InTruth
12-01-2009, 12:28 AM
Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Baker Book House, reprinted 1977, originally 1874).This book was in turn replying to the 144 "biblical contradictions" found in the following book (and many of these same ones are answered below): Burr, William Henry. Self-Contradictions of the Bible (Forgotten Books 2007, or Prometheus Books 1997, originally 1860).
1. God is satisfied with his works
"God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31] God is dissatisfied with his works.
"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]
This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved. 2. God dwells in chosen temples
"the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16]
God dwells not in temples "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48]
I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will. 3. God dwells in light
"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see." [1 Tim 6:16] God dwells in darkness
"Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]
"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11]
"Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God is unapproachable.
One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!
Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.
4. God is seen and heard [Ex 33:23 / Ex 33:11 / Gen 3:9,10 / Gen 32:30 / Is 6:1 / Ex 24:9-11]
God is invisible and cannot be heard [John 1:18 / John 5:37 / Ex 33:20 / 1 Tim 6:16]
These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction....
In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)
He notes: "If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".
How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT): Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)
"they saw God" (Ex 24:11)
"We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?
Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed. So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).
Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach. Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".
Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father. Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father.
5. God is tired and rests
"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]
God is never tired and never rests "The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary."
According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work. 6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things [Prov 15:3 / Ps 139:7-10 / Job 34:22,21]
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." [Gen 3:8]
"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5]
"The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] I accept the teaching that God is everywhere present and sees and knows all things. So let's consider the instances in Genesis that are cited:
Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Let's also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?
First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions:
"Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?"
Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others? "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5]
"The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into human history.
But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word 'descend' implies turning one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a "mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable.
Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established.
7. God knows the hearts of men [Acts 1:24 / Ps 139:2,3]
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God." [Gen 22:12]
"Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your hearts." [Deut 8:2]
"The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." [Deut 13:3] We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions.
Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them.
What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he [I]relates. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of the 'test' that he just went through.
In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity?
8. God is all powerful [Jer 32:27 / Matt 19:26]
God is not all powerful
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." [Judg 1:19]
This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is "reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley." He adds: "This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The 'he' is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector." 9. God is unchangeable [James 1:17 / Mal 3:6 / Ezek 24:14 / Num 23:19]
God is changeable [Gen 6:6 / Jonah 3:10 / 1 Sam 2:30,31 / 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6 / Ex 33:1,3,17,14]
Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood.
For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us.
Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong.
In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they don't abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction.
10. God is just and impartial
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15]
"Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25]
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4]
"Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25]
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]
God is unjust and partial
"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25]
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5]
"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13]
"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] The first set is as follows:
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15] = Basic Teaching (BT) -- God is righteous
"Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25] = (BT) -- God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked.
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4] = (BT) -- God is righteous
"Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] = (BT) -- God's ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not.
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11] = (BT) -- God is impartial. However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ's atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don't, we need only consider if God is unrighteous in any of them.
The second set is as follows:
"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous."
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] The following verse notes that loving-kindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God really unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visiting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.)
MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant here:
Are children punished for the sins of the parents?
Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children.
Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction.
"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness.
"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (i.e., neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of unrighteousness.
11. God is the author of evil "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" [Lam 3:38]
"Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11]
"I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things."
"I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by." [Ez 20:25]
"When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6]
God is not the author of evil [1 Cor 14:33 / Deut 32:4 / James 1:13]
Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.
12. God gives freely to those who ask [James 1:5 / Luke 11:10]
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them [John 12:40 / Josh 11:20 / Is 63:17] Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's heart, yet give to those who [I]DO ask.
13. God is to be found by those who seek him [Matt 7:8 / Prov 8:17]
God is not to be found by those who seek him [Prov 1:28]
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me." [Pr 1:28]
Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (i.e., "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction.
14. God is warlike [Ex 15:3 / Is 51:15]
God is peaceful [Rom 15:33 / 1 Cor 14:33]
"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3]
(Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war)
"The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33]
"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33]
It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense -- a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations -- they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here.
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious [Jer 13:14 / Deut 7:16 / 1 Sam 15:2,3 / 1 Sam 6:19]
God is kind, merciful, and good [James 5:11 / Lam 3:33 / 1 Chron 16:34 / Ezek 18:32 / Ps 145:9 / 1 Tim 2:4 / 1 John 4:16 / Ps 25:8]
The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious -- that is His nature.
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long [Num 32:13 / Num 25:4 / Jer 17:4]
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute [Ps 103:8 / Ps 30:5]
The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that "God's anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse.
So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here.
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Ex 29:36 / Lev 23:27 / Ex 29:18 / Lev 1:9]
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Jer 7:22 / Jer 6:20 / Ps 50:13,4 / Is 1:13,11,12]
The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: " but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, "I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this.
18. God accepts human sacrifices [2 Sam 21:8,9,14 / Gen 22:2 / Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39]
God forbids human sacrifice [Deut 12:30,31]
The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God "accepted it." No contradictions here.
19. God tempts men [Gen 22:1 / 2 Sam 24:1 / Jer 20:7 / Matt 6:13]
God tempts no man [James 1:13]
Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desperation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!). The only possible hope of a contradiction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here.
20. God cannot lie [Heb 6:18]
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive [2 Thes 2:11 / 1 Kings 22:23 / Ezek 14:9]
In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.
But, MaryAnna White notes:
1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit -- Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God -- He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer -- a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God's sovereignty. --MAW
The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie.
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him [Gen 6:5,7]
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him [Gen 8:21]
This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean the same thing as destroying man, now does it?
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works [Rom 1:20]
God's attributes cannot be discovered [Job 11:7 / Is 40:28]
Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this is contradictory.
23. There is but one God [Deut 6:4]
There is a plurality of gods [Gen 1:26 / Gen 3:22 / Gen 18:1-3 / 1 John 5:7]
This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4?
Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23, where the Hebrew spies returned with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality" (composite unity). The same word which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to describe God's essence!
24. Robbery commanded [Ex 3:21,22 / Ex 12:35,36]
Robbery forbidden [Lev 19:13 / Ex 20:15]
It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as "robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious examples of God commanding robbery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for goods.
25. Lying approved and sanctioned [Josh 2:4-6 / James 2:25 / Ex 1:18-20 / 1 Kings 22:21,22]
Lying forbidden [Ex 20:16 / Prov 12:22 / Rev 21:8]
Rev speaks of all liars being cast into the lake of fire. Since the first set of scriptures do not say otherwise, we can dismiss this one. Proverbs speaks of lying as an abomination. Since the first set of scriptures do not say lying is not an abomination, we can dismiss this one. The verse in Ex is one of the Ten Commandments.
It's not obvious to me that lying is approved of in the above situations. Concerning Rahab (Josh 2:4-6), James says, "the harlot was justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25). Her act of saving the lives of these men is what is approved of. The same goes for Ex 1, where the midwives refuse to kill the male infants which were birthed. As for 1 King 22:21-22, once again it is unclear if lying is truly approved of. According to one Bible scholar:
"The whole declaration of Micaiah...is a figurative and poetical description of a vision that he had seen. Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist of the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be fatally deceived."
Another scholar says:
"Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment."
Since it is unclear that God truly approves of lying in this case, the contradiction is not established.
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned [2 Kings 14:7,3]
Hatred to the Edomite forbidden [Deut 23:7]
The account in Deut indeed forbids hatred against the Edomite. Does the account in 2 Kings sanction it? Not at all. It merely mentions that Amaziah slew many Edomites. And while hatred can be part of warfare, it need not be. And since the account in 2 Kings doesn't even mention hatred of the Edomites, this is obviously a concocted contradiction.
27. Killing commanded [Ex 32:27]
Killing forbidden [Ex 20:13]
Ex 20:13 reads, "You shall not murder." Not all killing is murder.
28. The blood-shedder must die [Gen 9:5,6]
The blood-shedder must not die [Gen 4:15]
Gen 4:15 makes no such generalization. It is specific to Cain. This is an example where the critic takes an incident and transforms it into an absolute principle. Besides, the covenant in Gen 9 was made with Noah, who existed much later than did Cain.
29. The making of images forbidden [Ex 20:4]
The making of images commanded [Ex 25:18,20]
Ex 20:4 states than one should not make idols and bow down and worship them. The cherubims in Ex 25 are not idols, nor were they worshipped.
30. Slavery and oppression ordained [Gen 9:25 / Lev 25:45,46 / Joel 3:8]
Slavery and oppression forbidden
Slavery and oppression (two different things in the Bible)
Gen. 9:25 Canaan is punished, sentenced to be a bondsman. (slave) This is a punishment by God upon Ham through the mouth of his father Noah for his rebellious insubordination and disregard for God's authority on earth at that time - his father. He could have been killed for this, but instead he was merely told that some of his descendents would be slaves. This is not a condoning of oppression, but a prophecy that such a judgment would indeed be carried out. (Ones who died for rebellion include Korah and Absalom; Miriam was judged with a case of leprosy for a few days.) This verse says nothing to those who would be the slave owners as to whether their action is condoned or not.
Lev. 25:45 It's ok to buy a stranger for a bondsman/woman if someone sells him/her to you, as long as it's not a fellow Israelite.
Joel 3:8 God punishes Tyre (?) by selling the people to the Israelites as slaves and then selling them to the Sabeans.
Still no mention of condoning oppression.
Isa. 58:6 mentions a particular fast to Jehovah as a breaking of every yoke. Surely that cannot refer to (include) the yoke on the oxen, so there is some limitation to which yokes are broken. Some yokes are forbidden - i.e. yoking a fellow Israelite- and are undoubtedly included. The case of a foreign slave could be argued either way and hence this verse is not a clear contradiction of any of the above.
Exod. 22:21 Not permitted to vex or oppress strangers. Does not say, not permitted to buy them.
Exod. 21:16 Not permitted to steal and sell people. Does not say, not permitted to buy and sell them.
Matt. 23:10 is irrelevant. It says, "Neither be called instructors, because One is your Instructor, the Christ." (RV). Footnote: "Or, guides, teachers, directors." This section is talking about how we address fellow believers. It earlier says to call no one "father." Obviously it is talking here about differentiating among believers by bestowing titles of honor. These titles should be reserved for God alone, not bestowed on men. But our physical father is still our father, our school teachers are still our teachers, and our masters, if we are slaves, are still our masters and are to be called such if they so demand. The President is still the President, etc. We are admonished in the Bible to show honor to those in authority over us in our families, in the government, etc. --MAW
Gen 9:25 has Noah stating that Canaan will be the servant of Japheth. This does not necessarily read as the ordination of "slavery and oppression" by God. The verses in Lev refer to a mild form of servitude. Joel simply threatens captivity as a punishment for sin. None of these verses unequivocally ordain "slavery and oppression."
On the other hand, the verses in Isaiah and Exodus do forbid truly oppressive behavior. The verse in Mt. is irrelevant to this subject.
31. Improvidence enjoyed [Matt 6:28,31,34 / Luke 6:30,35 / Luke 12:3]
Improvidence condemned [1 Tim 5:8 / Prov 13:22]
I believe that this is a case of both/and, as neither extreme is good. These teachings serve to balance each other.
MaryAnna observes:
"Improvidence enjoyed"
Matt. 6:28, 31, 34 -- these verses tell us not to be anxious. They don't tell us not to work for our living.
Luke 6:31-35 tell us to give to those that ask, and to lend without expecting any return. This again is not telling us not to provide for our own needs. If we didn't have it in the first place we wouldn't be able to give or lend it. And it doesn't say that the borrowers or askers are approved by God. The reward mentioned here goes to the givers, not to the takers. This is made obvious by verse 29, which says to turn the cheek to those who smite it. Clearly the Bible is not meaning that we are supposed to go around slapping people in the face.
Luke 12:3 says "Therefore what you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in the private rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops." What this has to do with improvidence, I have no idea, unless it is meant as an example of condoning of eavesdropping and gossip. That would be a really strange inter- pretation of this verse, looking at the context.
"Improvidence condemned"
1 Tim. 5:8 says we must provide for our own. (Doesn't say we need to be full of anxiety, just do it.)
Proverbs 13:22 - a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children.... Yup. --MAW
32. Anger approved
"In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." [Eph 4:26]
Anger disapproved [Eccl 7:9 / Prov 22:24 / James 1:20] I do not view Paul's admonitions as being approving of anger. In fact, the advice about not allowing the day to end while you are angry is anything but an approval of anger. Phil Porvaznik adds: the context of Eph 4:31 says explicitly to "let all....anger...be put away from you..." Also there is a difference between the KJV and NIV in Matthew 5:22.
The KJV reads "whosoever is angry with his brother [I]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matt 5:22)
The NIV (NU-text) is missing the phrase "without a cause." So when the NIV says Christ was "angry" (Mark 3:5) some (e.g. KJV only folks) say Christ would be sinning.
Let's see if this makes sense. Please read the rest of Matthew 5:22 in the KJV -- "whosoever shall say, Thou FOOL, shall be in danger of hell fire." Notice the phrase "without a cause" is missing here. IOW, it doesn't say "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, without a cause...." it simply reads "thou FOOL." Next we look at what Christ said to the Pharisees -- "Ye FOOLS...." (Matt 23:17,19 KJV). Does this mean Christ is sinning and in danger of hell fire? Of course not.
The answer to the "anger" passage is simple. There are different types of anger -- righteous and unrighteous -- just as there are different senses to the use of "FOOL" (atheists are called "fools" for denying God by the Psalmist 14:1). The apostle Paul quotes the Psalmist who says "be ye angry, and sin not" (Eph 4:26 KJV). There is "anger" that is not necessarily sinful.
Jesus, who is said to be "without sin" throughout the Bible (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 John 3:5) was "angry" in the sense of "righteous anger" -- He was "grieved" (Gr sunlupeo) because of the hardness of the hearts of those who criticised His healing on the Sabbath day (see the context Mark 3:1-6). Jesus also was "angry" at the death of Lazarus -- he "groaned in the spirit" (John 11:33,38) and saw death as the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:26). Since I'm a Catholic, I'll quote from our universal Catechism of the Catholic Church --
2302. Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice" [quoting St. Thomas Aquinas]. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" [Matt 5:22].
It is this kind of "anger" that is forbidden. As Paul writes -- "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph 4:31-32 KJV). --PP
33. Good works to be seen of men [Matt 5:16]
Good works not to be seen of men [Matt 6:1] Here is a case where context matters. In Mt 5, Jesus is speaking in the context of being the salt of the earth. It is by allowing Christ to work through us that people will be drawn to Him. That is, one does good works to glorify God. In Mt 6, Jesus is talking about doing good works in a self-righteous sense, where one draws attention to self. Consider a very practical example -- a Christian who serves by feeding the poor ought to do so humbly and quietly. They will eventually be noticed, if only by those they serve. The same Christian shouldn't be bragging about his work among acquaintances, where a "holier-than-thou" sense is evident. The former approach draws people to God, the latter repels them.
34. Judging of others forbidden [Matt 7:1,2]
Judging of others approved [1 Cor 6:2-4 / 1 Cor 5:12] This is a commonly employed 'contradiction' which also ignores context. Mt 7 is not dealing with judging in of itself, rather, it speaks of hypocrisy -- judging others by standards that one does not live by.
35. Christ taught nonresistance [Matt 5:39 / Matt 26:52]
Christ taught and practiced physical resistance [Luke 22:36 / John 2:15] Since using a scourge to drive out the animals and overturn the tables is not as case of "physical resistance," the verse in John is irrelevant. In Luke, it appears as if Jesus is teaching the disciples that in their changed circumstances, self-defense and self-provision might be necessary. The very fact that two swords was "enough" indicates a restrained theme to this teaching. Mt 5 is where Jesus teaches that one ought to "turn the other cheek." This is a hyperbole used to teach a moral lesson - do not set yourself against those who have injured you (does anyone really think that Jesus would have us expose our chests and invite the mugger the shoot us?). In Mt 26, someone with Jesus struck out at the legal authorities. Here the context is different from that of Lk 22. I read this as saying that those who raise the sword against the legal authorities can expect to die by the sword (and of course, this in of itself is not necessarily a moral principle). Then again, in light of vs 53,54, one cannot establish that this teaching goes beyond the immediate circumstances. That is, if the disciples had fought, they would have been killed, and Jesus had better things in mind. That's why he told them He could summon supernatural aid if need be.
36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed [Luke 12:4]
Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed [John 7:1] Luke 12 is a generalized teaching which states that one ought to fear God more so than men (read vs. 5). John 7:1 says nothing about Jesus being afraid that the Jews would kill him. It simply mentions that He avoided them since they wanted to kill Him. It wasn't His time to die yet.
37. Public prayer sanctioned [1 Kings 8:22,54 / 9:3]
Public prayer disapproved [Matt 5:5,6] Mt 6 (not 5) does not as much focus on public prayer as it does on hyocritical prayer -- "And when you pray, you are not to pray as hypocrites." Jesus condemns the prayers designed to gather favor in the eyes of men. Nothing contradictory here.
38. Importunity in prayer commended [Luke 18:5,7]
Importunity in prayer condemned [Matt 6:7,8] The vain repetitions ("as the heathen do") Jesus speaks of in Mt hardly seem to me to be the fervant supplications that Luke relays. Put simply, there's a difference between fervant, real prayer and repetitive chanting or mouthing words over and over in order to twist God's arm (so to speak).
39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned [Judg 13:5 / Num 6:5]
The wearing of long hair by men condemned [1 Cor 11:14] Judg 13:5 the Nazarite is not permitted to cut his hair. Num 6:5 teaches the same thing. 1 Cor 11:14 teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.
Yes, true. The Nazarites kept long hair even though it was a dishonor to them. 1 Cor 11:10 tells us that long hair is a sign of submission. So the Nazarites submitted to God even though it meant suffering some shame, for the duration of their vow. They also stayed away from dead things and any product of the grape, I think. --MAW
One could also note that national customs furnish an explanation here. 1 Cor was addressed to a Greek audience, where long hair on men often indicated effeminacy and indulgences in unnatural vices.
40. Circumcision instituted [Gen 17:10]
Circumcision condemned [Gal 5:2]
Gen 17:10 God institutes circumcision to set His people apart. This is in the Old Testament where God would use a special people through which His Messiah could be brought forth.
Gal 5:2 Spoken to ones who already believe in Christ but were not circumcised - if they go to be circumcised, they are going back to the law. This means they are denying the effectiveness of Christ's death... so they lose out on the benefits of being a believer.
This is not the only such verse. Paul says elsewhere that we should beware those of the circumcision, also calling them the concision and even dogs. This is referring to the Judaizers who were trying to get the believers to be circumcised as a condition of their salvation.. among other things. They were trying to bring the believers under the law, even though these believers had been previously Gentiles and not Jews.
Paul tells us - it is not that all who have been circumcised are condemned, but rather that circumcision is no longer necessary in the New Testament because it has been replaced by the cross of Christ. --MAW
Indeed, here is another case (like #1) where the critic ignores the intervening events between the Scriptures cited. He/she may as well argue that the existence of a OLD and NEW covenant is a contradiction. And that exercise would be futile.
41. The Sabbath instituted [Ex 20:8]
The Sabbath repudiated
The Sabbath is a topic a lot of Christians disagree on (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists).
Exod 20:8 teaches that the Sabbath was instituted. But it was also practiced by God Himself even as early as day seven.
Isaiah 1:13 God says the wicked people are displeasing to God, and He no longer delights in anything they do, including keeping the Sabbath and making offerings to Him. No surprise there.
Romans 14:5 and Col. 2:16 are [I]New Testament verses.
Romans 14:5 neither supports the Sabbath nor repudiates it, though. It just says some keep and some don't and both are to be accepted as genuine believers. No problem there. (See verse 10).
Colossians 2:16 is the same story. "Let no one judge you with regards to the Sabbath" sounds like a far cry from "You are forbidden to keep the Sabbath" or "The Sabbath is bunk."
This matter would really do better dealt with on the larger scale of "Should New Testament believers be required to keep the entire Old Testament law?" Then one could bring in Eph. 2:15 and so on to show that on the one hand the moral aspects of the law are uplifted in the New Testament (Matt. 5-7), yet on the other hand the rituals are abolished (Sabbath, circumcision, feasts) and the offerings are replaced by Christ as the one unique Sacrifice. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down by Christ on the cross and there is no longer any difference (among Christians). See discussion with James in Acts regarding this matter. --MAW
The teaching in Isaiah does not repudiate the Sabbath. If we read further, the LORD says:
"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" Obviously, God is condemning the religious hypocrisy in this instance.
Nevertheless, even if we take the above claims as truth, namely, that God instituted the Sabbath in Exodus, and repealed it through Paul (and we need not debate if this is the true interpretation), as it stands, this is not contradictory. It is not contradictory to institute X and then repeal it much later.
42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day [Ex 20:11]
The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt [Deut 5:15]
In this case, I see no reason why both explanations cannot be true. As such, the Sabbath could have been rooted in the order of things [I]and in the historical intervention of the Creator.
Why was the Sabbath instituted?
Exod 22:11 tells us the Israelites should rest because God rested on the seventh day.
Deut 5:15 tells the Israelites that God commanded them to keep the Sabbath because of their deliverance from Egypt.
The wording is different between the two statements. Deut. tells us the reason for the commandment to keep the Sabbath. Exo does not, but merely tells us a good reason why they should keep it. Anyway, it is not uncommon to do something for more than one reason. Especially good reasons. --MAW
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death [Ex 31:15 / Num 15:32,36]
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in the same [John 5:16 / Matt 12:1-3,5]
First of all, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not subject of the Sabbath. As for his disciples, they were charged with breaking the Sabbath because they picked some heads of grain and ate them. Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders on their legalism (read the entire discussion in Mt 12). Jesus did not condone working on the Sabbath, he just pointed out the folly of taking this law to the extreme were people could not eat or help others on the Sabbath.
No work could be done on Sabbath but Jesus worked on Sabbath and justified His disciples in doing the same. Yup. In the Old Testament no work could be done on the Sabbath, although it was ok to pull an ox out of the ditch.
The Lord Jesus in the New Testament is the Lord of the Sabbath and perfectly free to break it and even abolish it, since He is the one who set it up in the first place. Also, He is the reality of the shadows. The Old Testament Sabbath was a rest for God's people, but in the New Testament our real Sabbath is the One who said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-ladened, and I will give you rest." Also, Hebrews tells us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. This is not talking about an outward ritual of sitting around all day once a week reading the Torah, but about resting in Christ as our real inward peace and rest and sanctuary in this age and in full in the age to come.
Like I said earlier, this can be a pretty controversial issue, but at least grant me that it's a possible explanation which removes the validity of 43 as a contradiction in the Bible. Others may explain it differently. --MAW
44. Baptism commanded [Matt 28:19]
Baptism not commanded [1 Cor 1:17,14]
This is not a contradiction. Paul simply responded to the favoritism which sprang up along the lines of who baptized whom. Furthermore, Paul notes that his particular calling was not as a baptizer, but as a preacher.
45. Every kind of animal allowed for food [Gen 9:3 / 1 Cor 10:25 / Rom 14:14]
Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food [Deut 14:7,8] The NT references stem from the New Covenant. The Genesis reference indicates that God sanctioned non-vegetarian diets. The Deut references are particular to the Jews and the Old Covenant that was made with them.
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned [Num 30:2 / Gen 21:23-24,31 / Gen 31:53 / Heb 6:13]
Taking of oaths forbidden [Matt 5:34] Jesus is trying to get beyond human conventions and the frivolous oaths which were common and was calling for simple and pure honesty. Hebrews refers specifically to God and indicates His commitment/covenant.
Does the Bible sanction or forbid oaths? In the Old Testament they are not commanded, but permitted. Num. 30 explains when they can be annulled.
God Himself made an oath as recorded in Heb. 13:4. In Matt. 5:34 we New Testament believers are told not to swear by anything but to just say yes and no. The explanation given is that we are powerless to change our hair color. (Natural color.) But surely God is not similarly powerless, so if He wants to swear something, He is perfectly able to carry it out and nothing can come up to stop Him. No contradiction there.
So OT permits swearing (doesn't command it) and sets limits on it. The uplifted NT law abolishes it altogether on the grounds that we are powerless to guarantee the outcome. But God is not powerless, so He can swear as He likes. --MAW
47. Marriage approved [Gen 2:18 / Gen 1:28 / Matt 19:5 / Heb 13:4]
Marriage disapproved [1 Cor 7:1 / 1 Cor 7:7,8]
Paul is not disapproving marriage! He is simply saying that it is good to be unmarried. Saying it is good to not marry is not saying it is bad to marry. Being unmarried is good in the sense that particular blessings can stem from it (in fact, Paul even describes celibacy as a "gift"). However, another set of blessings can stem from being married.
Does God approve of marriage? Let's just look at the verses cited as saying that God disapproves of marriage, since obviously He approves.
1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26
Verse 26 tells us why Paul says this. It is because of the present necessity. Well, these three verses do not tell us that God disapproves of marriage, but only that there is nothing wrong with staying single. "Good for them." A man who is content to refrain from touching any woman must really be full of the enjoyment of God, as Paul was. This is surely a good thing, although most people are not like that. As verse 7 says, each has his own gift from God, and for most people it is not the gift of staying single forever, although Matt. 19:10-12 tells us (not cited) that there is a blessing for those that are able to keep it. Other verses not quoted tell us that the married person cares for how to please his/her mate, whereas the single one is free to concentrate on pleasing the Lord.
Anyway, none of these verses say that God disapproves of marriage. To teach others not to marry is to spread the doctrines of demons. (1 Tim. 4:1-5).
"What God has joined together." If God disapproved of marriage, He would disapprove of almost all humans that ever were. He Himself intends to be married.
In 1 Tim. 5:14 Paul speaks of this matter again and makes it clear that his position is neither disapproval nor forbidding of marriage.
Genesis 2:18 It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a help suitable for him. --MAW
48. Freedom of divorce permitted [Deut 24:1 / Deut 21:10,11,14]
Divorce restricted [Matt 5:32]
Yes, Jesus issues a new commandment and even explains the permission 1500 years earlier. He now issues a higher calling.
49. Adultery forbidden [Ex 20:14 / Heb 13:4]
Adultery allowed [Num 31:18 / Hos 1:2; 2:1-3] One has to read adultery INTO Num 31:18 -- it is not obvious that this verse is talking about adultery. As for Hosea, OT scholar Walter Kaiser believes that when God told Hosea to marry Gomer, she was not yet a harlot. (Besides, the exception doesn't prove the rule). Does the Bible permit adultery? No.
Numbers 31:18 doesn't say that the "yourselves" were already married. Obviously it doesn't refer to the females among the Israelites, and so it can just as easily also exclude all the married and under-age males.
Hosea 1:2 God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute. The very idea of using this as a justification of adultery is absurd. The point here is to expose the nation of Israel at that time for her unfaithful and treacherous treatment of her Husband, God. Israel was a prostitute in the eyes of God, because she was going after idols, yet He still would marry her and even take her back after she ran after idols again. This is an example of an incredible level of forgiveness, not of a condoning of the evil that she had done.
Hosea 2:1-3 God commands Hosea to go back and reclaim his unfaithful wife back from the man she was messing around with. (See above.) The point is that this is an extremely difficult thing for a man to do, to take back his wife even from the house of her lover and to have to pay a price to get her back. Yet this is what God did for the children of Israel and also did for us. What an incredible heart He has for us, even though we were spiritually harlots in His eyes; He still loved us enough to pay the price to redeem us. --MAW
50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced [Deut 27:22 / Lev 20:17]
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union [Gen 20:11,12 / Gen 17:16]
Gen 17:16 says nothing about Sarah being Abrams sister. Gen 20:11 ignores Gen 12:11-13. Abraham had people believing that Sarah was his sister out of fear -- it was a lie.
Is it ok to marry or cohabit with one's sister? Well, in the early generations man didn't have a choice. Cain for example married someone, and the only gals around were his siblings. Abraham also lived long before Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After Moses, nope, not a good idea to marry your sister. --MAW
51. A man may marry his brother's widow [Deut 25:5]
A man may not marry his brother's widow [Lev 20:21]
This is a clear case of reading a contradiction INTO the Bible -- Lev 20:21 says nothing obvious about marrying widows. 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple" [Luke 14:26]
Hatred to kindred condemned [Eph 6:2 / Eph 5:25,29] I have seen this verse used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it?
It is a fairly basic rule in hermeneutics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really.
Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, " honor your mother and father". [Matt. 19:19]. In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help their parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" [Matt. 15:6-7]
Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments.
On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home?
An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them!
No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context.
So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" [vs. 35].
Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place.
It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean 'love less'. In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37.
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me".
In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke.
I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Gen 29:30-31:
"So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb".
Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation.
Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" [Matt 22:37].
Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her", must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost!
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended [Prov 31:6,7 / 1 Tim 5:23 / Ps 104:15]
Intoxicating beverages discountenanced [Prov 20:1 / Prov 23:31,32]
Is it ok to drink alcoholic beverages? Yup, but not in excess. And it's not required.
(All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23).
Prov 20:1 says abusers of wine are not wise.
Prov 23:30 tells us that verses 31-32 are in the context of excessive drinking.
The Lord was accused of being a drinker; it can be inferred that He did not entirely abstain from wine - just from drunkenness. However, anyone who is weak in this matter would do well not to touch the stuff. (IMHO)
A great verse not quoted is Eph 4:18 (Compare with Acts 2:13-18). The point of wine in the Bible is a picture of our enjoyment of the Spirit. Well, atheists can't be expected to understand that. Anyway, we should be crazy before God and sober before man. --MAW
54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only [Rom 13:1-3,6]
It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and receive unto themselves damnation therefore [Ex 1:17,20 / Dan 3:16,18 / Dan 6:9,7,10 / Acts 4:26,27 / Mark 12:38,39,40 / Luke 23:11,24,33,35]
Should we obey our rulers? Are they God's ministers? Do they punish only evildoers? Do they sometimes punish the good as well? Will they receive damnation for their injustices?
This question has to be answered in parts.
(1) Should we obey our rulers?
Romans 13:1-3, 6 says we should be subject to, and not resist, the authorities over us. Note: it doesn't say obey. We should obey if at all possible, unless such obedience is contrary to God, as in the extreme cases below.
Exod 1:17, 20 tells us that the midwives did not follow the pharoah's command to kill the male babies of the Israelites and that God approved.
Dan 3:16 18 tell us that Daniel's three friends disobeyed the king's command to bow to the image. It also tells us that they were willing to submit to the consequences and that their attitude was not one of defiance but of respectful disobedience. Same as the midwives.
Dan 6:7, 9, 10 tells us Daniel was the same. He was submissive to the king and honored him, but was unable to obey this one particular command because it conflicted with His faithful worship of God. He also submitted to the penalty. All three are special cases where the authorities require something contrary to God. All three are not obedient but are still subject and do not resist.
Acts 4:26-27 does not deal with this question.
Mark 12:38-40 "Beware the scribes" is not a command not to respect them or do as they say. In another verse the Lord makes this more clear, telling us to do as they say but not as they do. The Lord had good reason to warn His disciples to beware the scribes, as they were part of the group that was plotting to kill Him. Anyway, that is not the point here.
Luke 23:11, 24, 33, 35 Here the Lord submitted to the cruel treatment of the earthly government. He was a good example for us all.
(2) Are they God's ministers?
Romans tells us that they are. No verse tells us that they are not, although they do sometimes abuse their office after they have received it from God. That makes them not much different from King Saul or the sons of Eli. David and Samuel (respectively) were still subject to them and respected them as established by God.
(3) Do they punish only evildoers?
Romans 13:3 "For the rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from him."
This is a general principle, explaining that if we rob a bank or kill someone or dodge our taxes (the example in the context), we will have something to fear from the authorities, whereas if we don't we won't. If they oppress us unjustly, that is a matter not being dealt with in this verse.
(4) Do they get punished by God for their injustices?
Yes. God is not a regarder of persons. Every individual, regardless of status, will eventually face the judgment seat. --MAW
55. Women's rights denied [Gen 3:16 / 1 Tim 2:12 / 1 Cor 14:34 / 1 Pet 3:6]
Women's rights affirmed [Judg 4:4,14,15 / Judg 5:7 / Acts 2:18 / Acts 21:9]
Does the Bible affirm or deny women's rights? (Hot topic.)
Gen 3:16 the curse on the woman (man got one too). The husband rules over the wife.
1 Tim 2:12 Woman not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
1 Cor 14:34 Silent. Not permitted to speak in the assemblies but to be subject. Next verse explains: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Pet 3:6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, so women should be subject to their own husbands.
Judg 4:4, 14-15 Deborah, a female, judged Israel. But note: The Bible purposely mentions her husband's name. She does not choose to lead the people of Israel to battle but is told to do so. She goes obediently when told, but tells Barak that he will be shamed in that a woman will kill his enemy Sisera. (It is a shame for a woman to defeat the enemy.) It is also a shame to Barak that he cannot go to battle without a woman. As a prophetess, she speaks, but she purposely keeps herself in her proper position as a female by maintaining the safeguards of her husband's headship and obedience to the authority of Barak. It is also a shame to Israel that there were no men who could judge them and so God was forced to use a female. (This does happen sometimes.)
Judg 5:7 Confirms the fact that there was no male to rule Israel properly and so God was forced to raise up Deborah.
Acts 2:18 Both men and women prophesy. Females prophesying is different from females teaching and exerting authority over men. Females can of course prophesy with their heads covered, signifying submission and acceptance of God's ordination. Just as Deborah did.
Acts 21:9 A man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Same as above. See also 1 Cor 14:24, 26, 31; 11:5.
1 Cor 11:3 shows us that the point here is to keep the proper order (v. 40) in the churches: God is the Head of Christ. He, Christ, was fully in submission to the Father in all things, even unto death. Likewise, men should be headed up by Christ and women by men, especially their own husbands. While on that topic:
Eph 5:25-31 "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she should be holy and without blemish. In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh."
1 Peter 3:7 says that the wives are weaker and are to be treasured as vessels unto honor by their husbands.
1 Cor 12:22-24 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness, but our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked.
2 Cor 12:9-10 And He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore I will rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ might tabernacle over me. Therefore I am well pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions and distresses, on behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am powerful.
The brothers saw the vision on the mount of transfiguration, were appointed as disciples and later as apostles, and in the churches took on the responsibilities of being elders, deacons, teachers, and so on. But it was a group of sisters who supplied the funds for Jesus and His disciples to live for those three and a half years. It was a sister who willingly and without a second thought offered herself to be used by God to bring forth the Messiah, it was a sister who anointed the Lord Jesus with the costly nard which may have been her entire life savings and wiped His feet with her tears, sisters who first learned of His resurrection, and a sister who lingered at the tomb and was first to see Him in resurrection. The Lord does not discriminate against us sisters; rather, He is full of compassion for us in our weakness. Let us love and seek Him with our whole heart. --MAW
1. God is satisfied with his works
"God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31] God is dissatisfied with his works.
"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]
This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved. 2. God dwells in chosen temples
"the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16]
God dwells not in temples "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48]
I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will. 3. God dwells in light
"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see." [1 Tim 6:16] God dwells in darkness
"Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]
"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11]
"Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God is unapproachable.
One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!
Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.
4. God is seen and heard [Ex 33:23 / Ex 33:11 / Gen 3:9,10 / Gen 32:30 / Is 6:1 / Ex 24:9-11]
God is invisible and cannot be heard [John 1:18 / John 5:37 / Ex 33:20 / 1 Tim 6:16]
These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction....
In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)
He notes: "If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".
How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT): Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)
"they saw God" (Ex 24:11)
"We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?
Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed. So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).
Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach. Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".
Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father. Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father.
5. God is tired and rests
"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]
God is never tired and never rests "The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary."
According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work. 6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things [Prov 15:3 / Ps 139:7-10 / Job 34:22,21]
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." [Gen 3:8]
"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5]
"The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] I accept the teaching that God is everywhere present and sees and knows all things. So let's consider the instances in Genesis that are cited:
Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Let's also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?
First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions:
"Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?"
Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others? "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5]
"The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into human history.
But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word 'descend' implies turning one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a "mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable.
Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established.
7. God knows the hearts of men [Acts 1:24 / Ps 139:2,3]
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God." [Gen 22:12]
"Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your hearts." [Deut 8:2]
"The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." [Deut 13:3] We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions.
Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them.
What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he [I]relates. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of the 'test' that he just went through.
In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity?
8. God is all powerful [Jer 32:27 / Matt 19:26]
God is not all powerful
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." [Judg 1:19]
This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is "reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley." He adds: "This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The 'he' is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector." 9. God is unchangeable [James 1:17 / Mal 3:6 / Ezek 24:14 / Num 23:19]
God is changeable [Gen 6:6 / Jonah 3:10 / 1 Sam 2:30,31 / 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6 / Ex 33:1,3,17,14]
Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood.
For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us.
Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong.
In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they don't abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction.
10. God is just and impartial
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15]
"Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25]
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4]
"Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25]
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]
God is unjust and partial
"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25]
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5]
"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13]
"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] The first set is as follows:
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15] = Basic Teaching (BT) -- God is righteous
"Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25] = (BT) -- God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked.
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4] = (BT) -- God is righteous
"Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] = (BT) -- God's ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not.
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11] = (BT) -- God is impartial. However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ's atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don't, we need only consider if God is unrighteous in any of them.
The second set is as follows:
"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous."
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] The following verse notes that loving-kindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God really unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visiting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.)
MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant here:
Are children punished for the sins of the parents?
Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children.
Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction.
"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness.
"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (i.e., neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of unrighteousness.
11. God is the author of evil "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" [Lam 3:38]
"Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11]
"I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things."
"I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by." [Ez 20:25]
"When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6]
God is not the author of evil [1 Cor 14:33 / Deut 32:4 / James 1:13]
Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.
12. God gives freely to those who ask [James 1:5 / Luke 11:10]
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them [John 12:40 / Josh 11:20 / Is 63:17] Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's heart, yet give to those who [I]DO ask.
13. God is to be found by those who seek him [Matt 7:8 / Prov 8:17]
God is not to be found by those who seek him [Prov 1:28]
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me." [Pr 1:28]
Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (i.e., "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction.
14. God is warlike [Ex 15:3 / Is 51:15]
God is peaceful [Rom 15:33 / 1 Cor 14:33]
"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3]
(Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war)
"The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33]
"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33]
It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense -- a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations -- they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here.
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious [Jer 13:14 / Deut 7:16 / 1 Sam 15:2,3 / 1 Sam 6:19]
God is kind, merciful, and good [James 5:11 / Lam 3:33 / 1 Chron 16:34 / Ezek 18:32 / Ps 145:9 / 1 Tim 2:4 / 1 John 4:16 / Ps 25:8]
The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious -- that is His nature.
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long [Num 32:13 / Num 25:4 / Jer 17:4]
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute [Ps 103:8 / Ps 30:5]
The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that "God's anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse.
So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here.
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Ex 29:36 / Lev 23:27 / Ex 29:18 / Lev 1:9]
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Jer 7:22 / Jer 6:20 / Ps 50:13,4 / Is 1:13,11,12]
The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: " but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, "I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this.
18. God accepts human sacrifices [2 Sam 21:8,9,14 / Gen 22:2 / Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39]
God forbids human sacrifice [Deut 12:30,31]
The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God "accepted it." No contradictions here.
19. God tempts men [Gen 22:1 / 2 Sam 24:1 / Jer 20:7 / Matt 6:13]
God tempts no man [James 1:13]
Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desperation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!). The only possible hope of a contradiction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here.
20. God cannot lie [Heb 6:18]
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive [2 Thes 2:11 / 1 Kings 22:23 / Ezek 14:9]
In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.
But, MaryAnna White notes:
1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit -- Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God -- He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer -- a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God's sovereignty. --MAW
The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie.
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him [Gen 6:5,7]
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him [Gen 8:21]
This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean the same thing as destroying man, now does it?
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works [Rom 1:20]
God's attributes cannot be discovered [Job 11:7 / Is 40:28]
Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this is contradictory.
23. There is but one God [Deut 6:4]
There is a plurality of gods [Gen 1:26 / Gen 3:22 / Gen 18:1-3 / 1 John 5:7]
This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4?
Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23, where the Hebrew spies returned with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality" (composite unity). The same word which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to describe God's essence!
24. Robbery commanded [Ex 3:21,22 / Ex 12:35,36]
Robbery forbidden [Lev 19:13 / Ex 20:15]
It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as "robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious examples of God commanding robbery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for goods.
25. Lying approved and sanctioned [Josh 2:4-6 / James 2:25 / Ex 1:18-20 / 1 Kings 22:21,22]
Lying forbidden [Ex 20:16 / Prov 12:22 / Rev 21:8]
Rev speaks of all liars being cast into the lake of fire. Since the first set of scriptures do not say otherwise, we can dismiss this one. Proverbs speaks of lying as an abomination. Since the first set of scriptures do not say lying is not an abomination, we can dismiss this one. The verse in Ex is one of the Ten Commandments.
It's not obvious to me that lying is approved of in the above situations. Concerning Rahab (Josh 2:4-6), James says, "the harlot was justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25). Her act of saving the lives of these men is what is approved of. The same goes for Ex 1, where the midwives refuse to kill the male infants which were birthed. As for 1 King 22:21-22, once again it is unclear if lying is truly approved of. According to one Bible scholar:
"The whole declaration of Micaiah...is a figurative and poetical description of a vision that he had seen. Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist of the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be fatally deceived."
Another scholar says:
"Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment."
Since it is unclear that God truly approves of lying in this case, the contradiction is not established.
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned [2 Kings 14:7,3]
Hatred to the Edomite forbidden [Deut 23:7]
The account in Deut indeed forbids hatred against the Edomite. Does the account in 2 Kings sanction it? Not at all. It merely mentions that Amaziah slew many Edomites. And while hatred can be part of warfare, it need not be. And since the account in 2 Kings doesn't even mention hatred of the Edomites, this is obviously a concocted contradiction.
27. Killing commanded [Ex 32:27]
Killing forbidden [Ex 20:13]
Ex 20:13 reads, "You shall not murder." Not all killing is murder.
28. The blood-shedder must die [Gen 9:5,6]
The blood-shedder must not die [Gen 4:15]
Gen 4:15 makes no such generalization. It is specific to Cain. This is an example where the critic takes an incident and transforms it into an absolute principle. Besides, the covenant in Gen 9 was made with Noah, who existed much later than did Cain.
29. The making of images forbidden [Ex 20:4]
The making of images commanded [Ex 25:18,20]
Ex 20:4 states than one should not make idols and bow down and worship them. The cherubims in Ex 25 are not idols, nor were they worshipped.
30. Slavery and oppression ordained [Gen 9:25 / Lev 25:45,46 / Joel 3:8]
Slavery and oppression forbidden
Slavery and oppression (two different things in the Bible)
Gen. 9:25 Canaan is punished, sentenced to be a bondsman. (slave) This is a punishment by God upon Ham through the mouth of his father Noah for his rebellious insubordination and disregard for God's authority on earth at that time - his father. He could have been killed for this, but instead he was merely told that some of his descendents would be slaves. This is not a condoning of oppression, but a prophecy that such a judgment would indeed be carried out. (Ones who died for rebellion include Korah and Absalom; Miriam was judged with a case of leprosy for a few days.) This verse says nothing to those who would be the slave owners as to whether their action is condoned or not.
Lev. 25:45 It's ok to buy a stranger for a bondsman/woman if someone sells him/her to you, as long as it's not a fellow Israelite.
Joel 3:8 God punishes Tyre (?) by selling the people to the Israelites as slaves and then selling them to the Sabeans.
Still no mention of condoning oppression.
Isa. 58:6 mentions a particular fast to Jehovah as a breaking of every yoke. Surely that cannot refer to (include) the yoke on the oxen, so there is some limitation to which yokes are broken. Some yokes are forbidden - i.e. yoking a fellow Israelite- and are undoubtedly included. The case of a foreign slave could be argued either way and hence this verse is not a clear contradiction of any of the above.
Exod. 22:21 Not permitted to vex or oppress strangers. Does not say, not permitted to buy them.
Exod. 21:16 Not permitted to steal and sell people. Does not say, not permitted to buy and sell them.
Matt. 23:10 is irrelevant. It says, "Neither be called instructors, because One is your Instructor, the Christ." (RV). Footnote: "Or, guides, teachers, directors." This section is talking about how we address fellow believers. It earlier says to call no one "father." Obviously it is talking here about differentiating among believers by bestowing titles of honor. These titles should be reserved for God alone, not bestowed on men. But our physical father is still our father, our school teachers are still our teachers, and our masters, if we are slaves, are still our masters and are to be called such if they so demand. The President is still the President, etc. We are admonished in the Bible to show honor to those in authority over us in our families, in the government, etc. --MAW
Gen 9:25 has Noah stating that Canaan will be the servant of Japheth. This does not necessarily read as the ordination of "slavery and oppression" by God. The verses in Lev refer to a mild form of servitude. Joel simply threatens captivity as a punishment for sin. None of these verses unequivocally ordain "slavery and oppression."
On the other hand, the verses in Isaiah and Exodus do forbid truly oppressive behavior. The verse in Mt. is irrelevant to this subject.
31. Improvidence enjoyed [Matt 6:28,31,34 / Luke 6:30,35 / Luke 12:3]
Improvidence condemned [1 Tim 5:8 / Prov 13:22]
I believe that this is a case of both/and, as neither extreme is good. These teachings serve to balance each other.
MaryAnna observes:
"Improvidence enjoyed"
Matt. 6:28, 31, 34 -- these verses tell us not to be anxious. They don't tell us not to work for our living.
Luke 6:31-35 tell us to give to those that ask, and to lend without expecting any return. This again is not telling us not to provide for our own needs. If we didn't have it in the first place we wouldn't be able to give or lend it. And it doesn't say that the borrowers or askers are approved by God. The reward mentioned here goes to the givers, not to the takers. This is made obvious by verse 29, which says to turn the cheek to those who smite it. Clearly the Bible is not meaning that we are supposed to go around slapping people in the face.
Luke 12:3 says "Therefore what you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in the private rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops." What this has to do with improvidence, I have no idea, unless it is meant as an example of condoning of eavesdropping and gossip. That would be a really strange inter- pretation of this verse, looking at the context.
"Improvidence condemned"
1 Tim. 5:8 says we must provide for our own. (Doesn't say we need to be full of anxiety, just do it.)
Proverbs 13:22 - a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children.... Yup. --MAW
32. Anger approved
"In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." [Eph 4:26]
Anger disapproved [Eccl 7:9 / Prov 22:24 / James 1:20] I do not view Paul's admonitions as being approving of anger. In fact, the advice about not allowing the day to end while you are angry is anything but an approval of anger. Phil Porvaznik adds: the context of Eph 4:31 says explicitly to "let all....anger...be put away from you..." Also there is a difference between the KJV and NIV in Matthew 5:22.
The KJV reads "whosoever is angry with his brother [I]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matt 5:22)
The NIV (NU-text) is missing the phrase "without a cause." So when the NIV says Christ was "angry" (Mark 3:5) some (e.g. KJV only folks) say Christ would be sinning.
Let's see if this makes sense. Please read the rest of Matthew 5:22 in the KJV -- "whosoever shall say, Thou FOOL, shall be in danger of hell fire." Notice the phrase "without a cause" is missing here. IOW, it doesn't say "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, without a cause...." it simply reads "thou FOOL." Next we look at what Christ said to the Pharisees -- "Ye FOOLS...." (Matt 23:17,19 KJV). Does this mean Christ is sinning and in danger of hell fire? Of course not.
The answer to the "anger" passage is simple. There are different types of anger -- righteous and unrighteous -- just as there are different senses to the use of "FOOL" (atheists are called "fools" for denying God by the Psalmist 14:1). The apostle Paul quotes the Psalmist who says "be ye angry, and sin not" (Eph 4:26 KJV). There is "anger" that is not necessarily sinful.
Jesus, who is said to be "without sin" throughout the Bible (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 John 3:5) was "angry" in the sense of "righteous anger" -- He was "grieved" (Gr sunlupeo) because of the hardness of the hearts of those who criticised His healing on the Sabbath day (see the context Mark 3:1-6). Jesus also was "angry" at the death of Lazarus -- he "groaned in the spirit" (John 11:33,38) and saw death as the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:26). Since I'm a Catholic, I'll quote from our universal Catechism of the Catholic Church --
2302. Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice" [quoting St. Thomas Aquinas]. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" [Matt 5:22].
It is this kind of "anger" that is forbidden. As Paul writes -- "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph 4:31-32 KJV). --PP
33. Good works to be seen of men [Matt 5:16]
Good works not to be seen of men [Matt 6:1] Here is a case where context matters. In Mt 5, Jesus is speaking in the context of being the salt of the earth. It is by allowing Christ to work through us that people will be drawn to Him. That is, one does good works to glorify God. In Mt 6, Jesus is talking about doing good works in a self-righteous sense, where one draws attention to self. Consider a very practical example -- a Christian who serves by feeding the poor ought to do so humbly and quietly. They will eventually be noticed, if only by those they serve. The same Christian shouldn't be bragging about his work among acquaintances, where a "holier-than-thou" sense is evident. The former approach draws people to God, the latter repels them.
34. Judging of others forbidden [Matt 7:1,2]
Judging of others approved [1 Cor 6:2-4 / 1 Cor 5:12] This is a commonly employed 'contradiction' which also ignores context. Mt 7 is not dealing with judging in of itself, rather, it speaks of hypocrisy -- judging others by standards that one does not live by.
35. Christ taught nonresistance [Matt 5:39 / Matt 26:52]
Christ taught and practiced physical resistance [Luke 22:36 / John 2:15] Since using a scourge to drive out the animals and overturn the tables is not as case of "physical resistance," the verse in John is irrelevant. In Luke, it appears as if Jesus is teaching the disciples that in their changed circumstances, self-defense and self-provision might be necessary. The very fact that two swords was "enough" indicates a restrained theme to this teaching. Mt 5 is where Jesus teaches that one ought to "turn the other cheek." This is a hyperbole used to teach a moral lesson - do not set yourself against those who have injured you (does anyone really think that Jesus would have us expose our chests and invite the mugger the shoot us?). In Mt 26, someone with Jesus struck out at the legal authorities. Here the context is different from that of Lk 22. I read this as saying that those who raise the sword against the legal authorities can expect to die by the sword (and of course, this in of itself is not necessarily a moral principle). Then again, in light of vs 53,54, one cannot establish that this teaching goes beyond the immediate circumstances. That is, if the disciples had fought, they would have been killed, and Jesus had better things in mind. That's why he told them He could summon supernatural aid if need be.
36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed [Luke 12:4]
Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed [John 7:1] Luke 12 is a generalized teaching which states that one ought to fear God more so than men (read vs. 5). John 7:1 says nothing about Jesus being afraid that the Jews would kill him. It simply mentions that He avoided them since they wanted to kill Him. It wasn't His time to die yet.
37. Public prayer sanctioned [1 Kings 8:22,54 / 9:3]
Public prayer disapproved [Matt 5:5,6] Mt 6 (not 5) does not as much focus on public prayer as it does on hyocritical prayer -- "And when you pray, you are not to pray as hypocrites." Jesus condemns the prayers designed to gather favor in the eyes of men. Nothing contradictory here.
38. Importunity in prayer commended [Luke 18:5,7]
Importunity in prayer condemned [Matt 6:7,8] The vain repetitions ("as the heathen do") Jesus speaks of in Mt hardly seem to me to be the fervant supplications that Luke relays. Put simply, there's a difference between fervant, real prayer and repetitive chanting or mouthing words over and over in order to twist God's arm (so to speak).
39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned [Judg 13:5 / Num 6:5]
The wearing of long hair by men condemned [1 Cor 11:14] Judg 13:5 the Nazarite is not permitted to cut his hair. Num 6:5 teaches the same thing. 1 Cor 11:14 teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.
Yes, true. The Nazarites kept long hair even though it was a dishonor to them. 1 Cor 11:10 tells us that long hair is a sign of submission. So the Nazarites submitted to God even though it meant suffering some shame, for the duration of their vow. They also stayed away from dead things and any product of the grape, I think. --MAW
One could also note that national customs furnish an explanation here. 1 Cor was addressed to a Greek audience, where long hair on men often indicated effeminacy and indulgences in unnatural vices.
40. Circumcision instituted [Gen 17:10]
Circumcision condemned [Gal 5:2]
Gen 17:10 God institutes circumcision to set His people apart. This is in the Old Testament where God would use a special people through which His Messiah could be brought forth.
Gal 5:2 Spoken to ones who already believe in Christ but were not circumcised - if they go to be circumcised, they are going back to the law. This means they are denying the effectiveness of Christ's death... so they lose out on the benefits of being a believer.
This is not the only such verse. Paul says elsewhere that we should beware those of the circumcision, also calling them the concision and even dogs. This is referring to the Judaizers who were trying to get the believers to be circumcised as a condition of their salvation.. among other things. They were trying to bring the believers under the law, even though these believers had been previously Gentiles and not Jews.
Paul tells us - it is not that all who have been circumcised are condemned, but rather that circumcision is no longer necessary in the New Testament because it has been replaced by the cross of Christ. --MAW
Indeed, here is another case (like #1) where the critic ignores the intervening events between the Scriptures cited. He/she may as well argue that the existence of a OLD and NEW covenant is a contradiction. And that exercise would be futile.
41. The Sabbath instituted [Ex 20:8]
The Sabbath repudiated
The Sabbath is a topic a lot of Christians disagree on (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists).
Exod 20:8 teaches that the Sabbath was instituted. But it was also practiced by God Himself even as early as day seven.
Isaiah 1:13 God says the wicked people are displeasing to God, and He no longer delights in anything they do, including keeping the Sabbath and making offerings to Him. No surprise there.
Romans 14:5 and Col. 2:16 are [I]New Testament verses.
Romans 14:5 neither supports the Sabbath nor repudiates it, though. It just says some keep and some don't and both are to be accepted as genuine believers. No problem there. (See verse 10).
Colossians 2:16 is the same story. "Let no one judge you with regards to the Sabbath" sounds like a far cry from "You are forbidden to keep the Sabbath" or "The Sabbath is bunk."
This matter would really do better dealt with on the larger scale of "Should New Testament believers be required to keep the entire Old Testament law?" Then one could bring in Eph. 2:15 and so on to show that on the one hand the moral aspects of the law are uplifted in the New Testament (Matt. 5-7), yet on the other hand the rituals are abolished (Sabbath, circumcision, feasts) and the offerings are replaced by Christ as the one unique Sacrifice. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down by Christ on the cross and there is no longer any difference (among Christians). See discussion with James in Acts regarding this matter. --MAW
The teaching in Isaiah does not repudiate the Sabbath. If we read further, the LORD says:
"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" Obviously, God is condemning the religious hypocrisy in this instance.
Nevertheless, even if we take the above claims as truth, namely, that God instituted the Sabbath in Exodus, and repealed it through Paul (and we need not debate if this is the true interpretation), as it stands, this is not contradictory. It is not contradictory to institute X and then repeal it much later.
42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day [Ex 20:11]
The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt [Deut 5:15]
In this case, I see no reason why both explanations cannot be true. As such, the Sabbath could have been rooted in the order of things [I]and in the historical intervention of the Creator.
Why was the Sabbath instituted?
Exod 22:11 tells us the Israelites should rest because God rested on the seventh day.
Deut 5:15 tells the Israelites that God commanded them to keep the Sabbath because of their deliverance from Egypt.
The wording is different between the two statements. Deut. tells us the reason for the commandment to keep the Sabbath. Exo does not, but merely tells us a good reason why they should keep it. Anyway, it is not uncommon to do something for more than one reason. Especially good reasons. --MAW
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death [Ex 31:15 / Num 15:32,36]
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in the same [John 5:16 / Matt 12:1-3,5]
First of all, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not subject of the Sabbath. As for his disciples, they were charged with breaking the Sabbath because they picked some heads of grain and ate them. Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders on their legalism (read the entire discussion in Mt 12). Jesus did not condone working on the Sabbath, he just pointed out the folly of taking this law to the extreme were people could not eat or help others on the Sabbath.
No work could be done on Sabbath but Jesus worked on Sabbath and justified His disciples in doing the same. Yup. In the Old Testament no work could be done on the Sabbath, although it was ok to pull an ox out of the ditch.
The Lord Jesus in the New Testament is the Lord of the Sabbath and perfectly free to break it and even abolish it, since He is the one who set it up in the first place. Also, He is the reality of the shadows. The Old Testament Sabbath was a rest for God's people, but in the New Testament our real Sabbath is the One who said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-ladened, and I will give you rest." Also, Hebrews tells us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. This is not talking about an outward ritual of sitting around all day once a week reading the Torah, but about resting in Christ as our real inward peace and rest and sanctuary in this age and in full in the age to come.
Like I said earlier, this can be a pretty controversial issue, but at least grant me that it's a possible explanation which removes the validity of 43 as a contradiction in the Bible. Others may explain it differently. --MAW
44. Baptism commanded [Matt 28:19]
Baptism not commanded [1 Cor 1:17,14]
This is not a contradiction. Paul simply responded to the favoritism which sprang up along the lines of who baptized whom. Furthermore, Paul notes that his particular calling was not as a baptizer, but as a preacher.
45. Every kind of animal allowed for food [Gen 9:3 / 1 Cor 10:25 / Rom 14:14]
Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food [Deut 14:7,8] The NT references stem from the New Covenant. The Genesis reference indicates that God sanctioned non-vegetarian diets. The Deut references are particular to the Jews and the Old Covenant that was made with them.
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned [Num 30:2 / Gen 21:23-24,31 / Gen 31:53 / Heb 6:13]
Taking of oaths forbidden [Matt 5:34] Jesus is trying to get beyond human conventions and the frivolous oaths which were common and was calling for simple and pure honesty. Hebrews refers specifically to God and indicates His commitment/covenant.
Does the Bible sanction or forbid oaths? In the Old Testament they are not commanded, but permitted. Num. 30 explains when they can be annulled.
God Himself made an oath as recorded in Heb. 13:4. In Matt. 5:34 we New Testament believers are told not to swear by anything but to just say yes and no. The explanation given is that we are powerless to change our hair color. (Natural color.) But surely God is not similarly powerless, so if He wants to swear something, He is perfectly able to carry it out and nothing can come up to stop Him. No contradiction there.
So OT permits swearing (doesn't command it) and sets limits on it. The uplifted NT law abolishes it altogether on the grounds that we are powerless to guarantee the outcome. But God is not powerless, so He can swear as He likes. --MAW
47. Marriage approved [Gen 2:18 / Gen 1:28 / Matt 19:5 / Heb 13:4]
Marriage disapproved [1 Cor 7:1 / 1 Cor 7:7,8]
Paul is not disapproving marriage! He is simply saying that it is good to be unmarried. Saying it is good to not marry is not saying it is bad to marry. Being unmarried is good in the sense that particular blessings can stem from it (in fact, Paul even describes celibacy as a "gift"). However, another set of blessings can stem from being married.
Does God approve of marriage? Let's just look at the verses cited as saying that God disapproves of marriage, since obviously He approves.
1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26
Verse 26 tells us why Paul says this. It is because of the present necessity. Well, these three verses do not tell us that God disapproves of marriage, but only that there is nothing wrong with staying single. "Good for them." A man who is content to refrain from touching any woman must really be full of the enjoyment of God, as Paul was. This is surely a good thing, although most people are not like that. As verse 7 says, each has his own gift from God, and for most people it is not the gift of staying single forever, although Matt. 19:10-12 tells us (not cited) that there is a blessing for those that are able to keep it. Other verses not quoted tell us that the married person cares for how to please his/her mate, whereas the single one is free to concentrate on pleasing the Lord.
Anyway, none of these verses say that God disapproves of marriage. To teach others not to marry is to spread the doctrines of demons. (1 Tim. 4:1-5).
"What God has joined together." If God disapproved of marriage, He would disapprove of almost all humans that ever were. He Himself intends to be married.
In 1 Tim. 5:14 Paul speaks of this matter again and makes it clear that his position is neither disapproval nor forbidding of marriage.
Genesis 2:18 It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a help suitable for him. --MAW
48. Freedom of divorce permitted [Deut 24:1 / Deut 21:10,11,14]
Divorce restricted [Matt 5:32]
Yes, Jesus issues a new commandment and even explains the permission 1500 years earlier. He now issues a higher calling.
49. Adultery forbidden [Ex 20:14 / Heb 13:4]
Adultery allowed [Num 31:18 / Hos 1:2; 2:1-3] One has to read adultery INTO Num 31:18 -- it is not obvious that this verse is talking about adultery. As for Hosea, OT scholar Walter Kaiser believes that when God told Hosea to marry Gomer, she was not yet a harlot. (Besides, the exception doesn't prove the rule). Does the Bible permit adultery? No.
Numbers 31:18 doesn't say that the "yourselves" were already married. Obviously it doesn't refer to the females among the Israelites, and so it can just as easily also exclude all the married and under-age males.
Hosea 1:2 God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute. The very idea of using this as a justification of adultery is absurd. The point here is to expose the nation of Israel at that time for her unfaithful and treacherous treatment of her Husband, God. Israel was a prostitute in the eyes of God, because she was going after idols, yet He still would marry her and even take her back after she ran after idols again. This is an example of an incredible level of forgiveness, not of a condoning of the evil that she had done.
Hosea 2:1-3 God commands Hosea to go back and reclaim his unfaithful wife back from the man she was messing around with. (See above.) The point is that this is an extremely difficult thing for a man to do, to take back his wife even from the house of her lover and to have to pay a price to get her back. Yet this is what God did for the children of Israel and also did for us. What an incredible heart He has for us, even though we were spiritually harlots in His eyes; He still loved us enough to pay the price to redeem us. --MAW
50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced [Deut 27:22 / Lev 20:17]
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union [Gen 20:11,12 / Gen 17:16]
Gen 17:16 says nothing about Sarah being Abrams sister. Gen 20:11 ignores Gen 12:11-13. Abraham had people believing that Sarah was his sister out of fear -- it was a lie.
Is it ok to marry or cohabit with one's sister? Well, in the early generations man didn't have a choice. Cain for example married someone, and the only gals around were his siblings. Abraham also lived long before Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After Moses, nope, not a good idea to marry your sister. --MAW
51. A man may marry his brother's widow [Deut 25:5]
A man may not marry his brother's widow [Lev 20:21]
This is a clear case of reading a contradiction INTO the Bible -- Lev 20:21 says nothing obvious about marrying widows. 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple" [Luke 14:26]
Hatred to kindred condemned [Eph 6:2 / Eph 5:25,29] I have seen this verse used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it?
It is a fairly basic rule in hermeneutics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really.
Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, " honor your mother and father". [Matt. 19:19]. In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help their parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" [Matt. 15:6-7]
Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments.
On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home?
An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them!
No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context.
So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" [vs. 35].
Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place.
It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean 'love less'. In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37.
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me".
In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke.
I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Gen 29:30-31:
"So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb".
Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation.
Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" [Matt 22:37].
Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her", must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost!
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended [Prov 31:6,7 / 1 Tim 5:23 / Ps 104:15]
Intoxicating beverages discountenanced [Prov 20:1 / Prov 23:31,32]
Is it ok to drink alcoholic beverages? Yup, but not in excess. And it's not required.
(All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23).
Prov 20:1 says abusers of wine are not wise.
Prov 23:30 tells us that verses 31-32 are in the context of excessive drinking.
The Lord was accused of being a drinker; it can be inferred that He did not entirely abstain from wine - just from drunkenness. However, anyone who is weak in this matter would do well not to touch the stuff. (IMHO)
A great verse not quoted is Eph 4:18 (Compare with Acts 2:13-18). The point of wine in the Bible is a picture of our enjoyment of the Spirit. Well, atheists can't be expected to understand that. Anyway, we should be crazy before God and sober before man. --MAW
54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only [Rom 13:1-3,6]
It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and receive unto themselves damnation therefore [Ex 1:17,20 / Dan 3:16,18 / Dan 6:9,7,10 / Acts 4:26,27 / Mark 12:38,39,40 / Luke 23:11,24,33,35]
Should we obey our rulers? Are they God's ministers? Do they punish only evildoers? Do they sometimes punish the good as well? Will they receive damnation for their injustices?
This question has to be answered in parts.
(1) Should we obey our rulers?
Romans 13:1-3, 6 says we should be subject to, and not resist, the authorities over us. Note: it doesn't say obey. We should obey if at all possible, unless such obedience is contrary to God, as in the extreme cases below.
Exod 1:17, 20 tells us that the midwives did not follow the pharoah's command to kill the male babies of the Israelites and that God approved.
Dan 3:16 18 tell us that Daniel's three friends disobeyed the king's command to bow to the image. It also tells us that they were willing to submit to the consequences and that their attitude was not one of defiance but of respectful disobedience. Same as the midwives.
Dan 6:7, 9, 10 tells us Daniel was the same. He was submissive to the king and honored him, but was unable to obey this one particular command because it conflicted with His faithful worship of God. He also submitted to the penalty. All three are special cases where the authorities require something contrary to God. All three are not obedient but are still subject and do not resist.
Acts 4:26-27 does not deal with this question.
Mark 12:38-40 "Beware the scribes" is not a command not to respect them or do as they say. In another verse the Lord makes this more clear, telling us to do as they say but not as they do. The Lord had good reason to warn His disciples to beware the scribes, as they were part of the group that was plotting to kill Him. Anyway, that is not the point here.
Luke 23:11, 24, 33, 35 Here the Lord submitted to the cruel treatment of the earthly government. He was a good example for us all.
(2) Are they God's ministers?
Romans tells us that they are. No verse tells us that they are not, although they do sometimes abuse their office after they have received it from God. That makes them not much different from King Saul or the sons of Eli. David and Samuel (respectively) were still subject to them and respected them as established by God.
(3) Do they punish only evildoers?
Romans 13:3 "For the rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from him."
This is a general principle, explaining that if we rob a bank or kill someone or dodge our taxes (the example in the context), we will have something to fear from the authorities, whereas if we don't we won't. If they oppress us unjustly, that is a matter not being dealt with in this verse.
(4) Do they get punished by God for their injustices?
Yes. God is not a regarder of persons. Every individual, regardless of status, will eventually face the judgment seat. --MAW
55. Women's rights denied [Gen 3:16 / 1 Tim 2:12 / 1 Cor 14:34 / 1 Pet 3:6]
Women's rights affirmed [Judg 4:4,14,15 / Judg 5:7 / Acts 2:18 / Acts 21:9]
Does the Bible affirm or deny women's rights? (Hot topic.)
Gen 3:16 the curse on the woman (man got one too). The husband rules over the wife.
1 Tim 2:12 Woman not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
1 Cor 14:34 Silent. Not permitted to speak in the assemblies but to be subject. Next verse explains: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Pet 3:6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, so women should be subject to their own husbands.
Judg 4:4, 14-15 Deborah, a female, judged Israel. But note: The Bible purposely mentions her husband's name. She does not choose to lead the people of Israel to battle but is told to do so. She goes obediently when told, but tells Barak that he will be shamed in that a woman will kill his enemy Sisera. (It is a shame for a woman to defeat the enemy.) It is also a shame to Barak that he cannot go to battle without a woman. As a prophetess, she speaks, but she purposely keeps herself in her proper position as a female by maintaining the safeguards of her husband's headship and obedience to the authority of Barak. It is also a shame to Israel that there were no men who could judge them and so God was forced to use a female. (This does happen sometimes.)
Judg 5:7 Confirms the fact that there was no male to rule Israel properly and so God was forced to raise up Deborah.
Acts 2:18 Both men and women prophesy. Females prophesying is different from females teaching and exerting authority over men. Females can of course prophesy with their heads covered, signifying submission and acceptance of God's ordination. Just as Deborah did.
Acts 21:9 A man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Same as above. See also 1 Cor 14:24, 26, 31; 11:5.
1 Cor 11:3 shows us that the point here is to keep the proper order (v. 40) in the churches: God is the Head of Christ. He, Christ, was fully in submission to the Father in all things, even unto death. Likewise, men should be headed up by Christ and women by men, especially their own husbands. While on that topic:
Eph 5:25-31 "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she should be holy and without blemish. In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh."
1 Peter 3:7 says that the wives are weaker and are to be treasured as vessels unto honor by their husbands.
1 Cor 12:22-24 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness, but our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked.
2 Cor 12:9-10 And He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore I will rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ might tabernacle over me. Therefore I am well pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions and distresses, on behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am powerful.
The brothers saw the vision on the mount of transfiguration, were appointed as disciples and later as apostles, and in the churches took on the responsibilities of being elders, deacons, teachers, and so on. But it was a group of sisters who supplied the funds for Jesus and His disciples to live for those three and a half years. It was a sister who willingly and without a second thought offered herself to be used by God to bring forth the Messiah, it was a sister who anointed the Lord Jesus with the costly nard which may have been her entire life savings and wiped His feet with her tears, sisters who first learned of His resurrection, and a sister who lingered at the tomb and was first to see Him in resurrection. The Lord does not discriminate against us sisters; rather, He is full of compassion for us in our weakness. Let us love and seek Him with our whole heart. --MAW