SOLUTION - فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

Who came to talk with Jesus, the mother of James and John or James and John? MATTHEW 20:20 (cf. Mark 10:35)

MATTHEW 20:20 (cf. Mark 10:35)—Who came to talk with Jesus, the mother of James and John or James and John?

PROBLEM: In Matthew, the mother of James and John made a request of Jesus. However, Mark states that it was James and John who came to Jesus to make their request.

SOLUTION: It is clear that both the mother and her sons came to Jesus to make the request, since the text declares “the mother … came to Him with her sons” (v. 20). It is possible that the mother spoke first with the two sons closely following to reiterate the request. This is supported by Matthew’s account because when Jesus responds “are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” the Bible says “they said to Him, `we are able’ ” (v.22). So, there is no unsolvable conflict here. The two accounts are harmonious.

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (352). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Are rewards the same for all, or do they differ in degree? MATTHEW 20:1ff

MATTHEW 20:1ff—Are rewards the same for all, or do they differ in degree?

PROBLEM: Jesus told a parable of His kingdom in which each servant got the same pay even though each had worked a different number of hours. Yet in other places, the Bible speaks of different degrees of reward for working in God’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11–15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12).

SOLUTION: There are different degrees of reward in heaven, depending on our faithfulness to Christ on earth. Jesus said, “I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work” (Rev. 22:12). Paul said each believer’s work will be tried by fire and “if anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward” (1 Cor. 3:14). In 2 Corinthians 5, he says we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ “that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (v. 10, emphasis added).

The point of the parable in Matthew 20 is not that all rewards will be the same, but that all rewards are by grace. It is to show that God rewards on the basis of opportunity, not simply on accomplishment. Not all the servants had the opportunity to work for the master the same amount of time, but all, nevertheless, were given the same pay. God looks at our disposition as well as our actions and judges accordingly.

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (351). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Did Jesus make a mistake about His disciples seeing the kingdom come in their lifetimes? MATTHEW 16:28

MATTHEW 16:28—Did Jesus make a mistake about His disciples seeing the kingdom come in their lifetimes?

PROBLEM: Jesus told His disciples that some of them would not see death until they saw Him coming in His kingdom. Yet during the life of the apostles, Jesus never returned to set up His kingdom.

SOLUTION: This is a question of when this was going to take place, not whether it would. There are three possible solutions.

First, some have suggested that this may be a reference to the Day of Pentecost where Christ’s Helper, the Holy Spirit, came to descend upon the apostles. In John’s Gospel (14:26), Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, and, in the beginning of Acts (1:4–8), He tells them not to leave Jerusalem until they have received the Holy Spirit. But this hardly seems to fit the description of seeing Christ coming in His kingdom (Matt. 16:28).

Second, others believe this might be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70. This would mean that He would return to bring judgment upon the city that rejected Him and crucified Him. While this is a possible explanation, it does not seem to account for the fact that Jesus appears to be coming for believers (those “standing there” with Him), not simply coming in judgment on unbelievers. Nor does the judgment on Jerusalem in a.d. 70 adequately express seeing the “Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (v. 28), a phrase reminiscent of His second coming (cf. 26:64). Nor does it explain why Jesus never appeared in a.d. 70.

A third and more plausible explanation is that this is a reference to the appearance of Christ in His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration which begins in the very next verse (17:1). Here Christ does literally appear in a glorified form, and some of His apostles are there to witness the occasion, namely Peter, James, and John. This transfiguration experience, of course, was only a foretaste of His Second Coming when all believers will see Him come in power and great glory (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7).

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (349). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Is Peter the rock on which the church is built? MATTHEW 16:18

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).

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (347). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

How can God’s sovereign and peaceful kingdom be entered by force? MATTHEW 11:12

MATTHEW 11:12—How can God’s sovereign and peaceful kingdom be entered by force?

PROBLEM: Paul declared that the kingdom (rule) of God is “peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). However, Matthew says “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” How can one enter God’s kingdom by force?

SOLUTION: This is a difficult passage, and it has been interpreted several ways. Some take it to mean that the kingdom is violently taken by its enemies. That is, the forceful religious leaders of Jesus’ day were resisting the kingdom introduced by John. They wanted a kingdom, but not the kind that was being offered by John and Jesus (cf. Rom. 10:3). However, some object that this is opposed to the context that is expressing the greatness of John the Baptist and the contrast between his day and Christ’s.

Others see the “violence” as a figure of speech meaning, first, that the kingdom breaks through or intrudes itself with great power and abruptness. Then, the intense endeavors of people who on the preaching of John were taking the kingdom by storm. On this view, it is speaking of the response to John’s preaching as a great popular uprising, a storming of the kingdom of God by people rushing with eagerness to get in it with a violent zeal. This explains the use of the term “violence” and fits the overall context.

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (340). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Did Jesus come to bring peace or war? MATTHEW 10:34–36

MATTHEW 10:34–36—Did Jesus come to bring peace or war?

PROBLEM: Here Jesus affirms, “I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” However, elsewhere He is called “the prince of peace” (Isa. 9:6) who said, “My peace I give to you” (John 14:27) and told His disciples to put away the sword, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). So, which are we to believe? Did Jesus come to bring peace or the sword?

SOLUTION: We must distinguish between the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth and the result of it. His design was to bring peace—peace with God for unbelievers (Rom. 5:1) and eventually, the peace of God for believers (Phil. 4:7). However, the immediate consequence of Christ’s coming was to divide those who were for Him and those who were against Him—the children of God from the children of this world. But, just as the goal of an amputation is to relieve pain, so the immediate effect is to inflict pain. Likewise, Christ’s ultimate mission is to bring peace, both to the human heart and to earth. Nonetheless, the immediate effect of His message was to divide those in the kingdom of God from those in the kingdom of Satan.

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (340). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Did Jesus promise to return to earth during the lifetime of the disciples? MATTHEW 10:23

MATTHEW 10:23—Did Jesus promise to return to earth during the lifetime of the disciples?

PROBLEM: Jesus sent His disciples on a mission and promised them, “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” However, it is obvious that He never even went to heaven, to say nothing of returning again, before they had returned from their evangelistic tour.

SOLUTION: There are many interpretations of this passage. Some take it to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the end of the Jewish economy. But this hardly suits as a fulfillment of the phrase “before the Son of Man comes.”

Others understand Jesus’ statement to refer to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit or a great revival before the return of Christ to earth to set up His kingdom. They believe the preaching of the Gospel will usher in the kingdom (cf. Matt. 24:14). But, this too seems to go far beyond the literal meaning of the text here.

Still others see it as containing a projection from their immediate mission to their continuing mission to proclaim the Gospel “even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Note the fact that the disciples would probably have not gone through all “the cities of Israel” in the short mission on which Jesus sent them. One problem with this is that there is no direct indication in the text that Jesus was referring to the distant future.

Another alternative is to take the promise literally and immediately and to interpret the phrase “before the Son of Man comes” as a reference to the fact that Jesus rejoined the disciples after their mission. This view may be supported by several facts. First, the phrase “before the Son of Man comes” is never used by Matthew to describe the Second Coming. Second, it fits with a literal understanding of the first part of the verse. The disciples went literally and immediately into “the cities of Israel” to preach, and Jesus literally and immediately rejoined them after their itinerant ministry. Third, there is no indication here or anywhere else that the disciples believed that Jesus was going to go to heaven while they were gone on their preaching tour. This certainly would have startled them (cf. John 14:1–5). Furthermore, He had already told them that He had to die and rise from the dead (John 2:19–22) before He could go to heaven and return.

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (339). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Are believers the light of the world, or is Jesus? MATTHEW 5:14

MATTHEW 5:14—Are believers the light of the world, or is Jesus?

PROBLEM: In this passage, Jesus said to His disciples, “You are the light of the world.” However, in John 9:5, Jesus declared, “I am the light of the world.” Who is the light of the world, Jesus or His disciples?

SOLUTION: Both. Jesus is the primary light, and we are the secondary light. As the light of the sun is to the moon, so Jesus is the source of the light, and we are the reflectors of the light. Jesus said, “as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:5). Now that He is no longer here, we are His reflected light in the world.

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (329). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Why does Matthew incorrectly quote Isaiah? MATTHEW 4:14–16

MATTHEW 4:14–16—Why does Matthew incorrectly quote Isaiah?

PROBLEM: Matthew does not seem to quote Isaiah 9:1–2 accurately. Rather, he seems to have changed it.

SOLUTION: It is not necessary to quote a passage verbatim to cite it accurately. Matthew does not distort the meaning of this passage. He simply condenses or summarizes it. To paraphrase accurately is not to distort. Otherwise, no news report or historical account was ever accurate, since summary is essential to history.

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (329). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Is there a mistake in recording the wilderness temptation of Christ by Matthew or Luke? MATTHEW 4:5–10 – cf. Luke 4:5–12

MATTHEW 4:5–10 (cf. Luke 4:5–12)—Is there a mistake in recording the wilderness temptation of Christ by Matthew or Luke?

PROBLEM: According to both Matthew and Luke, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread to satisfy Jesus’ hunger. The second temptation listed by Matthew took place at the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew involved all the kingdoms of the world. However, although Luke mentions these same two events, he lists them in reverse order—the kingdoms of the world are mentioned second and the pinnacle of the temple is mentioned third. Which is the correct order?

SOLUTION: It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climactically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. Matthew 4:5 begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begins with a simple “and” (see nasb). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened.

^[1]

^[1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (328). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.