen. 24:49; 49:29; 1 Kings 2:4; 3:6, et al.). In this context the subject is the written words of God, but the emphasis is on their relationship to human behavior. So neither sense can be legitimately excluded.
When the psalmist adds together all the words of God, the result is truth: they are all reliable, truthful, firm, able to be trusted and depended on. There is no falsehood or unreliability in them. The NIV translates Psalm 119:160, “All your words are true.”
Yet something more than the truth of all the individual words may be implied here. If the sum of them is truth, then there is affirmed an internal consistency to God’s words as well: they do not contradict each other or show other words of God to be false.
PROVERBS 8:8
Wisdom is pictured here as saying to people: “All the words (ʾimrē) of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them” (Prov. 8:8). The close connection of wisdom with God’s eternal purposes in Proverbs 8:22–31 implies that to the mind of the writer the words of wisdom’s mouth (v. 8) are probably words that God Himself has spoken. (Even if this is not so, the words of wisdom are very wise human words whose purity and truthfulness certainly cannot be less than that of God’s words. In either case, therefore, there is in this verse a characterization that can rightly be applied to God’s words.)
Once again this verse indicates the total reliability of all parts of the words spoken by God. Nothing in them needs to be improved or straightened out because there is nothing “twisted” (pātal, Niphal) or “crooked” (ʾiqqēš, “twisted, perverted”) in them. Although the emphasis is on moral guidance (the words are righteous), it should not be overlooked that the writer here affirms the total purity of these words in all their parts. The reader is encouraged never to suspect any element of these words, never to be “on guard,” thinking that some minor imperfections will have to be filtered out because they are unworthy of full and complete trust. No untrustworthy words are ever spoken by this mouth of God’s wisdom.
ISAIAH 66:2
According to the following prophecy of Isaiah, God speaks to describe the kind of attitude that is pleasing to Him: “This is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). This prophecy advocates a response to God’s word (dāḇār) that is appropriate only when responding to God Himself: to tremble in reverence and awe. This is an exhortation to respond to God’s word exactly as if one were responding to God Himself. In terms of this text, it seems that to respond to God’s word is to respond to God.
Furthermore, “trembling” suggests a complete acceptance of that word, an unwillingness to think any of it unworthy of trust or obedience, and a refusal to challenge or call into question any of that word. To tremble before God’s word is to submit to it and accept it, to believe it and obey it absolutely.
SUMMARY
We have by no means exhausted all the relevant Old Testament texts on this subject. Many other passages speak of loving God’s words, of meditating on them day and night, treasuring them in one’s heart, living by them, etc. But these few passages have at least given us a glimpse of the attitudes of several Old Testament authors toward God’s words, especially God’s words as spoken and written by men. These words are viewed consistently by the Old Testament authors as different in character and truth status from all other human words; in character, they are God’s words, not merely man’s. What these words say, God says. In truth status they are seen as being different from all other human words, for human words invariably contain falsehood and error (Ps. 116:11), but these do not; they are spoken by God who never lies (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). They are completely truthful (Ps. 119:160) and free from impurity or unreliability of any kind (Ps. 12:6 [7]; 18:30 [31]; 119:89, 96, 160; Prov. 8:8; 30:5–6). The appropriate response to God’s word is to tremble before it (Isa. 66:2).
There is not yet an indication of how much of our present Old Testament would be included in the intention of these authors when they speak of “God’s words,” especially God’s words in written form. A final determination of that question is difficult to find within the limits of the Old Testament text itself, although some help can be found in later Jewish literature.39 For our purposes, however, it is enough to note at this point that these categories of divine words (spoken directly, spoken through men, and written) were commonly acknowledged, and to note the extremely high view of the purity and truthfulness of whatever words were thought to be included in any of those categories.
EXTRABIBLICAL LITERATURE
Space allows only a brief mention of the high views of the Old Testament Scriptures found in Jewish literature in the period after the completion of the writings now considered canonical. When the rabbis speak of Scripture, their views are every bit as strong as those found in the Old Testament when it spoke of prophets who were messengers of God. This is especially true of the supreme prophet, Moses, and his writing, the Torah. We read in the Talmud:
Another40 taught, “Because he hath despised the word of the Lord” (Num. 15:31)—this refers to him who maintains that the Torah is not from Heaven. And even if he asserts that the whole Torah is from Heaven, excepting a particular verse, which (he maintains) was not uttered by God but by Moses himself, he is included in “because he hath despised the word of the Lord.” And even if he admits that the whole Torah is from Heaven, excepting a single point, a particular ad majus deduction or a certain gezerah shawah—he is still included in “because he hath despised the word of the Lord” (b. Sanh. 99a).
Views such as this are common in rabbinic literature.41
G. F. Moore writes that for the rabbinical schools “it was an uncontested axiom that every syllable of Scripture had the veracity and authority of the word of God.”42 For a similar example in the targums, see Targum Onkelos on Exodus 14:31, where the Masoretic text speaks of believing in the Lord but the targum interprets this to mean believing in the word (mymr’) of the Lord.
Josephus shows a similar high esteem for the authority of the Old Testament prophets. Where an Old Testament narrative simply reports that “God said to [David, et al.],” Josephus understands that the Old Testament author is thinking of a prophet through whom God spoke, and so he often introduces a prophet into the narrative (Antiq. 7:72, 294, 371; 8:197; 9:139; cf. Loeb edition, vol. 5, p. 677, n.b.). So he apparently sees no difference between direct speech from God and speech through a human prophet.43 On the other hand, Josephus can say of something that had been foretold through a prophet, “God prophesied it” (Antiq. 9:145; 10:126). He says that the prophets alone had the privilege of writing the history of their people under the inspiration (epipnoia) of God. As a result, their books do not conflict with each other but are a clear and accurate record (Ag. Ap. 1:37–38). Then, after thus attributing the Old Testament to the work of the prophets, he reiterates the common Jewish attitude toward the Scriptures:
We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees [dogmata] of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them (Ag. Ap. 1:42).
Regarding Old Testament prophecy, Philo had a stronger view than that found in the Old Testament or any of the other literature we have examined. For, according to Philo, the human prophet contributed virtually nothing.
For indeed the prophet, even when he seems to be speaking, really holds his peace, and his organs of speech, mouth and tongue, are wholly in the employ of Another (Quis Her. 266).
For no pronouncement of a prophet is ever his own, but he is an interpreter prompted by Another in all his utterances (Spec. Leg. 4:49).
When the prophets speak, it is God who is speaking, for Philo wrote that God prophesied through the mouth of the prophets. Philo then quotes Jeremiah 2:13 (Fug. 197; cf. Spec. Leg. 2:189). The writings of the prophets, the sacred Scriptures, “are not monuments of knowledge and vision, but are the divine commands and divine words” (Q. Gen. 4:140).44
NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
The high view of the trustworthiness and reliability of God’s words written by human authors that is seen in the Old Testament writings is reflected in many ways in the writings of the New Testament authors as well. This is especially clear in their use of the Old Testament.
MANY OLD TESTAMENT WRITINGS ARE THOUGHT OF AS GOD’S SPEECH
Throughout the New Testament there are citations of Old Testament texts that indicate that the Old Testament writings are considered God’s speech. It is impossible here to discuss each text at length, but many are noted briefly in the following list.
Matthew 1:22: Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 7:14 are cited as “what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.”
Matthew 4:4: Jesus says to the devil, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” In the context of Jesus’ frequent citations from Deuteronomy to answer every temptation, the words that proceed “from the mouth of God” are here best understood to be the written Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Matthew 19:5: The words of the author in Genesis 2:24, not attributed to God in the Genesis narrative, are quoted by Jesus as words that God “said.”
Mark 7:9–13: What Jesus calls “the commandment of God” in verse 9 is cited in verse 10 as “Moses said.” But in verse 13, what Moses said is called “the word [logos] of God.” If we accept Markan priority here, it is significant that instead of “Moses said,” Matthew 15:4 has “God commanded.”
Luke 1:70: In Zechariah’s prophecy, God is said to have “spoken [elalēsen] by the mouth of his holy prophets” in the Old Testament.
Luke 24:25: Jesus calls the disciples “foolish men” because they did not believe “all that the prophets have spoken [elalēsan].” This is then taken to refer to “all the scriptures” (v. 27). Moral culpability seems therefore to attach to not believing the Old Testament Scriptures. This suggests that they are viewed as God’s words.
John 5:45–47: Speaking of the writings of Moses, Jesus says, “If you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (v. 47). Apparently, Moses’ writings and Jesus’ words are thought to have the same authority to compel belief.
Acts 1:16: “The Holy Spirit spoke beforehand [proeipen] by the mouth of David” (the words of Pss. 69:25; 109:8). Words of Scripture are said to be spoken by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:16–17: In quoting “what was spoken by the prophet Joel” in Joel 2:28–32, Peter inserts “says God,” thus attributing to God words written by Joel.
Acts 3:18: God “foretold [prokatēngeilen] by the mouth of all the prophets” the sufferings of Christ.
Acts 3:21: “God spoke [elalēsen] by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.”
Acts 4:25: The prayer of the church is addressed to God who “spoke” (eipen) the words of Psalm 2:1–2 “by the mouth of … David … through [dia] the Holy Spirit.” (The sentence is complex and has led to some variation in the text, but the sense is clear: God through the Holy Spirit spoke through David’s words.)
Acts 13:47: Isaiah 49:6 is quoted by Paul and Barnabas as something that “the Lord commanded us.” An Old Testament prophecy is seen not only as God’s command, but also as one that places moral obligation on first-century Christians.
Acts 28:25: Paul says that the Holy Spirit spoke through (elalēsen dia) Isaiah the prophet.
Romans 1:2: The gospel is something that “God promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.”
Romans 3:2: The Jews are entrusted with the oracles (ta logia) of God. The Old Testament Scriptures, which the Jews cared for and preserved, were the oracles spoken by God.
Romans 9:17: Paul quotes God’s speech in Exodus 9:16 as what “scripture says to Pharaoh.” Apparently there is in Paul’s mind an equivalence between the nature of what Scripture says and the nature of what God says.
First Corinthians 9:8–10: The “law” of Deuteronomy 25:4 is something that God now “speaks” (legei, present tense) for our sake (v. 10). Written words of the Old Testament are seen by Paul as words that God not only spoke in the past but continues to speak in the present.
Second Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos].”45 Here “scripture” (graphē) must refer to the Old Testament written Scripture, for that is what graphē refers to in every one of its fifty occurrences in the New Testament.46 Furthermore, it is the “sacred writings” (hiera grammata) of the Old Testament that Paul has just referred to in the previous verse.
Paul affirms that all of the Old Testament writings are theopneustos, breathed out (compare pneō in the sense of “breathe out”: BAG2, p. 679) by God. Since it is writings that are said to be “breathed out,” this breathing must be understood as a metaphor for speaking. This verse thus states in brief form what has been evident in many other passages so far: the Old Testament writings are regarded as God’s words in written form. God is the one who spoke (and still speaks) them, although using human agents to write them down.
Hebrews 1:1–2: “In many and various ways God spoke [lalēsas] of old to the fathers by [en + dative] the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [elalēsen hēmin en hyiq̄].” God’s speech through the prophets is spoken of in the same way as His speech through Christ. This suggests an equivalence in character and authority for the words of Christ and those of the Old Testament prophets.
It is also significant to notice the vague way in which the manner of Old Testament inspiration is referred to: “many [or, many parts] and various ways.” This is characteristic of both the Old Testament and the New Testament: while there is an abundance of evidence to affirm that the words of Scripture are God’s words, there is almost no discussion of the process by which these words came to be written.
John J. Hughes is certainly correct at this point to call attention to the imprecise methodology of Jack Rogers and G. C. Berkouwer in their criticism of biblical inerrancy:
Both Rogers and Berkouwer fail adequately to distinguish the mode of revelation (dream, vision, dictation, etc.) from the manner of inspiration (the employment of various literary techniques and genres), from the result of inspiration (what Scripture says, God says), and the purpose of inspiration (to make us wise unto salvation). Apparently, they believe that to affirm both the purpose and manner of inspiration precludes affirming the result of inspiration.47
Hebrews 1:6–7: In quoting Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX)48 and Psalm 104:4, the author twice affirms that God “says” (legei) them.
Second Peter 1:21: Speaking of the prophecies of Scripture (v. 20), which means at least the Old Testament Scriptures to which Peter encourages his readers to give careful attention (v. 19), Peter says that none of these prophecies ever came “by the impulse [thelēma, “will”] of man,” but that “men moved [lit. “carried along,” pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” It is not Peter’s intention to deny completely human volition or personality in the writing of Scripture (the writers “spoke”), but rather to say that the ultimate source of every prophecy was never man’s decision about what he wanted to write, but rather the Holy Spirit’s action in the prophet’s life, carried out in ways unspecified here or elsewhere in Scripture. This is similar to the Old Testament warnings against prophesying words of one’s own mind, rather than words that God had given (Deut. 18:18, 20; Jer. 23:16, et al.). It indicates a similar belief that all of the Old Testament prophecies (and, in light of verses 19–20, this probably includes all of the written Scripture of the Old Testament) are spoken “from God.”
INDIVIDUAL WORDS AND LETTERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE RELIED ON
Consistent with the view that the Old Testament writings are God’s own speech is a willingness on the part of New Testament authors to rely on individual words or even letters of the Old Testament. Jesus’ affirmation of the abiding validity of every “iota” and “dot” of the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:18) indicates such confidence. So also does the statement of Jesus in Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.” This is not foreign to New Testament thought: heaven and earth have been created by God and will one day be destroyed (Matt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10–12), but God’s word reflects His unchanging veracity and eternal determination to speak exactly what He wills; thus, His word is, in the words of Psalm 119:89, forever “fixed in the heavens.”
In Matthew 22:44–45 (Mark 12:36–37; Luke 20:42–44), Jesus proves that David calls the Messiah “Lord” from Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand.…” Two different persons are implied by the two uses of the word Lord: the first is God the Father whom the Jews acknowledged; the second is the Messiah, whom David calls “my Lord” (niv). In order for this argument to work, Jesus relies on the fact that Psalm 110:1 has David calling the Messiah “my Lord.” Otherwise the text would not prove that the Messiah was David’s Lord.49
Now the word my is signified by only one letter (י) in the consonantal Hebrew text: “my Lord” is אדני. A slight lengthening of the final consonant to וwould make “his Lord”; a bit more lengthening to ךwould make “your Lord.” In either case, the argument would no longer work. Here Jesus’ argument depends on the reliability of one letter of the written Old Testament.
This is not a unique instance: many others are cited by R. Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 139.
MINOR DETAILS OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES ARE SEEN TO BE FULFILLED IN CHRIST’S LIFE
Also indicative of a high regard for the reliability of all of the Old Testament is the frequent reference to a seemingly obscure detail of an Old Testament prophecy that was fulfilled in Christ’s life. The following list is not exhaustive, but it does give enough examples to indicate an unwillingness to think of any detail of the Old Testament as “unreliable” because it was not crucial to the “main point” of the prophecy.
Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:5
He was born in Bethlehem.
Zech. 9:9
John 12:14–15
He rode to Jerusalem on a donkey.
Psalm 41:9
John 13:18
His betrayer ate bread with Him.
Psalm 22:18
John 19:24
Lots were cast for His garments.
Psalm 69:21
(John 19:28–30)50
He was given vinegar to drink.
Psalm 34:20
John 19:36
None of His bones were broken.
Zech. 12:10
John 19:37
He was pierced with a sword.
Isaiah 53:9
(Matt. 27:57–60)50
He was buried in a rich man’s grave.
The ways in which the New Testament “fulfills” the Old Testament, or the interpretive patterns bound up with typology (for instance), do not affect the main point. What is here at issue is not how the New Testament writers perceived that this or that Old Testament passage pointed to Christ (which is a separate issue), but that they often focused on relatively obscure Old Testament details.
MINOR HISTORICAL DETAILS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE TREATED AS TRUSTWORTHY AND RELIABLE
While it is often argued today that the truthfulness of the Bible need not extend to every historical detail,51 the New Testament authors give no indication of any unwillingness to trust even the smallest historical details of the Old Testament narrative. In the following list are some of the historical details cited by New Testament authors. If all of these are matters of “faith and practice,” then every historical detail of the Old Testament is a matter of “faith and practice.” On the other hand, if so many details can be affirmed, then it seems that all of the historical details in the Old Testament can be affirmed as true.
Matthew 12:3–4
(Mark 2:25–26; Luke 6:3–4) David ate the bread of the Presence.
Matthew 12:40 Jonah was in the whale.
Matthew 12:41 (Luke 11:30, 32) The men of Nineveh repented.52
Matthew 12:42 (Luke 11:31) The Queen of the South came to hear Solomon.
Matthew 23:35 (Luke 11:51) Zechariah53 was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Luke 4:25–26 Elijah was sent to the widow of Zarephath.
Luke 4:27 Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of leprosy.
Luke 17:29 On the day Lot left Sodom fire and brimstone rained from heaven.
Luke 17:32 “Remember Lot’s wife” (who turned to salt for looking back at Sodom).
John 3:14 Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.
John 4:5 Jacob gave a field to Joseph.
Acts 13:17–23 Several details of the history of Israel are cited by Paul.
Romans 4:10 Abraham believed and received the promise before he was circumcised.
Romans 4:19 Abraham was about a hundred years old.
Romans 9:10–12 God told Rebecca before her children were born that the elder child would serve the younger.
Romans 11:2–4 Elijah spoke with God, as recorded in 1 Kings 19:10, 18.
1 Corinthians 10:11 The people of Israel passed through the sea, ate and drank spiritual food and drink, desired evil, sat down to drink, rose up to dance, indulged in immorality, grumbled, and were destroyed (vv. 1–11).
Then Paul says that these things “happened” (synebainen, v. 11). The verb synbainō is commonly used to refer to historical events that “took place” or “happened” (Luke 24:14; Acts 3:10, 20:19, 21:35; 1 Peter 4:12; 2 Peter 2:22).54 Paul has no hesitancy in affirming that even extremely obscure details of the Old Testament (“the people sat down to eat and rose up to dance”) both happened and were written down for our instruction.
Hebrews 7:2 Abraham gave a tenth of everything to Melchizedek.
Hebrews 9:1–5 Detailed descriptions of the Old Testament tabernacle are reported.
Hebrews 9:19–21 Moses sprinkled the people and the tabernacle vessels with blood and water, using scarlet wool and hyssop.
Hebrews 11:3 The world was created by the word of God. This is not a “minor” detail, but it is useful as an example of a “scientific” fact that is affirmed in the Old Testament. The author says that we know this scientific/historical fact “by faith.” Faith here is explicitly said to involve trust in the truthfulness of a scientific and historical fact recorded in Old Testament Scripture.
Hebrews 11, passim Many details of the lives of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rahab, and others are recounted as events that actually happened.
Hebrews 12:16–17 Esau sold his birthright for a single meal, and later sought it back with tears.
James 2:25 Rahab received the spies and sent them out another way.
1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5 Eight persons were saved in the ark.
2 Peter 2:6–7 God turned Sodom and Gommorah to ashes but saved Lot.
2 Peter 2:16 Balaam’s donkey spoke.
This list indicates a willingness on the part of the New Testament writers to rely on the truthfulness of any part of the historical narratives of the Old Testament. No detail is too insignificant to be used for the instruction of New Testament Christians. There is no indication of any thought that there was a certain category of Old Testament statements that were unreliable and untrustworthy (such as “nonrevelational statements”55 or “historical and scientific” statements, as opposed to doctrinal and moral passages).
In fact, the statement of the purpose of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 certainly is not intended to limit the types of statements in the Old Testament that can be relied on; it is “all scripture” that is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” For the instruction and edification of the early Christians the New Testament authors were willing to use any historical (or “scientific”)56 statement of the Old Testament, to affirm that it happened as God said in His written words, and to draw lessons from it for contemporary hearers. “All scripture,” every detail of Scripture, is useful for this purpose, says Paul.
Moreover, against the background of the idea of the permanence of Scripture (Ps. 119:89; Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17), Paul’s affirmation of the usefulness of every part of Scripture becomes even more significant. For it to be eternally useful for edification, God’s word must be an abiding testimony to the veractiy of God’s speech: Untruthful statements would be unprofitable and bring dishonor to God by portraying Him as one who at times speaks untruthfully, and they would serve as an encouragement to people to imitate God and sometimes speak untruthfully as well. This would be morally destructive, not edifying. In order to be fully and perpetually profitable, and in order always to bring glory to God, all the statements in God’s written words must be trustworthy.
HOW MUCH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS SAID TO BE WORTHY OF BELIEF BY NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS?
The citations listed above from all parts of the Old Testament are enough to indicate inductively that all of the Old Testament was treated by the New Testament authors as (1) words that God Himself spoke and (2) reliable in whatever they represented as having happened. But there are also several passages that state this reliance on the Old Testament explicitly.
In Luke 24:25, the disciples are rebuked for not believing “all that the prophets have spoken.” Then in verse 27, Luke reports Jesus as using “all the scriptures” to teach about Himself. Although it is difficult to define the limits of the Old Testament canon from data within the Old Testament itself, it is not difficult to demonstrate that for first-century Jews the canon of the Old Testament included exactly the books of the Protestant Old Testament today.57 It is “all” of these that are said to speak about Christ. This categorization is made more explicit in Luke 24:44 where Jesus speaks of the necessity for the fulfillment of all that was “written” about Him “in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms.”
Peter said that God foretold the sufferings of the Messiah by the mouth of “all the prophets” (Acts 3:18).
Paul, standing before Felix, said that he worshiped God while (or by) “believing everything [pisteuōn pasi] laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14).
Romans 15:4 reaffirms the value of everything written in the Old Testament: “Whatever [hosa] was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”
These statements affirm in a general way what was evident from the many specific references quoted earlier: to the New Testament authors, every part of the Old Testament was God’s very word, and was worthy of absolute trust.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WORDS OF GOD
At last we come to a consideration of the New Testament writings themselves. Did the New Testament writers consider their writings equal to the Old Testament Scriptures in character and truth status? There are several indications that they did.
First, it is evident that the New Testament authors thought it possible for God to speak directly to people in human language, for there are recorded instances of such direct speech from God at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17–18), the voice from the Father speaking to Jesus (John 12:28), the conversion of Saul (Acts 9:4; 26:14–18, from the risen Lord), the instructions to Ananias (Acts 9:11–16), Peter’s vision (Acts 10:13), events during Paul’s journeys (Acts 18:9–10; 23:11), and the revelation to John (Rev. 1:11–3:22).
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence of God’s speech through human lips, both in the words of Jesus (Matt. 5:22, et al.; Luke 5:1; John 3:34 [“he whom God has sent utters the words of God”]; 6:63, 68; 8:47; 12:48, 49–50 [“the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak”]; 14:10; 14:24 [“the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me”]; 15:22; 17:8, 14) and in the words of the apostles (Matt. 10:19–20; Luke 10:16; John 17:8; Acts 2:41; 4:29, 31; 2 Cor. 13:3; Gal. 1:8–9, 10–11;58 1 Thess. 2:13).
But were the New Testament writings thought to be God’s words in the same sense as the Old Testament writings? Using only the data of the New Testament itself, we are in a situation analogous to that which arose with the Old Testament: It is possible to show that some of the New Testament writings are thought to be God’s words, but one cannot prove conclusively that all of the New Testament writings were so regarded, at least not by using the data of the New Testament alone.
Nevertheless, the authors’ claims that they are writing God’s words are quite strong. There is a hint of that claim in John’s record of the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the disciples all that Jesus said to them (John 14:26).59 Those who believe are to keep (or obey, tēreō) the disciples’ words just as they keep Jesus’ words (John 15:20). The Spirit of truth will guide them into all the truth (John 16:13).
A related statement about the authority of apostolic writings is found in 2 Peter 3:2, where the readers are told to remember not only the Old Testament prophets,60 but also “the commandment of the Lord and Savior through [their] apostles.” Since this is a “reminder” to the readers (v. 1), it is probably—though not certainly—written commands that he exhorts them to remember. This would make the apostolic commands mentioned in verse 2 parallel in form to the writings of the Old Testament apostles also mentioned in that verse.
Further support for this view can be found in 2 Peter 3:16. There the author shows not only an awareness of the existence of written epistles from Paul but also a clear willingness to classify “all of his [Paul’s] epistles” with “the other scriptures [tas loipas graphas].” Since graphē in the New Testament always refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, which both Jews and Christians held to be the authoritative words of God, it is noteworthy that Peter here classifies all of Paul’s epistles as graphai. This is an indication that very early in the history of the church Paul’s epistles were considered to be God’s written words in the same sense as the Old Testament texts.
Paul’s writings themselves show some evidence of a claim to write “words of God”: “This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things in spiritual words (1 Cor. 2:13).61
The verse is occasionally taken to refer to believers generally, but the more common view is that it refers to Paul or to Paul and his companions. The latter explanation is preferable for several reasons: (1) The context is one of Paul’s defense of his own ministry. (2) The subsequent rebuke of the Corinthians for being unable even to receive more advanced teaching (3:1–4) makes it virtually impossible that they would be included among those who could speak of it or teach it to others. (3) The laloumen (“we speak”) in verse 13 refers to the same speaking as the speaking (laloumen) of wisdom in verse 6, with which Paul began the passage. This is a speaking “among those who are mature,” and Paul excludes the Corinthians (who were like “infants” [3:1]) from this category.62 Thus, the Corinthians themselves are not included in the “we” of verse 13.
Whether the “we” of 1 Corinthians 2:13 is a reference to Paul alone or to a wider group of mature Christian preachers cannot be conclusively determined from the context. The clear “I” sections in 1:17; 2:1; 3:1 argue in favor of restricting it to Paul alone, while the switch to the first person plural in 2:6–16 may imply that Paul is speaking of general truths applicable to more than himself alone. (However, note Paul’s changes from first person singular to plural in 2 Cor. 10:1, 11; cf. also 10:13 with 12:1).
What is clear is that at least for himself, and at most for some limited group of Christian preachers, Paul claims (1) to have received information from God by revelation (apekalypsen, v. 10), and (2) to speak of this revelation concerning the things given by God (v. 12) in words taught by the Spirit.63
The picture of Paul’s being “taught” words by the Holy Spirit is similar to the Old Testament picture of a prophet’s hearing a message from God and then speaking it to the people. Also in a manner similar to that of the Old Testament prophets, Paul singles out the words themselves, not simply the general content, as is evident from the fact that the question of eloquent speech is under consideration.
One objection to a parallel between Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles might be brought from 1 Corinthians 7:12, where Paul distinguishes his words from those of the Lord: “To the rest I say, not the Lord.…” It is undeniable that such a distinction is made, but it must be evaluated in the light of verses 25 and 40. In verse 25 Paul says he has no command (epitagē) of the Lord concerning the unmarried, but will give his own opinion. This means at least that he had possession of no earthly word of Jesus on this subject and probably also that he had received no subsequent revelation about it. In verse 12, then, the meaning must be that in this area Paul had no earthly words of Jesus that he could quote.
It is remarkable therefore that Paul can go on in 1 Corinthians 7:12–15 to give several specific ethical standards, apparently with the full expectation that he will be believed and obeyed by the Corinthians. The explanation is found in the fact that Paul has obtained mercy from the Lord to be trustworthy (v. 25), and by this statement he seemingly implies that his considered judgments were able to be placed on the same authoritative level as the words of Jesus.64 Nor could the Corinthians claim that Paul was acting contrary to the Holy Spirit when he assumed such authority. In a classic example of ironic understatement, Paul says, “And I think that I have the Spirit of God” (v. 40).
There is a difference here between Paul and the Old Testament prophets, but it is not one that establishes a lesser authority for his words. Rather, 1 Corinthians 7:12 shows that Paul exceeded all of the Old Testament prophets in at least one respect: He had been given such reliable judgment and insight into God’s will that at times he needed no specific revelation to speak with divine authority.
In 1 Corinthians 14:37–38, Paul writes, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord [ha graphō hymin hoti kyriou estin entolē].65 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”66
So Paul claims here that what he writes to the Corinthians is itself a command of the Lord. How much of the preceding discourse is comprehended by the phrase “the things I write to you” is perhaps impossible to determine with certainty, but we can note that it comes exactly at the end of the discussion of spiritual gifts (chapters 12–14) and would seem most naturally to apply to the entire section. It might be argued that this statement refers only to the preceding sentence, or to the directive about women (vv. 33–35). However, it is so general and is made so indefinite by the use of the plural that such a restriction appears highly artificial. Paul’s purpose is to conclude the discussion and at the same time to bar the way for any prophet at Corinth to propound “in the Spirit” new rules that would contradict those given by Paul. Certainly this concern applies to the whole range of directives for worship, reaching back to chapters 12 and 13, and perhaps even to chapter 11.
But this means that in 1 Corinthians 14:37 there is a very strong statement of the authority of Paul’s written words. For it is inconceivable that all the instructions in 1 Corinthians 12–14 are based on words of the earthly Jesus handed down to Paul through oral or written tradition (otherwise we would certainly have echoes of such a large group of “charismata-logia” elsewhere in the New Testament). Rather, Paul has here instituted a number of new rules for church worship at Corinth and has claimed for them the status of “commands of the Lord.”67
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 Paul says, “For this we declare to you in a word of the Lord” (trans. mine). C. Masson argues that his was not a saying of the earthly Jesus preserved in tradition, because it is unthinkable that the evangelists would have possessed such a decisive word on so burning an issue in the early church without recording it.68 Additional difficulty for the view that this is an “earthly” saying is raised by use of the first person for believers remaining alive (vv. 15, 17) and the reference to the Lord in the third person (vv. 16, 17). At most it would have to be an allusion to a saying of Jesus, but this hardly seems to call for the strong introduction: “For this we declare to you in a word of the Lord” (literal translation).
Furthermore, the idea of speaking “in a word of the Lord” has an Old Testament counterpart that always suggests prophetic speech: biḏḇar YHWH (“in a word of the Lord”).69 Thus, the most likely solution is to understand Paul as claiming in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 that he himself70 is speaking words that were also the very words of the Lord.71
In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul72 writes, “For the scripture [graphē] says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’ ” The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the second occurs nowhere in the Old Testament. It does occur, however, in Luke 10:7, in exactly the same words cited by Paul. This means that Paul is quoting Luke’s Gospel as graphē (“Scripture”).73 Since graphē in the New Testament always is used of the Old Testament Scripture (fifty out of fifty times), we have here an instance of Paul’s putting Luke’s Gospel in the same category as Old Testament Scripture.
In brief, we have strong evidence that the early church soon began to receive some New Testament writings as “words of God” equal to the Old Testament.
Revelation 22:18–19 contains an inscriptional curse, warning of severe punishment from God for anyone who adds to or takes away from the words of “this book.” In the first instance, “this book” refers to the book of Revelation itself, and the prohibition against tampering with the words implies that the writer wants his readers to think of the book as words of God (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6).
But perhaps it is possible to make one further observation about this inscriptional curse. For one who believes that God oversaw the compilation of the New Testament, the fact that these verses occur at the end of this particular book cannot be seen as a mere coincidence. Revelation is the book that primarily describes for us the distant future and it most naturally belongs at the end of the canon, just as Genesis, which describes the distant past, belongs at the beginning. Therefore, it may not be inappropriate to think of Revelation 22:18–19 as having a secondary application to the whole of the Bible that precedes it. Understood in this way, these verses both close the canon and simultaneously warn all future generations that all the words that go before are God’s very words, and to add to them or take from them is to invite eternal death.
OTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE
Once it is clear (1) that all of the Old Testament writings are considered God’s words, (2) that the written words of God are thought by both Old Testament and New Testament authors to be equal in character and truth-status to God’s words spoken directly to men, and (3) that the New Testament writings, as they became accepted as “Scripture,” were thought to be just as fully God’s words as the words of the Old Testament, then any New Testament passage that speaks of some characteristic of God’s words can properly be applied to all of the Old Testament and to as much of the New Testament as is accepted as Scripture. For to the New Testament authors, Scripture is God’s words, and to say something about the character of God’s speech is to say something about the character of Scripture.
Thus it is appropriate to apply Titus 1:2 to written Scripture: It speaks of the “hope of eternal life which God, who never lies [ho apseudēs theos, ‘the unlying God’], promised ages ago.” Because God never lies, because His character is that of an “unlying God” who cannot speak a lie (pseudēs), therefore His promises can always be trusted. These of course were written promises in Scripture. But if all of Scripture is spoken by God, as both Old Testament and New Testament authors believed, then Scripture also must be “unlying” (apseudēs). There can be no falsehood or untruthfulness in Scripture.
Hebrews 6:18 mentions two unchangeable things (God’s oath and His promise) “in which it is impossible for God to lie” (niv). Once again the total truthfulness of all that God promises is strongly affirmed; in fact, the author says not merely that God does not lie, but that it is not possible for him to lie. Although the immediate reference is only to oaths and promises, if it is impossible for God to lie in these utterances, that certainly must imply that it is impossible for Him ever to lie.74 Once again, then, we have an affirmation that can be seen as more evidence that the New Testament authors saw all of Scripture as truthful and completely reliable.
Further evidence of a similar sort is seen in John 17:17, where Jesus says to the Father, “Thy word is truth [Alētheia].”75 It is also very plain in John 10:35, where Jesus says, “Scripture cannot be broken [lythēnai; here, ‘annulled, made void’].” Jesus is here making a statement about “Scripture” in general. It is a characteristic of Scripture that it cannot be thought untrue or wrong. Since that is true of Scripture as a whole, it is true, according to Jesus, of one particular word in Psalm 82:6: the word gods in reference to human judges. If Jesus would thus use the absolute reliability of Scripture as a whole to establish the correctness of one particular word chosen to apply to human judges (certainly not one of the “central doctrines” of the Bible), then should we not follow His example and affirm that the absolute reliability of Scripture establishes the correctness of every word of Scripture?
Several passages therefore indicate that God never lies and that it is appropriate to apply these descriptions of God’s unlying character to the words of Scripture as well. Furthermore, the fact that God never lies and cannot lie means not merely that He always acts in a morally right way or that He never speaks falsehood for a bad purpose. “To lie” (pseudomai) often means to affirm in words something that is untrue, that does not correspond to reality, no matter whether the intentions are good or bad, and no matter whether one’s conduct of life is morally good or bad apart from the affirmation (Matt. 5:11; Acts 5:3–4; Rom. 9:1 [good intentions were not in doubt]; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20; Col. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:7; cf. pseudos [of speech] in Eph. 4:25 and the description of “truth” as correspondence to reality in Luke 1:4; John 8:17; 10:41; 19:35; 21:24). For the New Testament writers to say that God does not lie was to say that Scripture, which was to them God’s words, never affirms anything that is contrary to fact.
The contrast between Satan, who is “father of lies” (John 8:44), and God, who “never lies,” is reflected in other passages that speak of God’s love for truthfulness in speech and His hatred of falsehood and of the imitation of those qualities in His children (John 8:44, 55; Col. 3:9–10; 1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:10; 2:7; Rev. 2:2; 21:8). God loves truthfulness and hates falsehood in speech, and this fact seems to give even greater certainty that He will never speak something that is untrue.
THE QUESTIONS OF IMPRECISE STATEMENTS, FREE QUOTATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE
At the end of this analysis of texts that speak of the Bible’s truthfulness it is important to distinguish this claim to truthfulness from three other possible claims that the Bible does not make for itself. Such a distinction must be made when considering the questions of imprecise statements, free quotations, and descriptive language about the natural world.
It must be remembered that there is a difference between precision and truthfulness. To argue for the total truthfulness of Scripture is certainly not to argue for technical precision at every point, for a statement can be imprecise and still be completely true. Consider the following statements: (1) “My home is not far from my office.” (2) “My home is about one and a half miles from my office.” (3) “My home is 1.6 miles from my office.” All three statements are absolutely true (or “inerrant”). All three are completely free of falsehood; they contain no errors. Even though (3) is much more precise then (1), it is not more “true” than (1). Both (1) and (3) are completely true, even though they have different degrees of precision. (And a land surveyor could presumably make a statement that is even more precise than statement [3].)
Similar considerations apply to the matter of quotations. The statement “I said, ‘My home is not far from my office,’ ” would be a verbatim quotation of statement (1) above and the quotation would be completely true. But the statement “I said that I lived near my place of work,” though using several different words, would still be (in ordinary conversation at least) a perfectly acceptable and truthful report of what I had said.
In the Bible we sometimes find, for example, round numbers or approximations in measurements and in battle figures. These statements are not highly precise, but they can still be completely true. We also find in the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament or quotations of Jesus that are not verbatim quotations of the type we find in precise scholarly writing today, but that are closer to the kind of indirect quotation mentioned in the example above. Even though they do not report the exact words used, they faithfully represent the content of the person or text cited.
These instances of nontechnical reporting should not be urged as counterexamples that contradict the many texts that affirm the Bible’s total truthfulness, for they are merely instances of a lack of highly technical precision, not instances of falsehood or error. The emphasis of the many texts cited above is on the truthfulness of God’s speech in the Bible. No texts were found to claim any particular level of precision in measurement or any adherence to one certain style of quotation.
The question then arises, How imprecise can a statement be and still be true? In the example given above, the statement “My home is four miles from my office” would be false, as would the statement “I said that my home was very far from my office.” But between what would clearly be true and what would clearly be false there is a wide range of possible statements. The degree of imprecision that would be acceptable as “truthful” speech would vary according to the situation in which I was speaking, the degree of precision implied by my statements, and the degree of precision that would ordinarily be expected by my hearers in that particular context. It would be difficult to define in advance what degree of precision would be required in order for speech to be truthful, for one would need more information about each individual situation in question.
When we ask what degree of precision is necessary for biblical statements to be completely true, an analysis of individual texts in Scripture will be very helpful to us (see, for example, chapter 5 concerning the New Testament use of the Old Testament). We should not expect to find one particular level of precision throughout the whole Bible (such as “round off to the nearest hundred soldiers killed”) but degrees of precision that will vary according to the different kinds of purpose, subject matter, historical setting, and literary type that characterize the different parts of Scripture.
What is important for our purposes in this chapter is to emphasize the differences between imprecision and untruthfulness. In contemporary discussions about biblical “inerrancy” the question is not whether the Bible contains statements that lack technical precision (all agree that it does) but whether it contains clearly false affirmations (on this there is disagreement). There may be some texts about which some will say they contain not imprecision but actual falsehood, while others will say they contain only imprecision. Those cases will have to be dealt with on an individual basis. (In most cases these are not the really crucial texts in the “inerrancy” discussion anyway.) My purpose here is only to point out the difference between precision and truthfulness and to emphasize that it is the total truthfulness of Scripture that is affirmed again and again in Scripture itself.
One further distinction must be made. Statements that describe the natural world can be completely truthful even though they are stated in ordinary descriptive or observational language, not in terms of twentieth-century scientific knowledge. The Bible says that the sun “rises” and “goes down” (Gen. 15:12; 19:23; Ps. 50:1; Matt. 5:45, et al.). These are descriptions of what the speaker observed, and they are accurate descriptions from the speaker’s perspective. One might object that from a vantage point somewhere else in our solar system, perhaps from the vantage point of the sun, the sun does not really “rise” or “go down,” for the earth rotates. But from the same vantage point the rain does not really go “down”; rather, it is pulled by gravity toward the center of the earth, even though at any given moment it may be going “up” or “sideways” from the standpoint of a viewer out in space. But from the observational standpoint of a person here on earth, the rain does indeed “fall” and the sun does indeed “rise” and “go down.” These are accurate and truthful descriptions of what he observes and, with respect to that person, they are true.
It is important to remember again at this point that the Bible emphasizes that its statements are true, not that the human authors had omniscience or that they were given special insight into future scientific knowledge. (The latter may or may not have been true at some points, but it is not our present concern and it is not taught in the passages we examined.) For their statements to be truthful, it is necessary only that the biblical authors accurately observed and recorded what they saw, and that they did not go beyond those observations to affirm speculative but false theories about what they could not themselves observe. (Thus, the Bible is remarkably free from affirmations that the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth rests on a giant turtle or elephant, and so forth.)
In summary, it is important to note that the Bible repeatedly affirms its own truthfulness, but that this affirmation does not imply a claim to a very high level of precision or to a practice of verbatim quotation or to the possession of future scientific knowledge. These elements are not essential to complete truthfulness in speech and writing.
THE QUESTION OF “ACCOMMODATION” TO HUMAN ERROR
Before an attempt is made to summarize and define clearly the conclusions that can be drawn from the texts examined above, it will be useful to consider one particular view of the nature of God’s words in Scripture, a view that is quite widely held at the present time. This viewpoint can be called the concept of “accommodation”; that is, the view that “the God who lovingly willed to communicate revelational truth to men deliberately accommodated his language in nonrevelational matters to the way the original readers viewed the world about them, so as to enhance the communication of revelational truth, by which alone men could be saved.”76 Those who advocate such a concept also argue that this accommodation can include the statement of, and at least the incidental affirmation of, factual details in historical or scientific matters that are untrue (in the sense that they do not correspond to reality) but that are generally believed by the hearers or readers.77 Although the advocates of this position may deny that such statements are “affirmed” in one sense (because they do not belong to the main purpose of the author), for purposes of discussion it is important to recognize that such statements are “affirmed” in another sense, namely, that they are repeated by the author in such a way that no indication of disbelief in their truthfulness is communicated by the author to the original readers or hearers. In fact, that is the purpose for such “accommodation”; if any suggestion of disbelief in these supposed facts were to be communicated, it would hinder communication by causing needless distraction of attention from the author’s main point (according to the advocates of accommodation). Such an affirmation, in the second sense specified above, I will call “incidental affirmation”; it refers to something incidental to the main purpose of the author.
The question is this: Did God in Scripture ever make an incidental affirmation of a “fact” that was untrue? In other words, does the Bible contain any incidental affirmations of error, particularly when dealing with subjects other than our faith and our moral standards (“faith and practice”)? Specifically in the areas of minor historical details and of “scientific” facts,78 did God intentionally “accommodate” His speech in Scripture to make incidental affirmations of popularly held false beliefs in order to “enhance communication”? (It should be noted that the position that is being analyzed here is formulated in terms of divine, not human, activity in the writing of Scripture. Therefore that will be the focus of the following comments as well.) The following six considerations indicate a negative answer to these questions, and suggest that this concept of “accommodation” is not consistent with the testimony of Scripture.
1. Accommodation would be contrary to the unanimous witness of the Old Testament and New Testament authors concerning the truthfulness of Scripture. As the preceding sections have indicated, whenever Old Testament and New Testament authors speak of the truthfulness of Scripture, their unanimous witness is not to the absolute veracity and reliability of Scripture only when it speaks on certain subjects; it is not to the total veracity of Scripture with regard only to its main points or major purposes; it is not to the absolute reliability of some of Scripture or even most of Scripture. Rather, the authors of both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly affirm the absolute veracity, reliability, and purity of every word of Scripture (Ps. 12:6; 18:30; 119:96, 140; Prov. 8:8; 30:5; Matt. 22:44–45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 24:14; Rom. 15:5, et al.). Accommodation would indicate that there are some words of Scripture that are not absolutely reliable, and would therefore be contrary to these passages.
2. Accommodation would imply a denial of God’s lordship over human language. As many passages in the Old and New Testaments have indicated,79 the limitation of human language does not make it impossible for God to communicate both effectively and with total truthfulness. Whether God speaks directly to people, through the lips of His spokesmen, or through written words, He is viewed as the sovereign Lord of human language who is able to use it however He wills to accomplish His purposes.
Those who argue for the concept of accommodation do not seem to have answered satisfactorily the following question: Was it necessary for God to accommodate His speech to human error in order to communicate effectively? If the answer is yes, then the full implications of such a conclusion must be faced honestly: If it was necessary for God to give incidental affirmation to human error in order to communicate effectively, then all of Scripture where there is “effective communication” is necessarily tainted with error. The only parts free from error would then be those parts where God’s communication is ineffective.
On the other hand, someone might respond that such accommodation was not necessary for effective communication, but that it was merely “helpful”; it “enhanced” the communication; it made it better or more effective. Yet this response is not greatly different, for it is only saying that accommodation was necessary for the most effective communication. The result then would be that all those parts of Scripture where there is the best kind of communication necessarily have incidental affirmations of error, and the only parts free from error are those where communication is not the most effective. In either case, to affirm that accommodation to historical or scientific error was necessary implies that there is error in most or all parts of Scripture.
But if an advocate of the concept of accommodation responds that accommodation was not necessary for effective communication, but that God did it anyway, then we would have to answer that this theory makes God out to be unwise, for He then would have chosen to affirm falsehood when He did not have to in order to accomplish His purposes. If accommodation was not necessary for effective communication, then we would be better off to abandon the concept and follow instead the repeated affirmations in Scripture about the total truthfulness of every word of God’s speech. At least up to the present time, the theory of accommodation has not been established by using one or two (or more) supposedly clear examples of accommodation in Scripture, for no example has been clear enough to compel assent from those who do not accept the theory of accommodation.80 For every example that has been suggested, there is at least one, and often more than one, alternative and entirely possible explanation in the commentaries.81
In order to do justice to the Old Testament and New Testament proclamation of the lordship of God over human language, it seems proper to conclude that this lordship allows God to communicate effectively without ever affirming any of the historical or scientific errors that may have been held by people during the time of the writing of Scripture. Free from the limitations of finitude and sin to which we are subject, God can and does communicate to us without such accommodation. According to Scripture, this is precisely the difference between God’s speech through human agents and all other human speech.
3. Accommodation would imply that God had acted contrary to His character as an “unlying God” (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). It is not helpful to divert attention from this difficulty by repeated emphasis on the gracious condescension of God to speak on our level. Yes, God does condescend to speak our language, the language of humans. But no passage of Scripture teaches that He “condescends” so as to act contrary to His moral character. He is never said to be able to condescend to affirm even incidentally something that is false. If God were to accommodate Himself in this way, He would cease to be the “unlying God”; He would cease to be the God the Bible represents Him to be.
4. Accommodation would make Scripture an eternal witness to the lack of perfect truthfulness in God’s speech. As noted above, Scripture is said to be unchanging and eternal (Ps. 119:89, 160; cf. Matt. 5:18). As such, one of its purposes is to serve as an eternal testimony to the absolute veracity of God in all that He says. Those who understand it will give glory to God for always speaking what is true, in contrast to man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). But if there were accommodation in Scripture to the point of incidental affirmation of factual error, then for all eternity God’s veracity would be impugned by Scripture and the glory God would receive from the response of people to Scripture would be diminished.82
5. Accommodation would create a serious moral problem for us. We are to be imitators of God’s moral character (Lev. 11:44; Luke 6:36; Eph. 5:1; 1 Peter 5:1, et al.). With regard to truthfulness in speech, Paul says that it is because in our new natures we are becoming more like God (Eph. 4:24) that we should “put away falsehood” and “speak the truth” with one another. We imitate God’s truthfulness in our speech.
But if the accommodation theory is correct, then God intentionally made incidental affirmations of falsehood in order to enhance communication. Therefore, would it not also be right for us to intentionally make incidental affirmations of falsehood whenever it would “enhance communication”? Yet this would be tantamount to saying that a minor falsehood told for a good purpose (a “white lie”) is not wrong. Such a position is contradicted by the Scripture passages cited on pages 49–51, yet it is a position implied by the accommodation theory.
Furthermore, accommodation creates a moral problem with the obligation people have with respect to God. The original readers or hearers of any passage in which there was accommodation to human error would have been unable to know that God was incidentally affirming falsehood that He did not intend them to believe (it was something they would have thought to be true). To them it would have been indistinguishable from all other parts of what God said. Since these words came to the hearers as God’s words, the hearers would have been under moral obligation to believe all of them. Therefore, according to the concept of accommodation, God would have been requiring His people to believe falsehood.
6. Accommodation would misuse a summary statement about the purpose of Scripture. To say that the major purpose of Scripture is to “make us wise unto salvation” or teach us in matters of “faith and practice” is to make a useful and correct summary of God’s purpose in giving us the Bible. But it is only a summary and it includes only the most prominent purpose or purposes of God in giving Scripture.
Therefore it is incorrect to use that summary to deny that it is part of the purpose of Scripture to tell us about minor historical details, or about some aspects of astronomy or geography, and so forth. A summary cannot properly be used to deny one of the things it is summarizing! To use it this way would simply show that the summary is not detailed enough to specify the items in question.
It is better to say that the whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever subject. Every one of God’s words in Scripture was deemed by Him to be important for us, whether or not we understand all of that importance at any one time. Thus, God issues severe warnings to anyone who would take away even one word from what He has said to us (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19): We cannot add to God’s words or take from them, for all are part of His larger purpose in speaking to us. Accommodation would use a summary of the Bible’s purpose to exclude from God’s purposes some matters on which God has in fact chosen to speak to us.
For these six reasons, the concept of accommodation seems to be an unsatisfactory way to formulate a conclusion about the texts we have analyzed concerning the statements of the Old and New Testaments about the truthfulness of the Bible.
THE POSSIBILITY OF FORMULATING A DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE
The texts we have examined have indicated clearly a few themes that must contribute to what Christians today believe about the nature and character of Scripture.
1. What has traditionally been called “verbal inspiration”—namely, the view that all the words of Scripture are spoken by God—is clearly taught by many passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In fact, it is “plenary” verbal inspiration,83 in that it includes every word of Scripture. The evidence is so great that it hits one, as Warfield said, like an avalanche, demonstrating that what Scripture says, God says.
2. The method of revelation from God to the authors of Scripture is seldom discussed. There is historical research (Luke 1:1–4), memory (John 14:26), the use of one’s own good judgment (1 Cor. 7:12), revelation in being caught up into heaven (2 Cor. 12:1–4), and dictation (Rev. 1:11–3:22). But for the most part the method of revelation is not specified. Scripture clearly was written by many different human authors, each employing his own vocabulary, style, and literary sense. Yet the emphasis of Scripture is not on the process but the result. By whatever process, every word written was exactly the word God wanted written, so that Scripture is not only the words of men but also the words of God.
3. The Old and New Testament authors clearly teach that Scripture is infallible—if that word is taken to mean that Scripture will never lead us astray in what we are to believe or obey (“matters of faith and practice”). It is as trustworthy and reliable as the God who speaks in it (Ps. 119:160; 2 Tim. 3:16).
4. Yet any attempt to find in the Bible some encouragement to restrict the areas in which Scripture is reliable and truthful will surely fail, for the implication of literally hundreds of verses is that God’s word is reliable in every way: It is free from all impurities (Ps. 12:6); it is eternal and unchanging in heaven (Ps. 119:89); it has unique and unlimited perfection (Ps. 119:96); it proves true in every word (Prov. 30:5); it is not only true in each part, but it is also “truth” when the parts are added together (Ps. 119:160). It is not limited to the truthfulness of man, but is as truthful as God Himself (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). We are to tremble before it (Isa. 66:2). Any historical detail in the Old Testament narrative can be cited with a confidence that it both “happened” and “was written down for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11), because every word of Scripture has been spoken by God who never lies (Titus 1:2) and for whom lying is impossible (Heb. 6:18). God’s word is not only “true”; it is “truth” (John 17:17). To say that Scripture is truthful in everything it says is to say that it is “inerrant”; it does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.
Certainly, truthfulness is not the only characteristic of Scripture associated with its divine authorship. It is also powerful and beautiful and necessary for awakening and sustaining our spiritual life. We are to tremble at its warnings, rejoice in its promises, receive with faith the salvation it offers, and speak the praises it contains. Yet the focus of this particular study was the authority and truthfulness that the authors of Scripture claimed for it.
It is evident from the New Testament that one cannot legitimately separate “matters of faith and practice” or “revelatory matters” from other matters in Scripture: The New Testament authors readily quote and rely on anything written in the Old Testament text, for “all Scripture … is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). Perhaps it has not been stated emphatically enough that nowhere in the Old Testament or in the New Testament does any writer give any hint of a tendency to distrust or consider slightly unreliable any other part of Scripture. Hundreds of texts encourage God’s people to trust Scripture completely, but no text encourages any doubt or even slight mistrust of Scripture. To rely on the “inerrancy” of every historical detail affirmed in Scripture is not to adopt a “twentieth-century view” of truth or error; it is to follow the teaching and practice of the biblical authors themselves. It is to adopt a biblical view of truth and error.
5. Once we have understood what these texts say about the Bible’s truthfulness, it is necessary to move from the academic exercise of examining scriptural texts to the personal question each person must ask himself: Will I believe this? Will I believe that the words of Scripture are the words of my Creator, the words of One who cannot lie, and that they are even now speaking to me?
To believe that all the words of the Bible are God’s words and that God cannot speak untruthfully will significantly affect the way in which one approaches a “problem text” or an “alleged error” in Scripture. To seek for a harmonization of parallel accounts will be a worthy undertaking.84 To approach a text with the confident expectation that it will, if rightly understood, be consistent with what the rest of the Bible says, will be a proper attitude. To allow less clear passages of Scripture to be interpreted with the help of passages that speak more clearly on the same subject will be a reasonable procedure. In all of this, the basis of such procedures will be the fact that one has learned something true from an inductive study of the Bible and that that truth is a conclusion drawn from careful observation of the data. But such a conclusion will now also function as a basis on which further investigation can proceed and further discoveries can be made. If we really believe what the Bible says about itself, can we do anything else?
1 Scripture quotations in this chapter are usually from the RSV; however, in a number of cases I have used my own translation, usually then indicating in a footnote the reasons why I differ with the RSV at that point.
2 See, for example, H. Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness (London: Lutterworth, 1947), p. 116; S. Mowinckel, The Old Testament as the Word of God, trans. R. Bjornard (Oslo, 1938; reprint ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1960), pp. 24–26; C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (London: Nisbet, 1928), p. 16; and, more recently, G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (Munich, 1960; reprint ed., London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962–65), 2:72 (a mixture of divine and human words).
3 J. Barr, “The Interpretation of Scripture II: Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 201–2.
4 James F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (London: SCM, 1962, pp. 98–107; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), p. 104; Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. H. C. White (London: Lutterworth, 1967), pp. 98–128; Jörg Jeremias, “Die Vollmacht des Propheten in Alten Testament,” Evangelische Theologie 31 (1971), p. 308; Rolf Rendtorff, “Nābî in the Old Testament,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (hereafter, TDNT) VI, p. 810; Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, trans. S. Neuijen (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), pp. 231–32; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM, 1965), pp. 24–25.
5 Ross, “Messenger,” p. 99.
6 Ibid., n. 9, includes a long list of such šālaḥ verses. By contrast, to prophesy without being “sent” as God’s messenger was to be a false prophet (Neh. 6:12; Jer. 14:14–15; 28:15; 29:9).
7 Ross, “Messenger,” pp. 100–101, and John S. Holladay, Jr., “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970): 29–51, show positive parallels where the messengers are spokesmen either for a god or for a human king. A thorough summary of the research is in John F. Craghan, “Mari and Its Prophets,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 5 (1975): 32–55. The year 1968 was a turning point in the study of Mari prophecy, since newly published tablets showed that not all the Mari prophets were messengers. It is safe to conclude that at times the Mari prophets were messengers of a god, and at other times not, since the texts show different kinds of functions (liturgical or cultic, political, private, public, etc.).
8 Ross, “Messenger,” pp. 101–5; Jeremias, “Vollmacht,” p. 315; Sheldon H. Blank, “ ‘Of a Truth the Lord Hath Sent Me’: An Inquiry into the Source of the Prophet’s Authority,” in Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1969). J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 103–4, gives a translation of a 14th-century-b.c. Egyptian text in which the god Nergal fails to show proper respect to the messenger of Ereshkigal, and therefore Ereshkigal seeks to kill Nergal. For later Jewish and Christian views on the importance of a messenger, see m. Ber. 5:5 (“the representative of a person is like himself”); John 3:34; Ignatius, Ephesians 6:1.
9 Lindblom, Prophecy, pp. 112–13 cf. Ross, “Messenger,” pp. 102–3, and Jeremiah 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7.
10
Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 110; cf. pp. 113–14. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), p. 78, says that not all prophetic sayings go back to special moments of inspiration—some owe their origin to the “lasting prophetic consciousness of being the messenger of Yahweh and … can therefore with equal right as the others be set out as direct divine speech in the first person.” However, it is doubtful whether the Old Testament attributes as much independence to the prophetic messenger as Eissfeldt suggests. In fact, to speak a word that Yahweh has not given makes one a false prophet (Deut. 18:20; Jer. 23:16, 18, 21, 22; Ezek. 13:1–7). The true prophet, as Yahweh’s messenger, must confine his message to what Yahweh has told him.
There is also danger in overemphasizing the sôd of Yahweh when we have so few biblical data (only Jer. 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7; and, without the term being used, 1 Kings 22:19). We are on safer ground if we think primarily in terms of the hearing/speaking pattern mentioned by Lindblom and repeated consistently throughout the prophetic literature (cf. Exod. 7:1–2 with 4:15–16, which Lindblom takes as a paradigm of Old Testament prophecy [pp. 113–14]; 1 Sam. 3:10–14; 2 Sam. 7:14–17; 24:11–13; 1 Kings 14:5; 2 Kings 20:4–6; Isa. 6:9; 7:4; Jer. 1:4–19; Ezek. 2:1–3:27; Jonah 3:2; et al.).
11 Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1961–67), 1:340.
12 Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft,” p. 43, n. 54.
13 A full listing is given in Mandelkern’s concordance, but the compact format of these pages would make the obtaining of an exact count an extremely tedious task (S. Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1941), pp. 532–33.
14 Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, pp. 109–10, 114; Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 94–95; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 19572), p. 308, n. 44; A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 19622), p. 37; Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft,” pp. 29–51; A. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 427–29; O. Procksch, “The Word of God in the Old Testament,” TDNT 4:97; H. H. Rowley, “The Nature of Old Testament Prophecy in the Light of Recent Study,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952), pp. 123–24. Similar statements from more conservative scholars are found in G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), pp. 233, 239; E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 176.
15 The superiority of Moses as the greatest prophet is a frequent theme in rabbinic literature; see Lev. Rab. 1:3, 14; 10:12; Num. Rab., 14:20; 23:5; Est. Rab., proem 10; b. Yebam. 49b; b. Ros. Has. 21b; Midr. Ps. on Psalm 90:4, sec. 4. In the Old Testament itself, see Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; Hosea 12:13 (14).
16 Nevertheless the prophets do not always speak for God in the first person. Note, for instance, the alternation between first and third person speech in 2 Kings 19:20–33; Jeremiah 23:15–21, et al.
17 In 1 Samuel 15:24 to sin is to transgress the commandment of the Lord and the words of Samuel the prophet.
18 The construction ha ʾamînû be– is the same in both clauses and should be translated in the same way to make the parallelism clear. “Believe in” would be acceptable in both cases, but simply “believe” is also possible (Exod. 19:9; 1 Sam. 27:12; Prov. 26:25; Jer. 12:6) and is perhaps more appropriate when the emphasis is not on the personal reliability of individual prophets but on the reliability of their words. There is a similar statement to 2 Chronicles 20:20 in Isaiah 7:9.
19 Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 110, says, “Yahweh sends his words through the prophet, and then the people are willing to obey ‘the voice of Yahweh,’ their God (Isa. 42:6).”
20 In view of the emphasis on writing among the records of the earlier prophets, however, it is somewhat misleading to restrict the term “writing prophets” to prophets from the eighth century onward. The Hebrew classification “Former Prophets” and “Latter Prophets” is probably more accurate.
21 Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 424, has a discussion with bibliographical notes. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Tel Aviv, 1937–48; reprint ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 354–56, argues strongly for the substantial completion of the texts in written form by the prophets themselves: “There are, then, no grounds for assuming that the literature ascribed to the prophets was cultivated by circles of disciples who eventually wrote it down, formulated it according to their lights.… We know nothing about ‘circles’ who could be credited with the cultivation and transmission of such traditions, written or oral” (p. 355). He concludes that the followers of a prophet preserved and transmitted the prophecies and wrote historical narratives about the prophets, but did not themselves create prophecies (pp. 354, 356).
22 Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 164.
23 There is a large body of literature on the role of the prophets as covenant messengers. See Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 58–62.
24 Lindblom, Prophecy, p. 164. For the view that in Jeremiah 36 the prophet is deliberately creating a “holy book,” see Martin Kessler, “The Significance of Jeremiah 36,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 81 (1969): 381–83.
25 Procksch, TDNT, 4:96. This was clearly the view of later Judaism. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927–30), p. 238, says, “From the books of the prophet Moses and the books containing the oracles of prophets and bearing their names it was an easy and perhaps unconscious step to the position that all the books of the Bible were written by prophets, that is, by men who had the holy spirit.”
26 There is another form of God’s word in the Old Testament, namely, God’s word of creative power. “Let there be light” in Genesis 1:3 is one example. But since the Old Testament authors do not view that form as communication from God to man, it is not part of our present inquiry.
27 G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. Jack B. Rogers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), mentions Numbers 23:19 once (p. 151), but does not consider its implications for evaluating the truth status of God’s words spoken (or written) by men. In fact, he seems to deny the implications of Numbers 23:19 when discussing the “reliability” of Scripture, for he says, “All that is human seems to be quite open to error and lies” (p. 240). He goes on to support that statement in a strange kind of affirmation-by-denial of Psalm 116:11: “One need not even be caught up in a fear like that of the poet in Psalm 116 who exclaimed, ‘All men are liars’ (Ps. 116:11, ASV), in order to realize that” (ibid.). It is significant that the verse he cites, Psalm 116:11, uses the word kāzaḇ to say that all men are “liars.” Yet this is the very word used in Numbers 23:19 to say that God’s words spoken by men do not lie.
28 The verb kāzāḇ, here translated “lie,” refers to any speech that is factually untrue, that does not correspond to reality (2 Kings 4:16; Job 6:28; 24:25; Ps. 89:35 [36]; Prov. 14:5). The corresponding noun kāzāb has a similar sense (Judg. 16:10, 13; Prov. 6:19; 14:5, 25). It is significant to notice that neither word is restricted to falsehood told for sinful purposes: both can be used of falsehood spoken for a good purpose (2 Kings 4:16; Judg. 16:10, 13). Neither word is restricted to falsehoods concerning theological or ethical subjects, or to falsehoods in major points as opposed to minor details. Verses like “A faithful witness does not lie [yeḵazzēḇ], but a false witness breathes out lies [kezāḇîm],” Proverbs 14:5, indicate a wide range of application, for in a trial, a false statement by a witness about any minor detail may be crucial to the outcome.
29 The phrase nēṣaḥ yiśrāʾēl is used only here as a name for God. Most modern translations read “Glory of Israel,” following the discussion in S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 19122), pp. 128–29.
30 The verb šāqar, here translated “lie,” occurs only six times in the Old Testament. It sometimes means “to deal falsely or deceitfully” (Gen. 21:23; 63:8; cf. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [BDB], p. 1055). However, it can mean simply “to speak falsehood,” at least in Leviticus 19:11 and 1 Samuel 15:29. Moreover, the corresponding noun šeqer, “lie,” often refers to any kind of factually untrue speech (Exod. 20:16; Lev. 6:3; Deut. 19:12; 1 Kings 22:22–23; Prov. 6:17, 19; 21:6; 29:12) and is nearly synonymous with kāzāḇ, “lie.” The noun šeqer is used of unintentional falsehood in Jeremiah 37:14.
31 The translation “words” (niv, nasb, kjv) is preferable to the rsv translation “promises,” a restriction in sense that is not necessary with ʾimrāh: cf. BDB, p. 57; F. D. Kidner, Psalms 73–150, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (TOTC) (London: Inter-Varsity, 1975), p. 419.
32 The phrase lā’āres would ordinarily signify “on the ground” (so rsv, nasb), but NIV has followed M. Dahood, Psalms I, Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 74–75, who argues that ʾereṣ can mean earth as a material and that le can take the sense of “from.” See also D. Kidner, Psalms 1–72, TOTC (London: Inter-Varsity, 1973), p. 76.
33 See E. D. Schmitz, s.v. “Hepta,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–78), 2:690.
34
See, for example, Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, p. 240. Also on page 17 he mentions those who argue that the words of Scripture should be evaluated according to divine standards of absolute reliability and truthfulness, not according to any human tendency to err. Berkouwer says that these people have taken their approach in order “so to cover over the human element by the divine that there was hardly anything relevant left of the human.” Such a sentence is certainly an imprecise if not even a careless representation of the view he opposes, for those who hold such a view have given repeatedly a unanimous affirmation of the involvement of real human personalities and the use of intelligible, normal language in the writing of Scripture. These are certainly “revelant” human factors in Scripture. Berkouwer however seems to suggest here that to have “anything relevant … of the human” element in Scripture we would need to have some factual error, some occasional untruthfulness of speech. Yet that is exactly what Psalm 12:6 (in the context of Ps. 12:1–2) denies.
In criticizing those who, according to Berkouwer, give “little significance” to the human character of Scripture, he speaks as follows of their position: “We can detect in this reaction a desire to depend on the divine as opposed to the human word” (p. 17; italics his). But should such a desire be criticized? The desire to depend on the divine instead of the human word is exactly the attitude expressed by the psalmist in Ps. 12:6 and given in Scripture as an example for us to emulate.
35 Once again the translation “word” (niv, nasb) is preferable to “promises” (rsv); see n. 31 above.
BDB F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
36 BDB, p. 662, n. 4.
37 C. A. Briggs and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary (ICC), 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906–07), 2:429.
38 The RSV reads “thy word.” The idea “sum” implies plurality, but the word itself is a collective singular: deḇārḵã (“your word”).
39
See Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1:41; 1 Macc. 4:45–46; 9:27; 14:41; Prayer of Azariah 15; 2 Baruch 85:3; b.Yoma 9b; b.Soṭa 48b; b. Sanh. 11a; Cant. Rab. 8:9:3. Str-B, 1:127 (b) also note t.Soṭa 13:2 and j.Soṭa 9:13 (24b, line 21); cf. also 1 QS 9:11.
See also R. Leivestad, “Das Dogma von der prophetenlosen Zeit,” NTS 19 (1972–73), pp. 288–99; also W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 19703), pp. 208–16; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: Second Series (Cambridge: University Press, 1924), p. 121; J. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), p. 382, n. 81.
40 The Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud at this point notes that “another” refers to a Baraitha—something excluded from the Mishnah (Nezkin, 3:672).
b. Babylonian Talmud
Sanh. Sanhedrin
41 Cf. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Str-B), vol. IV, i, pp. 443–51.
42 G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1:239.
43 Cf. Gerhard Delling, “Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus,” in Josephus-Studien, ed. Otto Betz et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974), p. 120.
Ag. Ap. Against Apion
Quis Her. Who Is the Heir
Spec. Leg. On the Special Laws
Fug. On Flight and Finding
Q. Gen. Questions on Genesis
44 For other passages in Philo on the authority of Scripture see Quis Her. 259; Spec. Leg. 1:65; Q. Gen. 4:196. However, some freedom is attributed to the prophet himself in Jos. 95. Cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 1:140.
45 The translation “All God-breathed scripture is also profitable …” (a sense found in the NEB and the RSV mg.) is highly unlikely because it makes the kai (“also”) awkward. In coherent speech, one must say that something has one characteristic before saying that it “also” has another characteristic. That is, “also” must indicate an addition to something that has previously been predicated. So pasa graphē theopneustos kai ōphelimos must be translated in a straightforward way: “All scripture is God-breathed and profitable.…” Cf. G. Schrenk, “graphō, ktl.” TDNT 1:754: “This obviously means every passage of scripture.”
46 In at least two cases, 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Peter 3:16, graphē also includes some of the New Testament writings.
BAG Bauer, W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
47 John J. Hughes, review of W. W. Gasque and W. S. Lasor, eds., Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation (Fs. E. F. Harrison), in Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ) 42:2 (Spring, 1980), p. 422. Hughes is correct in this criticism, for as this and many of the texts cited above indicate, the Old Testament and New Testament authors show great concern to affirm the result of inspiration, much less interest in specifying the purpose of inspiration, and very little interest in discussing the manner of inspiration or the mode of revelation (to use Hughes’s phrases).
48 See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), p. 243. There is nothing in the Hebrew text that corresponds to the extra lines in the LXX. Yet for our purposes it is sufficient to note that for the author of Hebrews, it was Old Testament Scripture and therefore able to be cited as something that God “says.” Whether this line is part of the correct text of Deuteronomy is a question of text criticism, not of theology proper. Hebrews 1:6 affirms that God said this, and to believe the New Testament would involve believing that God in fact did say these words. But Hebrews 1:6 does not affirm that the statement cited belonged to Deuteronomy or that Moses wrote it. It should not be thought impossible that in rare instances the biblical authors would say true facts but arrive at them for the wrong reasons (cf. the extreme instance in John 11:49–51). The text of Scripture affirms what the authors wrote, not necessarily every (unexpressed) reason they had for writing what they did.
49 Note that the argument also requires Davidic authorship of Psalm 110 in order to be valid.
50 These are not explicitly cited as fulfillments.
51 See, for example, Jack Rogers, “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority” in Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (Waco: Word, 1977).
52 Note that these same men who repented at Jonah’s preaching “will arise at the judgment.” These cannot easily be understood to be merely a literary creation: fictional characters are not people who will arise at the judgment. (It is unfortunate that this verse, probably the most relevant verse in the New Testament on the historicity of Jonah, is not discussed by Leslie Allen in his recent rejection of the historicity of Jonah: see Leslie Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 175–81.
53
In Matthew 22:35, huiou Barachiou is missing from Sinaiticus and at least four cursives; see B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (London and New York: Macmillan, 1896), p. 17.
Several solutions have been proposed for the difficulty caused when we read in 2 Chronicles 24:21 that Zechariah the son of Jehodiah (not Barachiah) was killed, but the existence of a weak yet significant textual attestation to the omission of “son of Barachiah” raises an interesting question in the following manner:
If one decides (as some have done) that the only two really likely solutions to this verse are (1) that Matthew (or Jesus) made a mistake and spoke of the wrong Zechariah or (2) that “son of Barachiah” was not in the autograph, then this verse becomes an interesting “test case,” for it requires that one decide which of two good convictions will weigh most heavily: the appropriateness of accepted procedures of text criticism (according to which the omission of “son of Barachiah” in the autograph is improbable) or the validity of the Bible’s claims to its own truthfulness (according to which such an omission is probable). One or the other conviction will turn out to have priority.
Of course, one can always argue that “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” does not refer to the prophet Zechariah (a solution that seems to me even less likely than the textual solution I have suggested), but that is a rather similar solution to the same dilemma, for only a conviction about the total reliability of Scripture (or of Jesus’ words) could persuade one to take such an otherwise unlikely solution.
It is not a case of “doctrine versus phenomena” of Scripture, however. It is a question of whether one’s observations about some phenomena (the passages examined in this essay, for example) will be more convincing than one’s observations about other phenomena (the way in which textual variants occur). (The RSV, NIV, and NASB have made somewhat similar choices for the weakly attested variant echomen in Rom. 5:1.)
54 Cf. W. Bauer, W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 777.
55 For the view that the “nonrevelational” statements of Scripture need not always be true (true, that is, in the sense that they correspond to reality), because the purpose of Scripture is “to make us wise unto salvation,” not to inform us of facts that could be discovered apart from revelation, see Daniel P. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968), pp. 75–83.
56 “Scientific statement” here is used in a broad sense to refer to a statement about observable phenomena in the natural world.
57 See n. 39 above. See also N. H. Ridderbos, “Canon of the Old Testament,” The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 186–94 (with bibliography).
58 Peter’s error that was corrected by Paul in Galatians 2:11–14 indicates something of the ordinary process of learning the application of the Christian faith to new situations that even the apostles experienced. Cf. Acts 11:2–18; 15:7 (“after there had been much debate”). The New Testament nowhere supports the idea that the apostles were free from sin in all their actions (or even that all their ideas were always correct), but rather that what they taught and wrote to the churches was, both in contents and words, God’s speech as well as their own and thus completely reliable.
59 There is in this passage some suggestion that the mode of revelation, at least in this instance, would be a kind of “supernatural” perfecting of a very “natural” process of remembering: the disciples would remember clearly, accurately, and fully, because the Holy Spirit would empower their memories not to make mistakes in recalling what Jesus said.
60 That Old Testament prophets are meant is evident (1) from 1:20–21 and 2:1, 16, where Old Testament prophets are in mind; (2) because the prophets are not connected with Christ or His words, as are the apostles; (3) because 2 Peter 3:1 makes it clear that a reference to 1 Peter is intended, and there the Old Testament prophets are in view (1:10–12); and (4) because in exhorting his readers to call certain words to mind, the author probably is thinking of written collections of words, of which there are many attributed to Old Testament prophets, but few or none attributed to New Testament prophets.
61
The last phrase can be translated in various ways. “Interpreting spiritual things in spiritual words” (pneumatikois as neuter) and “interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men” (pneumatikois as masculine) and “combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (synkrinō as “combine”) are all translations compatible with this interpretation. The second one is difficult because it makes Paul anticipate the thoughts of 2:15 and 3:1, that only “spiritual” people can understand these things. The first and third, however, make a nice summary of verses 12–13 (“what we learn from the Spirit we speak in words taught by the Spirit”). Since the context of interpreting things revealed is similar to the Old Testament context of interpreting dreams (synkrinō in this sense is found in Genesis 40:8, 16, 22; 41:12, 13, 15; Daniel 5:7, 12, 16 [of writing]; cf. synkrisis frequently in Daniel as “interpretation”), I prefer the first translation, but not strongly.
To take pneumatos as (human) “spirit” rather than “Spirit” (v. 13a, so niv mg.) would be to ignore the strong contrast (alla) in the verse between “human wisdom” and “Spirit.”
62
It is unnecessary here to decide which verses of 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 are general truths applicable to all believers (probably 7b; perhaps 12, 16b), and which Paul intends to restrict to himself and perhaps his companions or the other apostles, for in either case the primary application of the truths is to Paul’s own ministry, and it is in those verses that refer to his own speaking that this becomes most evident (2:6, 13; 3:1; 4:1). Cf. J. Kijne, “We, Us and Our in 1 & 2 Corinthians,” in Novum Testamentum 8 (1966): 171–79.
The aorist apekalypsen in verse 10 suggests a single past experience of revelation, and is thus best restricted to Paul alone. Had he been referring to a continuing reception of “revelations” by all believers, Paul would have used the present tense.
63 R. Scroggs, “Paul: SOPHOS and PNEUMATIKOS,” in New Testament Studies 14 (1967–68): 52, says, “Paul here asserts that the language used to proclaim the wisdom teaching is itself taught by the spirit.”
64 Cf. O. Cullmann, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (London: SCM, 1956), p. 74.
65 The reading estin entolē is to be preferred in verse 37. Estin alone, although shorter, is very unlikely because, with the exception of Origen, it is supported only by Western witnesses (D* G [it d,e,g] Origen [gr, lat] Ambrosiaster Hilary Pelagius), most of which are unreliable in other parts of this passage (D G it d,e,g and Ambrosiaster transpose vv. 34–35 to follow v. 40; Origen in the following verse gives three different readings). Also, the entolē could have been dropped to eliminate the awkward singular predicate nominative (entolē) following a plural subject (ha). The readings with entolai are best viewed as later attempts to conform to the plural ha. This leaves two alternatives, entolē estin (א*) and estin entolē; the latter has significant and diverse support (p 46 A B 048 1739 syrpal copbo eth Augustine), and is thus the one I have chosen. Contra G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London: The British Academy, 1953), pp. 139–40.
66 The textual variants in verse 38 do not materially affect my argument at this point. I have followed the RSV in translating verse 38.
67 Cf. J. Héring, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, trans. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock (London: Epworth, 1962), p. 155.
68 C. Masson, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Éphésiens, in L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates; L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Ephésiens, by Pierre Bonnard and Charles Masson, CNT (Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1953), pp. 62–63. Contra Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1958), p. 5.
70 For Paul’s use of “we” to refer only to himself, note 1 Thessalonians 2:18; 3:1–2.
71 This is not different from the authority claimed elsewhere (e.g., in 1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37), but as in those places the explicit statement of such a claim serves to emphasize that authority at a point where Paul must have thought such emphasis to be especially needed.
72 Though I here cite Paul as author of 1 Timothy, it is not essential to the argument at this point. Those who hold a view other than that of Pauline authorship will still see in 1 Timothy 5:18 a very early instance of the citation of Luke’s Gospel as “Scripture.”
73
One might argue that Paul is quoting from an earlier written collection of Jesus’ sayings that was also used by Luke, but that would not affect my argument here, which is intended to show only that written New Testament materials very early began to be counted as “Scripture” on a par with the Old Testament.
In favor of the view that Luke’s Gospel is being cited, however, are (1) the probability that Paul would have wanted to cite a text readily accessible to the Ephesians, or at least to Timothy, and that Luke’s Gospel certainly could have been circulating by the time 1 Timothy was written; and (2) the fact that we have a Gospel that did circulate widely and does have those words, but we have no remaining “sayings source” that certainly circulated among the churches.
74 Jesus harshly rebukes those who tell the truth only when under certain oaths (Matt. 5:33–37; 23:16–22).
75 The use of the noun alētheia suggests that God’s Word is here viewed not just as something that conforms to some other standard of truth but as being itself the final and ultimate standard against which all other claims to truthfulness must be tested. (2 Timothy 2:15 and James 1:18 call Scripture the “word of truth.”)
76
Daniel P. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 81. A related but somewhat different position is represented by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (New York: Harper and Row, 1979).
A similar position is also represented in the following statement by G. C. Berkouwer: “The supposition that limited human knowledge and time-boundness of any kind would cause someone to err and that Holy Scripture would no longer be the lamp for our feet unless every time-bound conception could be corrected, is a denial of the significance of historical development and of searching out as the unhappy business that God has given the sons of men to be busy with (Eccl. 1:13)” (Holy Scripture, p. 182). Berkouwer implies that there were always only two alternatives for God when speaking through Scripture: (1) to correct all the “time-bound” (presumably erroneous) conceptions of the hearers or (2) to affirm them. He fails to recognize a third possibility, namely, to correct those erroneous ideas that God deemed it necessary to correct and to remain silent concerning the others. In fact, this seems to be what happened. Certainly there were enough true ideas in any society to which Scripture was originally written for God to be able to communicate effectively without having to resort to the incidental affirmation of falsehood. (Fuller also fails to recognize this third possibility.)
Once again it must be emphasized that the Bible does not generally tell us exactly how this result came about (the method of revelation and inspiration). To say that the words of Scripture are exactly the words God wanted and that what Scripture says, God says, is clearly not to affirm mechanical “dictation.” It is only to say that in the wise providence of God, through the use of the personalities and writing styles of the individual authors, the Bible came to be exactly what God wanted it to be.
77 Ibid., pp. 81–82, where Fuller explains his view by use of the example of Matthew 13:32 and 17:20.
78 “Scientific statement” is again used here in the broad sense to refer to a statement about observable phenomena in the natural world. To distinguish “science” in this sense from “history,” we could further specify that science deals with constantly occurring or regularly repeatable phenomena, while history deals with the occurrences of unique events at certain points in time.
79 The passages are too numerous to list again here, but the reader may refer to the earlier sections on God’s speech directly to men, God’s words spoken by men, and God’s words in written form, both in the Old and the New Testaments.
80 See below, n. 84.
81
The case of the mustard seed, cited in Fuller, “Warfield’s View,” pp. 81–82, is a good example. The problem is that Fuller has adopted a definition of the word “seed” (sperma) that is foreign to the context of Matthew 13:32 and has thereby “discovered” in the text an error that really is not there. Fuller argues that “the mustard seed is not really the smallest of all seeds” (p. 81) and that therefore Jesus was not “as careful to be inerrant in this non-revelational matter” (p. 82) as He was in what Fuller terms “revelational” matters (those that make us wise unto salvation). Implicit in this argument is a rather specialized scientific sense of the word seed, something like the definition found in a modern dictionary: “A fertilized and ripened plant ovule containing an embryo capable of germinating to produce a new plant” (The American Heritage Dictionary [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969], p. 1174).
However, Jesus and His hearers would have been unlikely to attach any such modern scientific meaning to sperma, “seed” (or to the Aramaic equivalent used by Jesus). In an agricultural society, “seed” would have meant to both Jesus and His hearers something like “that which people plant in the ground to grow crops.” (Sperma takes this sense, for example, in Matt. 13:24, 27, 37, just a few verses before and after Matt. 13:32, and also in 1 Cor. 15:38; 2 Cor. 9:10.) This sense is further suggested by the preceding verse, which speaks of a mustard seed “which a man took and sowed in his field” (Matt. 13:31). In that sense of “seed,” a sense common to the New Testament, Jesus’ statement is in fact entirely accurate: the mustard seed is used in rabbinic writings when they needed a reference to the smallest perceptible object (Str-B cite y. Ber. 5.8d, 36; b. Ber. 31a; Lev. Rab. 31:9; m. Nid. 5:2; cf. O. Michel, TDNT, 3:810, n. 1) and therefore seems to have been the smallest seed cultivated by people in New Testament times. (The NIV has apparently adopted this meaning by translating “the smallest of all your seeds.”) So there is not even an incidental affirmation of any factual error in Matthew 13:32, once an appropriate New Testament meaning is given to “seed,” and the passage does not turn out to be a convincing example of “accommodation.”
(If the mustard seed had in fact not been the smallest cultivated seed, many other options would have been available to Jesus with no diminution of effectiveness in communication: “Consider the mustard seed, how small it is! Yet …” or “… the mustard seed, such a tiny seed,” etc. Even in such a case, accommodation that included the incidental affirmation of historical or scientific falsehood would not have been necessary, as Fuller on p. 82 suggests that it was to have highly effective communication.)
82 To say that it will show the greatness of God in His willingness to accommodate Himself and affirm our errors is to misunderstand the purity and unity of God: He does not manifest greatness by acting in a way that contradicts His character.
83 Because the terms plenary and inspiration have become somewhat obscure technical terms in theological study, I have tried to avoid using them up to this point and have attempted to use other words or phrases that allow my meaning to be more clearly specified. In this concluding paragraph I have used the terms in their traditional sense and have also explained what I mean by them.
84 An analysis of various “problem texts” is itself a useful subject for study and is logically the next step after this discussion. Yet such a study has limited value in formulating a doctrine of Scripture: I have looked at dozens of such texts, and in every single case there are possible solutions in the commentaries. If one accepts the Bible’s claim to be God’s very words, then the real question is not how “probable” any proposed solution is in itself, but how one weighs the probability of that proposed solution against the probability that God has spoken falsely. Personally I must say the “difficult texts” would have to become many times more difficult and many times more numerous before I would come to think that I had misunderstood the hundreds of texts about the truthfulness of God’s words in Scripture, or that God had spoken falsely.
Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, / Nor are your ways My ways … / For as the heavens are higher than the earth, / So are My ways higher than your ways, / And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8–9). God is infinite, man is finite, so there are mysteries about God that man cannot fully understand. One of these mysteries is the Trinity, the tri-personality of God. According to Christian orthodoxy, God is one God in essence, power, and authority, and also eternally exists as three distinct co-equal persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that Christians believe in three gods (polytheism). Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three distinct persons, and all three share the exact same divine nature or essence.
Understanding this fully is beyond human comprehension and has no human parallels, although various analogies have been offered. One of these analogies is the three physical states of water. Water is not only a liquid but also a solid (ice) and a gas (vapor), yet its chemical composition (substance) never changes in all three forms (two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen—H2O). Although such analogies help us visualize the concept of the Trinity, they all fall short in some way. In the case of the water analogy, although the molecule H2O can be liquid, solid, or gas, it is never all three at one time. The Trinity, on the other hand, is all three persons as one God.
The word Trinity is not used in Scripture, but it has been adopted by theologians to summarize the biblical concept of God. Difficult as it is to understand, the Bible explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and it deserves to be explained as clearly as possible, especially to non-Christians who find the concept a stumbling-block to belief. So let’s dig into this topic by addressing four key questions.
IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IRRATIONAL?
The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly a mystery but that doesn’t mean it’s irrational. The concept cannot be known by human reason apart from divine revelation, and, as we’ll soon see, the Bible definitely supports the idea of the Trinity. But for now, I want to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity, although beyond human comprehension, is nevertheless rational. Our acceptance of it is congruous with how we respond to other data about the known world.
There are many things about the universe we don’t understand today and yet accept at face value simply because of the preponderance of evidence supporting their existence. The scientific method demands that empirical evidence be accepted whether or not science understands why it exists or how it operates. The scientific method does not require that all data be explained before it is accepted.
Contemporary physics, for instance, has discovered an apparent paradox in the nature of light. Depending on what kind of test one applies (both of them “equally sound”), light appears as either undulatory (wave-like) or corpuscular (particle-like). This is a problem. Light particles have mass, while light waves do not. How can light have mass and not have it, apparently at the same time? Scientists can’t yet explain this phenomenon, but neither do they reject one form of light in favor of the other, nor do they reject that light exists at all. Instead, they accept what they’ve found based on the evidence and press on.
Like physicists, we are no more able to explain the mechanics of the Trinity than they can explain the apparent paradox in the nature of light. In both cases, the evidence is clear that each exists and harbors mystery. So we must simply accept the facts and move on. Just because we cannot explain the Trinity, how it can exist, or how it operates does not mean that the doctrine must be rejected, so long as sufficient evidence exists for its reality. So let’s now explore this evidence.
HOW DOES THE BIBLE PRESENT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Although the doctrine of the Trinity is fully revealed in the New Testament, its roots can be found in the Old Testament.
In several places, God refers to Himself in plural terms. For example, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image’” (Gen. 1:26; see 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8).
The Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament as being divine. Isaiah 9:6 states that the Messiah will be called “Mighty God,” a term applied in the Old Testament specifically to Yahweh (see Mic. 5:2).
Isaiah 48:16 refers to all three members of the Godhead: “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God [Father] has sent Me [Jesus], and His Spirit [the Holy Spirit]” (nasv).
The Old Testament also makes numerous references to the Holy Spirit in contexts conveying His deity (Gen. 1:2; Neh. 9:20; Ps. 139:7; Isa. 63:10–14).
THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament provides the most extensive and clear material on the Trinity. Here are just a few of the texts that mention all three members of the Godhead and imply their co-equal status.
• Matthew 28:19, the baptismal formula: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name [not ‘names’] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
• Matthew 3:16, at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan: “And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit [Holy Spirit] of God [Father] descending as a dove, and coming upon Him [Jesus]” (nasv).
• Luke 1:35, the prophetic announcement to Mary of Jesus’ birth: “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest [Father] will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God [Jesus].’”
• The trinitarian formula is also found in 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and 1 Corinthians 12:4–6.
DIGGING DEEPER
To explain the doctrine of the Trinity, I will take an inductive (scientific) approach. By this I mean I will accumulate general facts in Scripture that lead to a specific conclusion—that the nature of God is triune. The argument will go like this:
1. The Bible teaches that God is one (monotheism) and that He possesses certain attributes that only God can have.
2. Yet when we study the attributes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that all three possess the identical attributes of deity.
3. Thus we can conclude that there is one God eternally existing as three distinct persons.
God Is One (Monotheism)
The Hebrew Shema of the Old Testament is “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut. 6:4; see Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 46:9). Some people have argued that this passage actually refutes the concept of the triune nature of God because it states that God is one. But the Hebrew word for “one” in this text is echod, which carries the meaning of unity in plurality. It is the same word used to describe Adam and Eve becoming “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Scripture is not affirming that Adam and Eve literally become one person upon marriage. Rather, they are distinct persons who unite in a permanent relationship.
The New Testament confirms the teaching of the Old: “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19, nasv; see 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4–6).
God Has a Certain Nature
Both the Old and New Testaments list the attributes of God. We won’t consider all of them here, but what follows are some of the clearest expressions of what constitutes deity.
• God is omnipresent (present everywhere at once): Psalm 139:7–10; Jeremiah 23:23–24.
• God is omniscient (possesses infinite knowledge): Psalms 139:1–4; 147:4–5; Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20.
• God is omnipotent (all-powerful): Psalm 139:13–18; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 19:26.
The Father Is God
To the Jews, who do not accept the Trinity, God is Yahweh. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is to the Hebrews what Father is in the New Testament and to Christians. The attributes of God (Yahweh) listed above are the same for Yahweh and Father because both names apply to the one God. Although the concept of God as Father is not as explicit in the Old Testament as it is in the New, nevertheless, it has its roots in the Old (see Pss. 89:26; 68:5; 103:13; Prov. 3:12).
In the New Testament, the concept of the Father as a distinct person in the Godhead becomes clear (Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:17). God is viewed as Father over creation (Acts 17:24–29), the nation of Israel (Rom. 9:4; see Exod. 4:22), the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:17), and all who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior (Gal. 3:26).
The Son Is God
Like the Father, Jesus possesses the attributes of God. He is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). He is also omniscient: He knows people’s thoughts (Matt. 12:25), their secrets (John 4:29), the future (Matt. 24:24–25), indeed all things (John 16:30; 21:17). His omnipotence is also taught. He has all power over creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), death (John 5:25–29; 6:39), nature (Mark 4:41; Matt. 21:19), demons (Mark 5:11–15), and diseases (Luke 4:38–41).
In addition to these characteristics, Jesus exhibits other attributes that the Bible acknowledges as belonging only to God. For example, He preexisted with the Father from all eternity (John 1:1–2), accepted worship (Matt. 14:33), forgave sins (Matt. 9:2), and was sinless (John 8:46).
The Holy Spirit Is God
The Holy Spirit is also omnipresent (Ps. 139:7–10), omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10), and omnipotent (Luke 1:35; Job 33:4).
Like Jesus, the Holy Spirit exhibits other divine attributes that the Bible ascribes to God. For instance, He was involved in creation (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30), inspired the authorship of the Bible (2 Pet. 1:21), raised people from the dead (Rom. 8:11), and is called God (Acts 5:3–4).
The upshot of all this is that God is triune. In a formal argument, we can put it this way:
Major Premise:
Only God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
Minor Premise:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
Conclusion:
Therefore, God is triune as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
THE TRINITY
HOW DOES JESUS TEACH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?
In the Bible, Jesus claims to be God and then demonstrates this claim by displaying the attributes of God and by raising Himself from the dead. So what Jesus has to say about God must be true. And Jesus clearly teaches that God is triune.
Jesus Is Equal with the Father and Holy Spirit
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells His followers to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” He uses the singular word name but associates it with three persons. The implication is that the one God is eternally three co-equal persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Is One with the Father
In John 14:7 and 9, Jesus identifies Himself with the Father by saying to His disciples, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him … He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (see John 5:18). Jesus is not claiming to be the Father; rather, He is saying that He is one with the Father in essence.
Jesus Is One with the Holy Spirit
Continuing in John 14, Jesus tells His disciples that, after He is gone, He will send them “another Helper” who will be with them forever and will indwell them (vv. 16–17). The “Helper” is the Holy Spirit. The trinitarian implication lies with the word another. The apostle John, as he wrote this passage, could have chosen one of two Greek words for another. Heteros denotes “another of a different kind,” while allos denotes “another of the same kind as myself.” The word chosen by John was allos, clearly linking Jesus in substance with the Holy Spirit, just as He is linked in substance with the Father in verses 7 and 9. In other words, the coming Holy Spirit will be a different person than Jesus, but He will be the same with Him in divine essence just as Jesus and the Father are different persons but one in their essential nature. Thus, in this passage, Jesus teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.
So far we have seen that the authors of Scripture and Jesus Christ teach the triune nature of God. Therefore, the only way the doctrine of the Trinity can be rejected is if one refuses to accept the biblical evidence. Some groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, do this by reinterpreting and altering Scripture. Others, such as the Unitarians (who claim that Jesus is just a man), arbitrarily and without any evidence deny anything supernatural or miraculous in the Bible. Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unitarians are guilty of the very same thing of which they accuse Christians—irrationality. They refuse to accept the evidence for the Trinity regardless of how legitimate it is. This is unscientific and irrational. If one approaches Scripture without bias, he will clearly discover what the church has maintained for centuries: God is triune—one God in essence but eternally existing in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
A COMMON OBJECTION
Perhaps you’ve wondered or heard someone say, “If Jesus is one in essence with the Father, an equal member of the triune Godhead, why does He say, ‘the Father is greater than I’” (John 14:28)? This question actually moves away from the doctrine of the Trinity and launches us into the doctrine of the incarnation, the process whereby Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, came to earth as man. Nevertheless, because this question is frequently raised as an objection, it needs to be answered.
Numerous passages in Scripture teach that Jesus, although fully God, is also fully man (John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). However, Philippians 2:5–8 states that, in the process of taking on humanity, Jesus did not give up any of His divine attributes. Rather, He gave up His divine glory (see John 17:5) and voluntarily chose to withhold or restrain the full use of His divine attributes. There are numerous instances in Scripture where Jesus, although in human form, exhibits the attributes of deity. If Jesus had surrendered any of His divine attributes when He came to earth, He would not have been fully God and thus could not have revealed the Father as He claimed to do (John 14:7, 9).
The key to understanding passages such as John 14:28 is that Jesus, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, has a particular position in the triune Godhead. Jesus is called the Son of God, not as an expression of physical birth, but as an expression of His position in relationship to the Father and Holy Spirit. This in no way distracts from His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit or with His membership in the Godhead. As man, Jesus submits to the Father and acts in accordance to the Father’s will (see John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28). So when we read passages such as Mark 14:36 where Jesus submits to the Father’s will, His submission has nothing to do with His divine essence, power, or authority, only with His position as the Incarnate Son.
Perhaps an illustration will help to explain this. Three people decide to pool their money equally and start a corporation. Each are equal owners of the corporation, but one owner becomes president, another vice-president, and the third secretary/treasurer. Each are completely equal so far as ownership, yet each has his own particular function to perform within the corporation. The president is the corporate head, and the vice-president and secretary/treasurer are submissive to his authority and carry out his bidding.
So when Jesus the God-man submits to the Father’s will or states that the Father is greater than He or that certain facts are known only by the Father (e.g., Matt. 24:36), it does not mean that He is less than the other members of the Godhead but that in His incarnate state He did and knew only that which was according to the Father’s will. The Father did not will that Jesus have certain knowledge while in human form. Because Jesus voluntarily restrained the full use of His divine attributes, He was submissive to the Father’s will.
Why did Jesus choose to hold back from fully using His divine powers? For our sake. God willed that Jesus feel the full weight of man’s sin and its consequences. Because Jesus was fully man, He could fulfill the requirements of an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. Only a man could die for the sins of mankind. Only a sinless man could be an acceptable sacrifice to God. And it is only because Jesus is an equal member of the triune Godhead, and thus fully God, that He was able to raise Himself from the dead after dying on the cross and thereby guarantee our eternal life.
When all the evidence is accounted for and the verdict read, the Bible clearly teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal members of the Godhead, yet one in essence, power, and authority. All three are one God. Were this not the case, if the Trinity were not a reality, there would be no Christianity.
[1]
[1]Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (99). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer and edited by Craig Winn
“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” (Proverbs 18:17)
The Charge of Contradiction
Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi’s Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.
The Muslims quote from the Qur’an (4:82) which says “do they not consider the Qur’an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a discrepancy.”
A Definition of Revelation:
In order to respond to this challenge it is important we understand the presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God’s word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge God’s word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the discussion of revelation. And it is a criterion which is lethal to Islam as the QurÕan is filled with internal contradictions as well as errors of fact, history, and science.
Setting a false standard is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur’an. Their book, the Qur’an, is falsely believed to have been ‘sent down’ from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this misconception of scripture which they then impose upon the Bible. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur’anÑa criterion upon which the QurÕan itself fails miserably.
The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims errantly claim for their Qur’an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author’s intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author’s contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.
A Definition of Inspiration:
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means “God-breathed,” implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were “carried along” by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.
The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Yahshua says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, “…you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God…” Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, “…Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters…” Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit.” And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, “…if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life…”
Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly when he says, “The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration” (McDowell 1990:178).
How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find erroneously claimed for the Qur’an, or does He use the writersÕ own minds and experiences?
The simple answer is that God’s control was always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than “The Word of God in the words of men” (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, and generalization and approximation as what they are. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another if they can be explained or if they are minor. It is not right to set the so-called ‘phenomena’ of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall not pretend to create one, but instead hope for future enlightenment. For example, not too long ago the OT was considered false because there was no evidence that the Hittites existed. Today, proof abounds.
This is not a blind hope in other areas either. For instance, a century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people would say “This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we don’t need anymore”. However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also be seen with the Bible. So many ‘discrepancies’ have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God’s time, the rest will be solved as well.
We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their erroneous view of the QurÕan. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the ‘sent down’ concept which they wrongly claim for their Qur’an, Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil (‘sent down’) transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially since the document makes no such claim itself? Especially since, the QurÕan fails miserably in this regard.
The underlying reason perhaps lies in the misguided belief by Muslims that the Qur’an, because it is the only revelation which came “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.
Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur’an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a Qur’an from the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity of the Qur’an versus the Bible.)
Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early Qur’ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur’anic codices which were prevalent during the unverified collating of the Uthmanic recension in the mid-seventh century. Since the conflicting copies were allegedly destroyed, we cannot know today whether the Qur’an in our possession was even similar to that which was first revealed.
What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). Further, the QurÕan was recited by a man who claimed to have forgotten much of it. Not only was it ultimately written down by men, it had to be passed along orally for decades. WhatÕs more, the resulting book is a jumbled mess, often plagiarized, and very poorly written. Even when one takes the worst passage of the Bible and contrasts it with the best of the QurÕan, the comparison is shocking.
God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This may be why the Qur’an says that only Allah understands portions of it.
There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur’an gives towards the Bible? How can a book which the QurÕan says its God inspired not measure up to the standards it imposes?
The Qur’an gives authority to the Bible:
The Qur’an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives divine authority to the Bible and claims itÕs authentic, at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:
Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur’an, saying, “…the revelation given to us…and Jesus…we make no difference between one and another of them.” Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, “Allah…He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)…as a guide to mankind.” Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, “…Believe…and the scripture which He sent before him.” In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: “…We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel… Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel…” Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: “People of the Book!…Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD.”
To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament’s authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord.” And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, “…the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message.” This is crucial as it doesnÕt say: Òthose who possessed the message.Ó That means according to the QurÕan at the time of this revelation in the seventh century the Bible was the uncorrupted Word of God.
Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, “And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you.” This in itself is devastating to Islam as the ÒrevelationsÓ are mutually exclusive and completely incompatable.
If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur’an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur’an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur’an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur’an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.
There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), “…who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah…?”Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed “the testimony they have from Allah.” In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.
God does not change His Word
Furthermore, the Muslim Qur’an holds to the premise that God does not change His word and that it cannot be changed. Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah.” This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,” found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29. The QurÕanÕs law of abrogation found in Sura 2:106 contradicts these verses, but thatÕs just one of many QurÕanic anomalies.
In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeableness of God’s word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20. If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur’an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the Bible. What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims claim are there? If they are there, such an attack is suicidal for Islam.
Contradictions analyzed:
When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these supposed errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then a copyist mistake or translation error. The former can easily be explained, while the latter needs a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.
Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 10,000 other early translations. In all we now have more than 25,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).
Christians readily admit, however, that there have been ‘scribal errors’ in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Although Muslims are wont to deny it, these scribal errors have been proven to exist in their book as the earliest QurÕan fragments differ significantly from todayÕs text. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist as they all preceded the invention of paper, which is more durable, in the fourth century A.D.
The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222) In Hebrew numbers are a significant problem because they were designated by letters, not numerals.
What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine or teaching of the BibleÑnot one. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. This is even true if the language is the same as time significantly alters the meaning of words. For example, the Religious Arabic of the QurÕan is so dated, it is no longer written or spoken apart from the QurÕan. And there are many words in which no one knows their meaning. Moreover, language itself is an imprecise tool. Meanings are heavily influenced by time, culture, circumstance, and even inflection. Often, the context of a passage is often as important to the meaning as the words themselves.
Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians are served with a host of translations and Hebrew and Greek dictionaries so they have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ.” (2 Tim. 3:15)
With that in mind let’s look at the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?
While answering these challenges it became obvious that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently finding “contradictions” in the BibleÑmost of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur’an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur’an has very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book with a critical eye. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the Bible.
On the second page of his booklet “101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible”, Shabbir Ally states “Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth.”
We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfill this request. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir requested, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth. Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found herein.
1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David’s reign, and David was looking back over his career, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of Yahweh.
Yahweh, therefore, decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab’s warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, a disastrous plague struck Israel bringing about an enormous loss of life (70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).
What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1)? It seems SatanÕs reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease Yahweh (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so Satan incited David to carry it through.
Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both Yahweh and Satan were involved in tests and trials:
In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from Yahweh allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. Yahweh ‘s purpose was to purify Job’s faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan’s purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.
Similarly both Yahweh and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. Yahweh’s purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan’s purpose is to ‘devour’ them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and thus down to his level.
Both Yahweh and Satan allowed Yahshua the three temptations during his ministry on earth. Yahweh ‘s purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan’s purpose was to deflect the savior from his Messianic mission.
In the case of Peter’s three denials of Yahshua in the court of the high priest, it was Christ himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.“
And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both Yahweh and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Yahshua. YahwehÕs reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.
Thus we have five examples where both Yahweh and Satan were involved for different reasons and with entirely different motives. Satan’s motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while Yahweh in all these cases showed a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan’s success was limited and transient; while in the end Yahweh’s purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially. (Archer 1982:186-188)
2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000. (Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)
There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.
It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.
The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab’s report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word ‘is hayil, which is translated as “mighty men,” or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age who were neither trained nor ready to fight. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term ‘is hayil to describe them. (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)
3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5. (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi’s either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David’s Chronicle.
The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent which causes the numbers to mesh perfectly.
Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) thekingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin). (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)
4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three. (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, and misunderstood the wording)
There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.
Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is “shell seven years of famine come to you?” In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, “take for yourself either three years of famine…” From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David’s earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for a third option, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence. (Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)
5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)
Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers due to the fact that they were represented by letters and the convention changed over time.
The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah’s father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father’s death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed. (Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts) (Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)
6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)
Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father’s death.
A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.
As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be virtually identical: /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal.
If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was old, if the papyrus parchment became frayed, the dye blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged, faded, or been lost in the weaving of the papyrus.
In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS from 275 B.C. and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.
Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972. Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count. (Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)
7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.
8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)? (Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)
It is quite possible that the authors may have described two different incidents, though by the same man. One author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full. ItÕs even possible that the chief is being credited with the work of his soldiers in one account and not in the other. (Light of Life II 1992:187)
9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text)
Shabbir Ally should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David’s victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first moved from Baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.
Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later). In both cases the timing of events is the same.
While the BibleÕs chronologies are accurate in this regard, same cannot be said of the Qur’an. In Sura 2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then we jump thousands of years ahead to God’s mercy to the Israelites, followed by a giant leap backwards to Pharaoh’s drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses have to do with Yahshua, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with Adam’s fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the Qur’an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before errantly criticizing the Bible. (Light of Life II 1992:176)
10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)? (Category: misquoted the text)
This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6th chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any ‘clean’ animals in its figure, while the 7th chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals and 2 pairs of every kind of ‘unclean’ animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question itself.
The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice. (Archer 1982:81-82)
11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)? (Category: copyist error)
There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.
A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000. Either way, this like all of the numerical disunions is immaterial to the message and ultimately meaningless. (Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life II 1992:182)
12. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)? (Category: copyist error, or misunderstood the historical context)
There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted due to constant use. The horizontal lines and downward hooks used to designate decadal numbers were easily lost in the grooves inherent in parchment fiber, especially as it aged.
Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones. Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father David had left him. (Light of Life II 1992:191)
13. According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26th year of king Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36th year (2 Chronicles 16:1)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context, or copyist error)
There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see Archer, page 225-116).
Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist’s error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge or fiber separation from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly on his copy. (Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of Life II 1992:194)
14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) to build the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
This is not a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of supervisors who become ill, injured or died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the engaged supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness, injury and death occured, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose. (Light of Life II 1992:192)
15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, or copyist error)
The Hebrew verb rendered “contained” and “held” is different from that translated “received”; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.
Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2,000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.
It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this “contradiction” and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since ‘pi’ dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter). Shabbir made the humorous comment “Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!” But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was more interested in a cheap laugh than truth. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside of the vessel. Each would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference. In other words, Shabbir would get baptized if he were a man of his word. (Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)
16-21. Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra 2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)? (note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the same census, I have included them as one) (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen family units are identical, while fourteen show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.
How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).
There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.
A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra’s register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah’s register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.
Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.
The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans or city-group’s came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.
When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44). When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured every large migration in human history. (Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II 1992:219-220)
22. Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra – 29,818 and Nehemiah – 31,089? (Category: copyist error)
There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist’s error. The original texts had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have been larger.
The other possibility is forwarded by the learned Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may be metaphorical, following “...the pattern of the Exodus and similar traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols of the magnitude of Yahweh, and in this particular instance indicating the triumphant deliverance that Yahweh achieved for His captive people” (Harrison 1970:1142-1143).
Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since in such cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects the mistake (the added totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator, Matthew Henry once wrote, “Few books are printed without minor errors and typographical mistakes; yet, authors do not disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the press imputed to the author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by comparing them with some other part of the work.” (Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)
23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly? (Category: rounding)
As in question 7, a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 to 200. That was acceptable at the time and remains so today.
24. Was King Abijah’s mother’s name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This apparent contradiction rests on the understanding of the Hebrew word bat, equivalent to the English daughter. Although usually used to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally refer to more distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which states: ‘O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul…’ As this is approximately 900 years after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this refers to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.
When seen in this light, the ‘contradiction’ vanishes. 2 Chronicles 13:2 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of Uriel. We can assume that Uriel married Tamar, Absalom’s only immediate daughter. Together they had Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became the mother of Abijah. 2 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that Maachah was a daughter of Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous grandfather, instead of her lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage. Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah. Therefore, the family tree looks like this:
Absalom/Abishalom
|
Tamar-----Uriel
|
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
|
Abijah
25. Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem? (Category: misread the text)
The short answer is, not in this campaign. The verses given are in complete harmony and the confusion arises solely from misreading the passage concerned.
In Joshua 10, it is the king of Jerusalem that is killed: his city is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26). The five Amorite kings and their armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon. Joshua and the Israelites routed them and the five kings fled to the cave at Makkedah, from which Joshua’s soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed them all. Concerning their armies, verse 20 states: ‘the few who were left reached their fortified cities’, which clearly indicates that the cities were not captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.
Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this particular military campaign. It states that several cities were captured and destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of these cities are south-west of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army were defeated in the field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30 comparison is made to the earlier capture of Jericho, but neither of these last two cities were captured at this time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of which took place to the south and west of Jerusalem. Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately 10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as captured in Joshua 10. This agrees completely with Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem.
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view. Both are important as one establishes the legal lineage to David while the other the blood lineage, fulfilling a Messianic requirement.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.
This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. ‘the’ Heli, ‘the’ Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though his name was used. The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4). (Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)
27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This is directly linked to ‘contradiction’ 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan again fulfilling prophecy.
28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Yahshua, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!
29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is not surprising that their sons had different names. There was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph’s father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.
The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13.
30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Yahshua is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Yahshua’s ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of ‘son’. Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.
With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram – Ahaziah – Joash – Amaziah – Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).
Matthew’s telescoping of Joseph’s genealogy is acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Yahshua as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline Yahshua’ position as the son of David.
31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah’s father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew’s aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.
32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As Matthew states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. The simplest way of resolving the matter is that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. Either way of counting is acceptable.
33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.
On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah’s grandfather). ItÕs reassuring to know that the Septuagint, the oldest surviving copy of the OT, is the most accurate in numerical details, especially as they relate to decimal positions.
34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
An unenlightened reading of Matthew would suggest that Yahshua is saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John records John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of awareness and context.
The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For Yahweh says through the prophet Malachi: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of Yahweh comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.” Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, and the question was quite logical.
John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously “No, I am not Elijah.” Yahshua also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.
When Yahshua says to the priests of John “If you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come,” he is demonstrating that he is God because he knows the future. He knows that the priests will reject JohnÕs message and thus his first coming begins quietly and benignly; itÕs hardly Ògreat and dreadful.Ó And it ends with the cross, resurrection, and the indwelling of his spirit in men.
The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying “he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17) He correctly says that John will go Òin the spirit and power of ElijahÓ which is YahwehÕs spirit and power. Gabriel doesnÕt say that John is Elijah.
The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3 (see Luke 3:4 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5 mentioned above, which says “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”.“Elijah” whom Yahweh foretold through Malachi the prophet will return to usher in the Ògreat and dreadful dayÓ of Yahweh. At the second coming, Yahshua, who is Yahweh in the flesh, returns in great power and the day is dreadful as he obliterates the hundreds of millions of soldiers who have amasses in Medigo, ready to destroy Jerusalem and wipe out the Jewish people.
So, John wasnÕt Elijah, yet he spoke with the same spirit and power. His mission is the same, too, as both usher in the Messiah. Had the priests and Levites accepted his message, the first coming wouldnÕt have ended with a crucifixion.
Yahshua in Matthew 17:11 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, and it is. He says that this “Elijah” will suffer, like he, will suffer, and he did. “The disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.” Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was performing ElijahÕs role and was speaking with the same power and authorityÑpreparing the way for the Messiah, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John 1:29.
35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David’s throne? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Yahshua was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he shows how Yahshua avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Yahshua’s true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: ‘the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David’. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David’s throne. (Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)
36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)? (Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)
The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Yahshua rode into Jerusalem on. It is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his point regarding this event.
It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event. Shabbir Ali omitted the reference in John 12:14. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Yahshua sat on a colt. Logic shows that there is no “contradiction” as Yahshua cannot ride on two animals at once. So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.
Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Yahshua did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says: “Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’.” Matthew 21:5
By saying “a donkey” and then “on a colt, the foal of a donkey” Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as “parallelism,” simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. Couplets are very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” saying the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Yahshua rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.
So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness, emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway. Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.
This is just one of many of the prophecies that Yahshua fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two of hundreds.
Muslims are told to believe that in the Taurat or Torah, there is reference to a prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, Muslims yet have to come up with one, confirming that the QurÕan is errant regarding one of its most crucial doctrines.
37. Simon Peter finds that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)? (Category: too literalistic)
The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else; Yahweh had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Yahshua’s point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Yahshua and he understood that Yahshua was none other than the Christ (Messiah), and thus Yahweh. Yahshua did not ask, “Who have you heard that I am?” but, “Who do you say I am?” There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was not in doubt.
38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)? (Category: misread the text)
The accusation is that one Gospel records Yahshua meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.
John 1:35 onwards says Yahshua met them by the river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Yahshua then performed his first recorded miracle. “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” John 2:12.
Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John 2:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for at this time Yahshua was only just beginning public teaching or healing).
This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Yahshua calls them to follow himÑto leave all they have behind and become his disciples. Before this took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist’s testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Yahshua said (John 1:47-51), as well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived, it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied piper! Yahshua did not enchant anyoneÑthey followed as they realized who he wasÑthe one all the prophets spoke of, the MessiahÑGod.
39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter ‘had just died’ (Matthew 9:18), or was ‘at the point of death’ (Mark 5:23)? (Category: too literalistic)
When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn’t have gone to look for Yahshua. When he met Yahshua he was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial points are clear: Jairus’s daughter had a fatal illness.All that could have been done would already have been. She was as good as dead if not already dead. Jairus knew that Yahshua could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference. Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Yahshua.
40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)
It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning whether Yahshua allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation.
In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word “ktesthe,” which is rendered in the King James translation as “Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet staves.” According to a Greek dictionary this word means “to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise” (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Yahshua is saying “Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you are.”
Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Yahshua directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, (“take“); but then, like Matthew adds “no staff, no bag, no bread, no money”. But Matthew 10:10 includes what was a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Yahshua.
This trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is erroneously taught about the Qur’an. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this “contradiction” would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.
41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist? (Category: misread the text)
There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Yahshua could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met Yahshua, at his trial, he no longer thought that he was John (Luke 23:8-11). He had heard more about him and understood John’s claims about preparing for one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Yahshua had been baptized by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same person.
42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
John’s statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Yahshua except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Yahshua even while John was in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:41 relates that when Mary visited John’s mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary’s presence, as the mother of the Lord.
From this passage we can also see that John’s mother had some knowledge about who Yahshua would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).
In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Yahshua was simply a confirmation of what he already thought. Yahweh removed any doubt so that he could be.
43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism? (Category: misread the text)
In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John recognized Yahshua. We should have no doubt at all about this.
Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in the interim. John’s original knowledge of Yahshua was limited to a brief encounter and like all humans under extreme duress, he had become somewhat disillusioned. He did not know exactly what form Yahshua’s ministry would take during the first coming, or that he himself would be hauled off to prison. We are told from Matthew 3:11 some of what John knew: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the conquering king who would bring Yahweh’s judgment on all those who reject him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this, but it relates to the second coming, not the first.
However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a suffering servant, in the first coming, who would suffer on behalf of His people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: “For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two portrayals of the Messiah (i.e., the first and second coming) interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his terrible judgment as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were confused, therefore, by Yahshua’s reluctance to act as a military leader and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time as he will do at the battle of Armageddon upon his return.
This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Yahshua spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognizing him (v.16). They told him how they “had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in Yahweh’s redemptive process. Yahshua corrected their misunderstanding in v. 25,26: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?“
It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John the Baptist’s question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Yahshua’s identity as the Messiah, pacifist and hellish events had clouded his certainty. After expecting Yahshua to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel, instead he had seen Yahshua ‘teach and preach in the towns of Galilee’ (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign and ultimately he saw him attacked and crucified. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah’s role? Yahshua’s answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”
These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5; 61:1. Although John’s disillusionment was a natural human reaction, he had been right all along. The Messiah was here and all would be revealed in its proper time. The Bible is showing us genuine human reactions and reporting them as the occurred because the Bible is YahwehÕs way of dealing with humans.
44. When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid” (John 5:31) compared with “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” (John 8:14). It appears to be a contradiction, but only if the context is ignored.
In John 5 Yahshua is speaking about how he cannot claim on his own to be the Messiah nor Yahweh, unless he is in line with Yahweh’s revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. But as Yahshua did fulfill them and was proclaimed to be the Messiah by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding the way for the Messiah (see #34), then Yahshua was indeed who he claimed to be, God. Yahshua says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied diligently, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me”.
We read of a somewhat different setting in John 8. Yahshua has just claimed to be the Messiah by quoting Old Testament Messianic prophecies and applying them to himself (John 8:12, Isaiah 9:2, Malachi 4:2). “Then some Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid’.” Verse 13.
It is to this statement that Yahshua responds “Yes it is”. Why? Because the Pharisees were using a law from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand.” Therefore they broadened the law to mean more that it does actually say. Indeed, the testimony of one man was validÑhowever not enough to convict, but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal. This law is not speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a court when accused of a crime.
So when Yahshua says in reply to them “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” he is right to do so according to the laws the Pharisees had come to judge him by. He also says that he knew exactly who he was, whereas they did not. He was God. Therefore his word could be trusted.
However, it is a good principle not to believe just anyone who claims to be the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof. Therefore the second thing Yahshua goes on to state in John 8 is that he has these witnesses too, the witnesses that the Pharisees were asking for. “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me.” Verse 18. The same proclamation as in John 5 that he was fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see just before this incident in John 7:42 for further proof of this point).
There is no contradiction, simply clarity and great depth which can be seen when Yahshua’s answers are viewed in the context of the scripture, Jewish culture and law.
45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
The key to understanding may be found in Matthew’s use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather than strict chronological sequence as do many writers. This is done for clarity, especially when related issues are more revealing combined than they are set in a chronology.
With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that ‘Yahshua entered the temple’ but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.
Matthew 21:23 states: “Yahshua entered the temple courts” in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident occurred “one day,” indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.
According to this interpretation, Yahshua entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, as it was getting dark, the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it. (Archer 1994:334.335)
46. Matthew 21:19 says the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight. (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in strict chronology, that is more characteristic of Mark and Luke.
For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew’s tendency was to group his material in themes so that timeless truths could be assimilated more easily. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.
When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark’s account we find that Yahshua went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Yahshua did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14). Matthew followed his topical approach, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arranging material. Both are valid. (Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)
It is interesting to note that they QurÕan uses neither chronological nor topical organization. It is a complete jumble of haphazardly repeated and conflicting stories, threats, torments, and violent demands. Its lack of organization is proof that it was not divinely inspired.
47. In Matthew 26:48 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. (Category: misquoted the text)
This is rather an odd discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Yahshua to kiss him. Not being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event from different perspectives, and so include into their testimony that which they deem to be important. (Light of Life III 1992:107)
48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)? (Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)
This accusation is that Yahshua says to Peter “the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38) and also “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter’s third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence. Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 “before the cock crows you will disown me three times” Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 “before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me” John 13:38 “before the cock crows, you will disown me three times.“
Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words “a second time” and “twice” in 14:72, nor the word “twice” in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. As a relatively early English translation, the King James translators did not have nearly as many early Greek manuscripts to work with as we do today and they were considerably more reliant on the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation.
Another explanation is plausible, although not necessary as the issue does not arise in the oldest copies of Mark. If the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others (“twice” in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Yahshua’s prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.
49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31) bear his own cross? (Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)
John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.
Mark 15:20 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Yahshua started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Yahshua carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Yahshua away. Thus the contradiction vanishes. Yahshua started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.
50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn? (Category: misread the text)
After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:45, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Yahshua’s death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ’s death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, ‘At that moment’, and the other two passages nowhere deny this.
They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam’s expulsion from God’s presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him. There is no discrepancy here, only good news and profound truth.
51. Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
The reason people say that Yahshua contradicts himself about saying things secretly or not, especially in relation to parables, is due to a lack of textual and cultural information. This answer requires significant background, some of which I hope to give briefly here.
Firstly a parable is a story given in order to clarify, emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching within itself. Yahshua was a Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are approximately 4000 parables recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good practice to divide their instruction of the people into three parts, the latter third typically being two parables representative to the first two thirds. Yahshua carries on in this tradition with just over one third of his recorded instruction being in the form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that the Israelis of his day knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals, and relationships. Therefore the point of each of Yahshua’s parables was clear to all the listeners, which can be seen from the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so subtle that not only could they drive home a clear and simple point to the ordinary listener, but the scholars could turn them over and over in their mind, deriving greater and greater meaning from them. So, Yahshua often expanded on the meaning of a parable to his disciples, his close students, in response to their inquiry or to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.
This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in context. For it says, “With many similar parables Yahshua spoke the word to them [the crowds], as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable [to clarify, emphasize or illustrate the teaching]. But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything [taught them more, for they could understand more than the crowds].”Mark 4:33-34.
Therefore parables were not secret teachings. They are not esoteric knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense (nor has any historical basis) to say that Yahshua went around confusing people. He went around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Yahshua was asked while on trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to the words of “I taught publiclyÑeveryone heard my words. You know what I taught. I did not teach in secret.” He was right.
As all this is true, what are these “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” which Yahshua speaks of? The only ‘secret’ (“the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writing by the command of the eternal God, so that the nations might believe and obey him” (Romans 16:25-26) is that Yahshua is God!
This secret was that Yahshua’s mission was foretold by the prophets, that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies and the greatest revelation that would ever be given to mankind. His words were not only for the saving of people, but also for the judging of people because they were “ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving” (Matthew 13:14) as many of the hearers of the parables were unwilling to accept the truth and form an eternal relationship with him.
Many people enjoyed Yahshua’s teaching, came for the nice moral discourses and the excellent parables, but not many followed him as the perceived cost was too great (see Luke 9:57, 14:25, 33). But it was these things his disciples were beginning to understand because they trusted Yahshua. The secrets of the kingdom of heaven were revealed to them and then to us through these disciples following (and explaining) Matthew 13:10: “But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” [as they did not live during the lifetime of Yahshua-all the prophets were before him].
The secret which was revealed is Yahshua is Yahweh, Yahshua is the one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of mankind, God’s greatest revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8, 22:12-16), the only way to be right with Yahweh (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).
52. Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate’s court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour the day of the crucifixion? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system.
John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.77)and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Yahshua’s trial by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the crucifixion, Yahshua underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.
This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John’s gospel was written after the other three while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is found in John 21:19: ‘On the evening of that first day of the week‘. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the second day, each day beginning at sunset. (Archer 1994:363-364)
53. The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus? (Category: too literalistic an interpretation)
This apparent contradiction asks did both thieves crucified with Yahshua mock him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did. Luke 23:43 says one mocked and one defended Yahshua. It isn’t too difficult to see what it going on here. The obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked Yahshua initially. However after Yahshua had said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” one of the robbers seems to have had a change of heart and repented on the cross, while the other continued in his mocking.
There is a lesson here which shouldn’t be overlooked; that the Lord allows us at any time to repent, no matter what crime or sin we have committed. These two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some of us when faced with the reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock him, while others accept our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news is that like the thief on the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any time, even while ‘looking at death in the face’.
54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
The idea that Yahshua contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not after his death on the cross is due to misunderstandings about the nature of Yahshua, time and paradise as well as the need to contextualize the nature of Yahweh and eternity in the fourth dimension. To fully appreciate the truths contained in these passages, one would need an entire book.
Yahshua says to the thief on the cross “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Since there is no punctuation in Greek, linguistically the argument can be made that the comma is in the wrong place. Thus: “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” The statement is true either way. Paradise is outside of time. And even inside the constraints of time itÕs true as Yahshua is Yahweh so the thief would indeed be with God in paradise immediately upon his death as a result of his trusting Yahshua.
Yahshua says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet “ascended” to his Father. However, this should be rendered “returned” to his Father. In Luke, Yahshua dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Yahshua has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.
Yahshua was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). Yahshua saying “for I have not yet returned to the Father” does not mean he wasnÕt in heaven between his death and resurrection in “our time.” By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what was and remaining there.
However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the context. Another way to say, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers…”, would be, “Do not hang on to me MaryÑI have not left you physically yet. You will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am going to heaven soon.”
The complexity of time as a dimension and the fact that Yahshua is Yahweh is the Father makes this somewhat difficult to fully understand but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.
55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)
Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction. (Haley p.359)
56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)
There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered ‘stood’ also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.
An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men ‘stood speechless’ after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following Yahshua. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions. (Haley p.359) When Muslims come to recognize that Allah was modeled after Satan, they have a similar response.
57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn’t worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story. In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.
In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with Yahshua and his conversion.
In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul’s case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, “I lived as a Pharisee,” as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.
58. Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in ‘Shittim’ (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)? (Category: confused this incident with another)
This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt ‘Shittin’ in Shabbir’s pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.
If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai in Western Arabia and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes from Exodus 32:6, “Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”
Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, “And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.” It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8. (Geisler/Howe 1992:458-459)
Yahweh has no tolerance for false prophets, false gods, or false doctrines. Those who accept false religions have made their choice and have therefore damned themselves. To keep them from damning others, especially in proximity to his chosen people, he exterminates them. This is a lesson for Christians and Jews. We are not called to be tolerant of false prophets like Muhammad, false gods like Allah, or false religions like Islam. By tolerating them, their clerics and kings kill millions and damn billions.
59. Did 70 members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75 members (Acts 7:14)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This apparent contradiction asks how many members of the house of Jacob went to Egypt. The two passages contrasted are Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14. However both passages are correct. In the Genesis 46:1-27 the total number of direct descendants that traveled to Egypt with Jacob were 66 in number according to verse 26. This is because Judah was sent on ahead in verse 28 of Chapter 46 and because Joseph and his two sons were already in Egypt. However in verse 27 all the members of the family are included, including Joseph and his sons and Judah making a total number of 70, referring to the total number of Jacob’s family that ended up in Egypt not just those that traveled with him to Egypt.
In the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts the number given in verse 27 is 75. This is because they also include Joseph’s three grandsons and two great grandsons listed in Numbers 26:28-37, and in at least the Septuagint version their names are listed in Genesis 46:20. Therefore the Acts 7:14 quotation of Stephen’s speech before his martyrdom is correct because he was quoting from the Septuagint.
60. Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with money from betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the money he received for betraying Yahshua? In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Yahshua, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.
In the Acts 1:18 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this.” Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.
61. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.
Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. The rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.
62. Is the field called the ‘field of blood’ because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas’s bloody death (Acts 1:19)? (Category: misunderstood the wording)
Once again, looking at the same two passages, Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.
However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.
63. How can the ransom which Christ gives for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6), be the same as the ransom of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)? (Category: misunderstood how Yahweh works in history)
This contradiction asks, ‘Who is a ransom for whom?’ Shabbir uses passages from Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5 to show that it is Yahshua that is a ransom for all. This is compared to Proverbs 21:18 which speaks of “The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.”
There is no contradiction here as they are talking about two different types of ransom. A ransom is a payment by one party to another. It can be made by a good person for others, as we see Christ does for the world, or it can be made by evil people as payment for the evil they have done, as we see in the Proverbs passage and throughout the Islamic Hadith and QurÕan.
The assumption being made by Shabbir in the Mark and 1 Timothy passages is that Yahshua was good and could therefore not be a ransom for the unrighteous. In this premise he reflects the Islamic denial that someone can pay for the sins of another, or can be a ransom for another. In Islam there is no savior, no cross, no redemption, and no choice. Islam is based upon predestination and good works which are invariably bad. It is obviously wrong to impose IslamÕs capricious and irrational criterion to Biblical interpretation. Despite the QurÕanÕs denials, Christ as a ransom for the many is clearly taught in the Bible.
Again Shabbir’s supposition relies upon quotations being taken out of their context. The Mark 10:45 passage starts off by quoting Yahshua as saying, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This was spoken by Yahshua because the disciples had been arguing over the fact that James and John had approached Yahshua about sitting at his right and left side when Christ came into his glory. Here Yahshua is again prophesying his death which is to come and the reason for that death, that he would be the ransom payment that would atone for all people’s sin.
In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Paul is here speaking, saying, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, Christ Yahshua, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time.”
This comes in the middle of a passage instructing the Early Church on worshiping Yahweh. These two verses give the reason and the meaning of worshiping Yahweh. The redemptive ransom given by Yahweh, that through Yahshua’s atoning work on the Cross, Yahweh may once again have that saving relationship with man.
The Proverbs 21:18 passage speaks however of the ransom that Yahweh paid through Egypt in the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, as is highlighted in the book of Isaiah, but particularly in Chapter 43:3: “For I am Yahweh, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.”
This picture is further heightened in verses 16 and 17 of the same Chapter. This also has some foundation from the book of Exodus 7:5; 8:19; 10:7; 12:33. Chapters 13 and 14 particularly point to this. As history records for us in the Bible it was through this action that the Old Covenant was established between God and the Kingdom of Israel.
64. Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)?(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
The accusation is that the Bible says all scripture is profitable as well as stating that a former commandment is weak and useless, and therein lies the contradiction. This is a contextual problem and arises through ignorance of what Yahweh promised to do speaking through the Prophets, concerning the two covenants which He instituted.
Muslims think that this is a contradiction only because they donÕt understand the central message of the BibleÑOld and New TestamentsÑwhich revolves around the Old and New Covenants, or old and new relationship between Yahweh and his creation, man. There is no choice in Islam and thus no love. With no love, there is no relationship between Allah and man in Islam and therefore no covenant. Further, in Islam, perverse deeds like murder and thievery are called good, and they from the basis for forgiveness of sin or bad deeds like not fighting or tolerance. In the Bible good deeds (which are defined quite differently from IslamÕs criterion) have no influence on the forgiveness of sin. Only sacrifice accomplishes that. ItÕs not unlike our legal system. Not murdering ten people does not serve as an offset for a murder nor free one from having to sacrifice oneÕs freedom or life as the just punishment for the crime. Not robbing a hundred banks will not free one from the sacrifice of time and money that the judge will require if you rob the bank on the second block.
Due to space this wonderful issue cannot be looked at in depth here. However, some background information will have to be given in order for a reader, unfamiliar with the Bible, to understand.
Yahweh’s word originates from him, and is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training as 2 Timothy states. That is a general statement which refers to all that which comes from Yahweh.
Hebrews chapter 7 speaks of a particular commandment given to a particular people at a specific time; under the old covenant, the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. Yahweh established in the covenant with His people Israel a system where they would offer sacrifices, animals to be killed, in order for him to forgive them of their sins; particularly what God calls in Leviticus chapters 4 to 6, the “sin offering” and the “guilt offering”.
This concept of substitutional death is foreign to Islam, but is fundamental to Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Sacrificial offerings in Islam are designed to appease Allah and other idols rather than for the forgiveness of sin. In Judeo-Christianity, atonement must take place for sin. The penalty of sin is death, and someone has to pay that price. There is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood, for Yahweh is just. He cannot ignore the crime of sin any more than an earthly judge can ignore the crimes of theft, murder, or rape. Anarchy would result.
Yahweh established this system of atonement as the Old Testament shows by referring to the need for atonement 79 times! However, it also records Yahweh saying “The time is coming, declares Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt” [i.e. at Mount Sinai where He gave the first covenant to the people of Israel just after he saved them from Egypt] (Jeremiah 31:31). The reason Yahweh gives for the change in covenants is that his people did not remain faithful to the old one and something needed to be done to resolve a broken relationship. He says that this new covenant will necessitate a once-for-all payment for their sins, unlike the previous covenant (Jeremiah 31:34, Daniel 9:24).
Yahweh also speaks in the Old Testament of the Messiah who would bring this about. A Messiah not from the Levitical priesthood, but a perfect man from the tribe of Judah. He, the MessiahÑYahweh in the fleshÑwould be the sacrifice that would pay for all sin in one go, and approach Yahweh not on the merit of his ancestry (as with the Levitical priests), but on his own merit, being like God, perfect, because he is God. If people follow this Messiah and accept his payment of the penalty for sin for them, then Yahweh will forgive their sin as His justice has been satisfied. He himself made the sacrifice. Those who accept this gift can draw near to Yahweh, for Yahweh wants to be in relationship with His creation (Genesis 3:8-11) and the sin which stops that, is now forgiven.
Obviously this is quite involved and only a comprehensive reading of the Old and New Testaments will explain it adequately. All scripture is profitable, including that concerning the sacrificial system as it is fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. ItÕs the essence of the promised renewed covenant with His people. Clean animals, especially sheep and doves, in the original system were replaced with the perfect lamb and peace sacrifice of the Messiah, Yahshua, in the new covenant or relationship. ItÕs that simple. ItÕs that magnificent. ItÕs the Gospel.
Many scriptures describe the Messiah who would bring about the new covenant. In this Yahweh “makes his life a guilt offering” and we are told “Surely he took up our infirmities [sins] and carried our sorrows, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace [with Yahweh] was upon him.” See Isaiah chapter 53. It is the best presentation of the Gospel message in the Bible.
You can pay the price for your sin if you wish, but it will cost you your life eternally. You will die for your own sin and go to hell. Or, because of the love of Yahweh and trust that the Messiah paid that price for you, and was pierced” in substitution for you, bringing you peace with God. Then Yahweh will permit you to enter heaven for eternity as His justice is satisfied. For as John the Baptist when seeing Yahshua mentioned, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the word!” He also said, “Whoever believes in the Son [Yahshua] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 1:29, 3:36.
God teaches that He will do this. It was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Yahshua, EXACTLY as the Old Testament said it would happen, and the new covenant was established. Sin was paid for once for all by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist announced upon seeing Yahshua. He is the one Yahweh promised. So through his death the old system of sacrifices, offering animals over and over again, became unnecessary. Yahweh’s ultimate solution is equal parts consistent, just, superior and comprehensive. (Hebrews 8:7-13).
So, like clarification #92, Yahweh did not change His mind on His plan for enabling people to be right with Him. He simply provided the ultimate solution. It was His intention all along to use the new covenant to fulfill the old, as the Old Testament shows.
A further point needs to be addressed a here. These ceremonial laws were required of the Israelites alone, as they were the ones who operating within the stipulations, ordinances and decrees of the Mosaic covenant. Any Gentile, or non-Israelite, who wished to convert to Judaism, was obligated to observe these covenantal ordinances as well. But Christians are not converts to Old Covenant. They are believers in Yahshua, Yahweh, the Savior. They operate within the context of a “new covenant,” the one established in Yahshua’s blood by his atoning sacrifice, not the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Within this new covenant, Christians can learn a great deal about the nature of Yahweh, his desired relationship with us, and how to live from what is written in the Old Testament. So there is a clear line of continuity, revelation and renewal between the covenants, new and oldÑbecause both Israel and Christianity share the same scriptures, Messiah, and most importantly, God. Therefore all those Scriptures are profitable for studying, to know where we have come from, and where we are going. But not every commandment, ordinance or decree in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in the same way it was (or is) to Israel. Though we have much in common, we have a new covenant, which present Jews need to read about and acquiesce to, as it fulfills all that they look for and continue to hope for.
65. Was the wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings? (Category: misread the text)
This seeming contradiction takes on the question, ‘What was the exact wording on the cross?’ It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 all use different words posted above Yahshua’s head while hanging on the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says; “Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Yahshua was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.”
It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate’s proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Yahshua in all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews.’ If this had been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further explanation of this see Archer’s explanation. (Archer 1982:345-346).
66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, ‘Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?’ The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question are complimentary passages.
When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29, as far as I have been able to see nowhere contradict each other. This seems to be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of contradiction 50. In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias on Herod that is the important factor in John’s beheading. Mark’s account is more detailed than Matthew’s, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later, because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is already contained within Mark’s Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid of him, because of John’s righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the factor of John’s influence over the people.
67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Both are correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were interchangeable.
68. Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector’s office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.
It is somewhat amusing to hear Shabbir drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr. Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it contradictory when persons in 1st century Judea uses one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr. Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by himÑas there is to all of Islam.
69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Yahshua was crucified in the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.
The evidence from the Gospels that Yahshua died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Yahshua does not eat the Passover with his disciples.
Luke 14:12 says it was “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, which is also called “Passover.” As the name suggests, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for Yahweh makes it clear for reasons of prophecy and revelation that at Passover: “eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” See also Exodus 12:1-20.
The Greek word for “unleavened bread” is ‘azymos’. This is the word used by Mark in “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is ‘artos’. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. “While they were eating, Yahshua took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body.” Mark 14:22. Therefore, this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage confirms this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that Yahweh had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast – artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened bread – azymos).
So what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb.” Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Yahshua life. So, indeed it may have been “customary” to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.
Secondly, the disciples ask Yahshua “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” They had no idea that Yahshua was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God’s wrath upon Egypt. Yahshua had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Yahshua by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still ringing in their ears. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in advance.
Thirdly, the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. Luke 22 records Yahshua saying that he had longed to eat “this” Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Yahshua did make this last supper a time of special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant He had promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from His wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist called Yahshua (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, “For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7).
So, there is no contradiction. Yahshua died before the Passover meal as he himself became the ultimate Òpassover.Ó
70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion? (Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Did Yahshua pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?’ Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn’t.
This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Yahshua. In all of these passages Yahshua never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his anguish over the pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, and alienation from people on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for YahwehÕs will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.
John 12:27 comes from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Yahshua is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Yahshua at the Upper Room). On this occasion Yahshua again says something very similar to the other passages above: “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”
Again we are reminded that he is feeling anguish. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. He knows exactly what is to come. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Yahshua through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Yahshua does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way.
71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
Shabbir asks how many times Yahshua left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.
Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Yahshua did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Yahshua did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke’s Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.
72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)? (Category: imposes his own agenda)
This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: ‘What were the words of the second prayer?’ at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.
Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, “that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).” Let’s see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39: “Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.”
Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Yahshua prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer covers the same thing. Unlike Islam, there are no meaningless and repetitive rituals in ChristÕs example. Prayer is a conversation with Yahweh, not a ritual to be preformed.
When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again “saying the same thing!” Yet according to Shabbir’s thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Yahshua then be saying the same thing the third time?
It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Yahshua because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Yahshua had with the Father. ItÕs too bad Muslims are prevented from having a meaningful conversation with God.
73. Did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
The question being forwarded is what the centurion at the cross said when Yahshua died. The two passages quoted are Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47. However as has been said before with other apparent contradictions these passages are not contradictory but complementary. Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 agree that the centurion exclaimed that Yahshua, “was the Son of God!” Luke 23:47 however mentions that the centurion also refers to Yahshua as, “a righteous man.” Is it so hard to understand that the centurion said both?
74. Did Jesus say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The question of whether Yahshua spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism.
Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” However, it is doubtful that Yahshua spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the people hearing Yahshua’s words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Yahshua would have to have cried “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only “My God.”
It is also worth noting that lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.
Therefore Yahshua probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Yahshua was part of a multilingual society. He spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.
That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic in a trilingual and multi-literate society is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. If Mark recorded his words in Arabic, then we would worry because Arabic wouldnÕt even be developed as a written language for another six centuries.
75. Were the last words that Jesus spook “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or “It is finished” (John 19:30)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
What were the last words of Yahshua before he died is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different descriptions of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Yahshua gave himself up to death.
It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Yahshua, was interested in the fulfillment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase “it is finished.”
John 17:4 records Yahshua’s prayer in the light of his forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Yahshua said ‘It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit’ or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, as his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.
76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)? (Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author’s intent)
This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Yahshua via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Yahshua after he had sent the elders. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.
We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciple’s of Yahshua, yet it was said that Yahshua baptized (John 4:1-2).
We can see why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew’s reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Yahshua relates to all people.
Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Yahshua told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Yahshua by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself ‘worthy’ to come before Yahshua. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Yahshua in healing the centurion’s servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.
77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from Yahweh, while the death mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our present life.
For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete separation from Yahweh, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with Yahweh to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden and away from God’s presence.
Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the Qur’an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed contradiction.
(For a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam, read the paper entitled “The Hermeneutical Key” by Jay Smith.)
78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)? (Category: misread the text)
In Genesis 6:3 we read: “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'” This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.
The hundred and twenty years spoken of by Yahweh in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that Yahweh had warned Noah about doesn’t happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read, “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book. (Geisler/Howe 1992:41)
79. Apart from Jesus there was no-one else (John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven? Category: misunderstood the wording)
There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Elijah and Enoch (Genesis 5:24). In John 3:13 Yahshua is setting forth his superior knowledge of heavenly things. Essentially what he is saying, “no other human being can speak from first hand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down from heaven.” He is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring down the message. In no way is he denying that anyone else is in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch. Rather, Yahshua is simply claiming that no one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message.
80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)
Yahshua states that the event happened in the days of Abiathar the high priest and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.
If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, ÒWhen king David was a shepherd-boy…Ó, it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event did happen in the days of Abiathar, as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father’s whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul’s men. Therefore, Yahshua’s statement is quite acceptable. (Archer 1994:362)
81. Was Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40), or did the women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
John 19:39,40 clearly states that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, along with strips of linen. We also know from the synoptic writers that the body was placed in a large shroud. There is no contradiction here. The fact that the synoptics do not mention the spices during the burial does not mean that they were not used.
If Mark 16:1 is taken to mean that the women were hoping to do the whole burial process themselves, they would need the strips of linen as well, which are not mentioned. They simply wished to perform their last act of devotion to their master by adding extra spices to those used by Joseph.
As Yahshua died around the ninth hour (Mark 15:34-37), there would have been time (almost three hours) for Joseph and Nicodemus to perform the burial process quickly before the Sabbath began. We need not suppose that there was only time for them to wrap his body in a shroud and deposit it in the tomb.
82. Did the women buy the spices after (Mark 16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
Several details in the accounts of the resurrection suggest that there were in fact two groups of women on their way to the tomb, planning to meet each other there. See question 86 for more details of these two groups.
Now it becomes clear that Mary Magdalene and her group bought their spices after the Sabbath, as recorded by Mark 16:1. On the other hand, Joanna and her group bought their spices before the Sabbath, as recorded by Luke 23:56. It is significant that Joanna is mentioned only by Luke, thereby strengthening the proposition that it was her group mentioned by him in the resurrection account.
83. Did the women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1), or “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding. Matthew 28:1: ÒAt dawn…went to look at the tomb.Ó Mark 16:2 ÒVery early…just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb.Ó Luke 24:1: ÒVery early in the morning…went to the tomb.Ó John 20:1: ÒEarly…while it was still dark…went to the tomb.Ó
Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully. The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark’s statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.
84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Yahshua’s body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the Gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!
85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mark 16:4), “rolled away” (Luke 24:2), “taken away” (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)? (Category: misread the text)
Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying there was a violent earthquake, the Greek of which carries the sense of, now there had been a violent earthquake. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Yahshua’s body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.
86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told. (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
The angels told the women that Yahshua had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.
With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Yahshua was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.
We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Yahshua had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.
87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Yahshua meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Yahshua appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Yahshua himself.
As all this happened before Yahshua appeared to the other women, there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away afraid yet filled with joy…to tell his disciples. Their fear initially got the better of them, for they said nothing to anyone. (Mark 16:8) It was at this time that Yahshua met them. (Matthew 28:9,10) Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.
There is a lot to the harmonization of the resurrection accounts. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been done by John Wenham inEaster Enigma (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.
It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the Gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.
88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to God (John 20:17)? (Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks, ÒWhat was Yahshua’s instruction for his disciples?Ó Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate an apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Yahshua would give his disciples only one instruction.
This ÒcontradictionÓ depends upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding the resurrection. The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Yahshua on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb! And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.
The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Yahshua and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.
89. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text and misquoted the text)
This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.
It would appear that Yahshua appeared to them many times; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups, as the whole group gathered together, and also at least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5, and Acts 7:55). He appeared in Galilee, Jerusalem and other places. Matthew 28:16 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir seems to have done.
The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted Acts 1:4 which says: ÒOn one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ÔDo not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.ÕÓ Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Yahshua said this. However, it is apparent from the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to Galilee and encounter Yahshua there; presumably after the first encounter in Jerusalem and before the end of the forty day period before Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.
90. Did the Midianites sell Joseph “to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah (Geneis 37:36)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This apparent contradiction is a very strange one because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the text in Genesis 37:25. The question is asked, ÒTo whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?Ó Verse 28 is used to say the Ishmaelites, and verse 36 Potiphar.
The traveling merchants were comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants who bought Joseph from his brothers, and they in turn sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite are used interchangeably. This would seem obvious once you read verses 27 and 28 together. A clearer usage for these two names can also be found in Judges 8:24.
91. Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it Joseph’s brothers (Genesis 45:4)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This supposed contradiction follows on from the last one and again illuminates Shabbir’s problem with the historical context, as well as his inability to understand what the text is saying. This time the question asked is, ÒWho brought Joseph to Egypt?Ó From the last question we know that both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were responsible for physically taking him there (as they are one and the same people), while the brother’s of Joseph are just as responsible, as it was they who sold him to the merchants, and thus are being blamed for this very thing by Joseph in Genesis 45:4. Consequently, as we saw in the previous question all three parties had a part to play in bringing Joseph to Egypt.
92. Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history & misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This “contradiction” appears only in older English translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event.
God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, Yahweh allowed Saul to be king and used him to do His will. Saul was highly effective as leader, in stirring his people to have courage and take pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel’s enemies during times of war.
However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8) that he would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that Saul or his descendants were not God’s permanent choice to sit on the throne of Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line was to continue. Therefore God, who knows all things, did not change his mind about Saul, for he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to another.
The word in Hebrew that is used to express what Yahweh thought and how he felt concerning the turning of Saul from him is “niham” which is rendered “repent” in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for “love.” Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love cannot always simply be translated “love” in English if more of the original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have.
Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41 times as “repent,” out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort, change His mind, as the context of the Hebrew text dictates).
With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that Yahweh was “grieved” that he had made Saul king. God does not deceive or change his mind (unlike Allah which does both). Yahweh was grieved that he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has compassion on people’s pain and listens to people’s pleas for help. His anger and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others’ deeds.
As a result of Saul’s disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul’s family, though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne. Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that Yahweh has said it will be this way. He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this way hundreds of years before Saul was king.
There is no contradiction here. The question was “Does God change his mind?” The answer is, “No.” But He does respond to peopleÕs situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be grieved when they do evil. (Archer 1994)
93. How could Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-21)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text & Imposes his own agenda)
This is a rather foolish question. To begin with Moses and Aaron did not convert all available water to blood, as Shabbir quotes, but only the water of the Nile (see verse 20). There was plenty of other water for the magicians of Pharaoh to use. We know this because just a few verses later (verse 24) we are told, “And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could not drink the water of the river.” Not only has Shabbir not read the entire text, he has imposed on the text he has read that which simply is not there.
94. Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath? (Category: copyist error)
The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly. The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”
As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David’s slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”
When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.
When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, the fibers must have been frayed or the die faded at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179). The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was ‘-t which comes just before “Lahmi” in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t (“Beth”) and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi (“the Bethlehemite”) out of it. He misread the word for “brother” (‘-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object (‘-t) right before g-l-y-t (“Goliath”). Therefore he made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles. The copyist misplaced the word for “weavers” (‘-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after “Elhanan” as his family name (ben Y-‘-r-y’-r–g-ym, ben ya’arey ‘ore–gim, “the son of the forest of weavers”, a most improbable name for anyone’s father). In Chronicles the ore–gim (“weavers”) comes straight after menr (“a beam of”)Ñthus making perfectly good sense.
To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath. This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favor of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.
95. Did Saul take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Samuel 31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)? (Category: misread the text)
It should be noted that the writer of 1 & 2 Samuel does not place any value on the Amalekite’s story. Thus, in all reality it was Saul who killed himself, though it was the Amalekite who took credit for the killing. The writer relates how Saul died and then narrates what the Amalekite said. The Amalekite’s statement that he happened to be on Mount Gilboa (2 Samuel 1:6) may not be an innocent one. He had quite possibly come to loot the dead bodies. In any case, he certainly got there before the Philistines, who did not find Saul’s body until the next day (1 Samuel 31:8). We have David’s own testimony that the Amalekite thought he was bringing good news of Saul’s death (2 Samuel 4:10). It is likely, therefore, that he came upon Saul’s dead body, took his crown and bracelet and made up the story of Saul’s death in order that David might reward him for defeating his enemy. The Amalekite’s evil plan, however, backfired dramatically on him.
96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)
This apparent contradiction asks: ÒDoes every man sin?Ó Then a number of Old Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament passage from 1 John 1:8-10: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”
After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: ÒTrue Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are children of God.Ó This is followed by a number of passages from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God. Shabbir is imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14), but that is not to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful world and impinged by it.
The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says: “No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.” Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, “No one born of God commits sin…and he cannot sin…,” which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning…, the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.
It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1 John 1, then moves to 1 John 3, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn’t understood the apostle’s letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on. Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the way to read a letter.
The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to Shabbir’s second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject. It is Shabbir’s third point, however, which is a contentious one because it does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins by Yahshua Christ’s atoning death. It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ’s sinless likeness. In his attempt to show a contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which doesn’t exist.
97. Are we to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)? (Category: misread the text)
There is no contradiction here at all. This is not a case of ‘either/or’ but of ‘both/and’. When you read Galatians 6:1-5 properly you will notice that believers are asked to help each other in times of need, difficulty or temptation; but they are also called to account for their own actions. There is no difficulty or contradiction in this, as the two are mutually inclusive.
98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)? (Category: misread the text)
There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place. In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Yahshua Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.
99. Did Jesus go immediately to the desert after his baptism (Mark 1:12-13), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples, and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:1-11)? (Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks: ÒWhere was Yahshua three days after his baptism?Ó Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John ‘appears’ to have Yahshua the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Yahshua in John’s Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was “John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was” (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he sees Yahshua coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Yahshua he relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage contradicts that of Mark.
100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)
These are complementary accounts of Yahshua’s early life, and not contradictory at all. It would take some time for Herod to realize that he had been outsmarted by the magi. Matthew’s Gospel says that he killed all the baby boys that were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. That would be enough time to allow Joseph and Mary the opportunity to do their rituals at the temple in Jerusalem and then return to Nazareth in Galilee, from where they went to Egypt, and then returned after the death of Herod
101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text)
This is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial shock had warn off the Matthew account then explains that they worshiped him.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, all of the seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained. When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errorsÑmost all of which are his. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir’s contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question. Rather than impuning the Bible, Shabbir simply enabled us to demonstrate how miraculous YahwehÕs Book really is.
Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:
-he misunderstood the historical context – 25 times
-he misread the text – 15 times
-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage – 13 times
-the texts are compatible with a little thought – 13 times
-he misunderstood the author’s intent – 12 times
-these were merely copyist error – 9 times
-he misunderstood how God works in history – 6 times
-he misunderstood the Greek usage – 4 times
-he didn’t read the entire text – 4 times
-he misquoted the text – 4 times
-he misunderstood the wording – 3 times
-he had too literalistic an interpretation – 3 times
-he imposed his own agenda – 3 times
-he confused an incident with another – 1 time
-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript – 1 time
In Shabbir’s booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes. First, “God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33) True. There is very little that is confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the context behind them, any confusion disappears. Of course we need to think and read to understand everything in there, as we are 2,000 to 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.
The same could not be said for the Qur’an. It is hopelessly confused. Without chronology or context AllahÕs Book is a jumbled and chaotic mess. Worse, the historical Biblical characters stories upon which it is dependant, do not parallel the Bible but instead originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings. And because we can go to the historical context of those writings we now know that they could not have been authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic revelation of Yahweh had been canonized. Therefore, the best parts of the QurÕan are plagiarized from the worst possible source.
Second, “…A house divided against itself falls.” (Luke 11:17)The Bible is not divided against itself. Yahshua was talking about Satan destroying his own demonsÑthe very cast of characters that possessed Muhammad and ÒinspiredÓ his to recite the most vulgar ÒscriptureÓ known to man.
Shabbir not only found nothing material, he demonstrated that it was Islam that was a house divided. Shabbir was unable to understand the Bible because its message is the antithesis of the QurÕan, as is its god, and prophet. And thatÕs an impossible position for Islam because Allah claims that he inspired the Bible. Yet thatÕs irrational.
We conclude with two quotes of our own: “The first to present his case seems right… till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17) AndÉ”…our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him…. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Bibliography:
Archer, Gleason, L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1994 Revised Edition, 1982, Zondervan Publishing House
Bivin, David, & Blizzard, Roy, Jr., Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Revised Edition, Destiny Image Publishers, 1994
Blomberg, Craig, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP, Leicester, 1987
France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale IVP, 1985
Fruchtenbaum, A. ‘The Genealogy of the Messiah’. The Vineyard, November 1993, pp.10-13.
Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Haley, John, W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania
Harrison, R.K., Old Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London, 1970
Keil, C.F., and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 20 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949
McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990
Morris, Leon, Luke, Tyndale Press, 1974 (1986 reprint) The True Guidance, Part Two, (‘False Charges against the Old Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992 The True Guidance, Part Three, (‘False Charges against the New Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992
.jpg "Contradictions In The Bible")