-19-
Alleged Contradictions In the New
Covenant
Much space is devoted in
anti-missionary literature to alleged contradictions in the New Testament. On
the basis of these "contradictions" the reader is implored to reject
Christianity. While I can understand why one might struggle with a number of
these, the alleged contradictions cited by the anti-missionary are somewhat
inexcusable in light of the rock from which they are hewn. As the saying goes,
"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." If we took
the time to document the disproportionate amount of alleged contradictions
leveled at the Old Testament by the infidels, the saying would be more
accurately worded, "He who lives in a glass mansion should not throw stones
at a glass cottage."
The anti-missionaries' Old
Covenant has difficulties in numerous areas that are hard, though possible, to
reconcile. For one, moral difficulties, e.g., numerous wives and concubines that
certain saints possessed. In stark contrast, the New Covenant teaches monogamy
(Matt. 19:1-6 1 Cor. 7:2) a law which Judaism follows today although it rejects
the Lawgiver. Two, the violent destruction of their enemies. There are numerous
examples of Israel brutally destroying whole nations of men, women and children
and confiscating their land and property. In contrast, the New Testament teaches
only non-violent resistance and love and prayer for enemies. Nowhere does it
ever call for their destruction. Three, the violent killing, by either stoning
or burning, of those who disobeyed God's commands, e.g., blaspheming the name of
God (Leviticus 24:10-16,23); worshiping other gods (Deut.17:2-7); leading others
into a false religion (Deut.13:5-10); practicing sorcery (Lev. 20:27; Exodus
22:18); violating restrictions of the Sabbath day observance (Num. 15:32-36;
Exodus 31:14-15; 35:2); rebellion of a child toward his parents (Deut.
21:18-21); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), adultery (Lev. 20:10); rape (Deut.
22:25). The New Covenant teaches that we only disfellowship those who rebel
against God. Perhaps this is why many view the New Covenant as a "better
Covenant" (Heb. 8:6).
A Misunderstanding of Christian
Theology
Many contradictions alleged by
anti-missionaries are born out of sheer lack of knowledge. Note, for example, a
"contradiction" cited by Sigal regarding the resurrection of Jesus:
But there is no end to the
inconsistencies, for Luke has Jesus promise the thief which, in this version did
not revile him, that “today you shall be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).
This could not be true if one is to believe Mark, who states that Jesus rose on
the first day of the week (Mark 16:9). That was three days later! (Luke 24:46,
Sigal, p. 241).
Here Sigal reveals, to the
detriment of his Jewish readers, an ignorance of true Christian doctrine.
According to Jesus, the soul of a person exists apart from the body after death
(Luke 16:19-31). At the point of death the soul leaves the body and goes to
"Hades" or the unseen world of deceased persons (This corresponds to
"Sheol" of the Old Testament). This is the place Jesus promised that
He would meet the penitent thief that day. Paradise was located in Hades
somewhere within the sphere of the earth. Some Orthodox Jews hold that in the
intermediate state, the time between one's death and the resurrection of the body,
the righteous go to the Garden of Eden in Sheol and the unrighteous have their
place in Gehenna.
What Is a Contradiction?
A contradiction can be claimed
only when all plausible explanations are ruled out. For instance, skeptics
maintain that there is a contradiction between the two accounts of who moved
David to number Israel. Was it "God" as the writer of Samuel suggests
(2 Sam. 24:1)? Or was it "Satan" as the author of Chronicles affirms
(1 Chron. 21:1-2)? This is indeed a surface contradiction. However, a plausible
explanation is that God tested David by allowing Satan to directly instigate
David to sin in numbering Israel. (See Job 1-2 for another example of this.)
Since the objector cannot disprove this interpretation, he must concede there is
no contradiction.
It's surprising that Sigal, an
obviously diligent Bible student, would suddenly forget this rule in his
critique of the New Testament. He states:
The synoptic Gospels inform us
that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus sent two of his disciples to get the
animal he was to ride into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7, Mark 11:2-7, Luke
19:30-35). At variance with this, the author of the Gospel of John states that
Jesus found the animal all by himself: “And Jesus, finding a young ass, sat on
it; as it is written...” (John 12:14-15 Sigal, p.78).
This surface contradiction is
resolved by understanding that Jesus obtained the donkey by proxy, just as God
moved David to number Israel by proxy. (Incidentally, John did not say that
Jesus found the donkey "all by himself.") Undaunted, Sigal asserts,
"The Gospel narratives present the reader with still another mystery. Did
Jesus enter Jerusalem riding on one animal, as Mark, Luke, and John tell it, or
on two, as Matthew relates?" (Sigal, p. 78). It's an axiom of logic that if
someone records one person performing a particular task, that does not
necessarily exclude other people from being involved. One reporter might write,
"President Bush arrived in Baltimore today," and then go on to
describe Bush’s political agenda. Another reporter might record: "Present
Bush and his wife Barbara arrived in Baltimore today on Air Force I." There
is no contradiction between these two reporters, but only a difference in
emphasis or perspective. However, if the first had said, "Present Bush
arrived all by himself today on Air Force I", then, and only then, could a
contradiction be truly claimed between the two reports. Likewise, Matthew's
report that the mother of the colt was also present during the
"triumphal" entry doesn't constitute a contradiction. In respect to
the usage of both animals, Gleason Archer makes this excellent observation:
A moment's reflection will bring
out the fact that if the foal had never yet been ridden (and that was an
important factor for the sake of the symbolism), then he probably was still
dependent on his mother psychologically or sentimentally, even though he may
have been completely weaned by this time. It simply made it an easier operation
if the mother donkey were led along down the road toward the city gate; then 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.1
With these objections brushed
aside, Jesus' fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 stands vindicated!
Contradictory Accounts
Before exploring more examples of
what anti-missionaries call "irreconcilable discrepancies," it should
be mentioned that alleged contradictions in the New Testament are usually
between various authors. In the Old Covenant, "contradictions" more
often come from the same author. (This is one reason why I maintain that Old
Testament "contradictions" are harder to reconcile than those found in
the New Testament.) For instance, Moses records: "I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the
name of God almighty, but by the name Yaweh was I not known to them"
(Exodus 6:3). But the name Yaweh was made known throughout the book of Genesis
before this declaration, with the most notable example being Gen. 49:18, where
Jacob calls God Yaweh.
Hosea records that Israel will
"return to Egypt" (Hosea 8:13), then states "they will not return
to Egypt" (Hosea 11:5) only three chapters later. The only way these
seeming discrepancies can be reconciled, is by understanding that there was some
deeper sense in which God's name "Yaweh" was not known previous to
Exodus 6:3, and that there was a sense in which Israel returned to Egypt and a
sense in which they didn't (Hosea 8:13, I believe, was referring to a spiritual
turning back to Egypt in their heart.) The anti-missionary readily opens the
door to such an explanation when it is offered in defense of his law, but then
slams it shut when it is offered in resolving New Testament
"contradictions."
After attending one session of
Motti Burger's class, Judaism Versus Christianity: The Parting of the Ways, he
confronted me with a New Testament "contradiction." He claimed there
was a discrepancy between Paul, who said that a man is justified by faith and
not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), and James, who said that a man is "justified by
works" and "not by faith only" (James 2:24). But there is really
no contradiction at all. There is a sense in which one is not justified by
works, and also a sense in which he is. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is referring to
the fact that no amount of works merits our salvation. Walking old ladies across
the street, giving to the poor, etc., does not merit salvation or make God
indebted to us. If they could, then the benevolent atheist is considered
righteous in God's sight and given an everlasting inheritance with the redeemed.
Faith in God and His atoning provision is the sole basis of our salvation. James
refers to the fact that a mere faith in God is of no value unless it is
accompanied by good works done with the proper perspective, i.e., out of love
and affection for God. If a man does not obey God, his bare mental assent
"faith only” is "dead" (James 2:17).
Lastly, we shall examine a few
historical contradictions alleged by the anti-missionary against the New
Testament. Troki "documents" an error in Paul's statement when he
says:
1 Corinthians x.8, 'Neither let
us commit fornications, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and
twenty thousand.' In this brief passage there is an error, which in every other
work might pass unnoticed. A book which assumes to be dictated by inspiration,
ought to be accurate in every particular. In Numbers xxv., we read
that four and twenty thousand, and not three and twenty thousand, fell by
the visitation of pestilence (Troki, p. 285).
First, it is not certain that
Paul has reference to the incident at Shittim (Num. 25:9). He might have been
citing the incident in Exodus 32. In Exodus 32:28 we learn that the Levites
killed three thousand with the sword. But God also struck Israel with a plague
(32:35) and did not specify the number killed. Thus, Paul could have, by
inspiration, given the total number of casualties. Second, even if the
anti-missionary could prove that Paul referred to the slaughter at Shittim, he
still does not have a case. Paul said "in one day" 23,000 were killed.
It may have taken the Israelites two or more days to track down and slaughter
the remaining 1,000 fornicators.
Sigal is certain that Jesus made
a historical blunder when He said, "'from the blood of righteous Abel to
the blood of Zechariah, son of Berchiah, whom you murdered between the temple
and the altar (Matthew 23:35).' Matthew's Jesus made an egregious error which
illustrates the inaccuracy of the evangelical account. The Hebrew Scriptures
inform us that it was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, who was slain
by the altar" (2 Chronicles 24:20-21 Sigal, p. 220).
The Zechariah Jesus referred to was indeed the son of Berchiah (Zech. 1:1). Abel was the first martyr Jesus referenced, so it makes sense that He would refer to someone He knew to be the last martyr before the close of the Old Testament canon. Does the mere fact that the Scriptures do not mention Zechariah, son of Berchiah, being murdered prove it could not have happened? Is it really all that unusual for history to repeat itself? Both Abraham and Isaac lied in precisely the same manner calling their wives their sisters out of fear. If, let’s say, Scripture did not mention Isaac's episode, by what rule of logic could we conclude that it could not have happened?