-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).

  Historical Contradictions

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?

< Chapter 18 | Chapter 20 >