One of my favorite subjects to study is the area of so-called “Bible contradictions,” or what might also be called “difficult Bible questions.” Most questions we are asked in terms of Christian doctrine are asked by those who are quite sincere in their desire for truth, but there are many in the world, who seek to destroy the faith of Christians by pointing to places in the Bible where there are seeming contradictions, or they may ask questions to which they believe there is no good answer. Their reasoning is sound in one way — they know that if they can prove that a contradiction exists in the Scriptures, or if they can ask that “unanswerable question,” then the Bible is not infallible and it cannot be the inspired word of God. If the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, then we do not have to be obedient to anything which it says, and we are left to our own desires as to how we should live our lives.
Those who seek to destroy the inspiration of the Bible, however, are using faulty reasoning. Everyone who approaches the Bible in this manner is in some way lacking in knowledge of what the Bible actually teaches. Some take things out of context. Others have little knowledge of the language in which the Bible was originally written. Others twist what the Bible says to make it mean something quite different from what it really teaches. There are hundreds of ways in which people misunderstand what the Bible teaches, confusing those who also have a limited knowledge of Bible truth. This is why we must follow the words of the Bible in regard to our diligent study of what it teaches so that we will be no longer “babes in Christ,” but full-grown in the knowledge of Christ (Heb. 5:12-14).
For tonight’s class period, I’d like for us to look at a couple of these so-called “contradictions” or “unanswerable questions,” so that we might seek to be certain that the Bible can be clearly understood and that it never ever contradicts itself.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul said that “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Paul also wrote the following in Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”
There are many who read these words, and focusing on the word “gift,” conclude that redemption is completely dependent on God, and that man is totally without responsibility in the matter of his salvation. What is not realized, though, is the fact that a gift can be conditional, without there being any sort of meritorious effort on the part of the recipient. Notice these examples. First, we’ll read from the sixth chapter of the book of Joshua.
Jehovah promised to give the city of Jericho to ancient Israel: “And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour” (Joshua 6:2). “And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city” (Joshua 6:16).
What is very clear, though, is that they did not receive the victory and the gift of the city until after they had completed their obedience to the divine instructions, “And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him” (Joshua 6:3-5). “So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city” (Joshua 6:20).
God had given them the city, hadn’t He? Yet, there were conditions imposed upon that gift, and the gift was not received until those conditions were met.
Let’s look at another example of the conditional nature of God’s gifts. In his journey to Rome, when Paul and his companions appeared to be in danger of losing their lives in a storm, an angel spoke to Paul and said, “Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee” (Acts 27:24). Notice, though, that this gift was not without conditions because Paul warned the soldiers, “Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 27:31). So, even though salvation is God’s gift, “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus taught that we are not to work mainly for the bread that perishes; rather, we are to work “for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you” (John 6:27). The context in which these words were spoken makes it clear that working the works of God (in other words, obeying His will), does not conflict with the receiving of His gift of salvation; rather, these two things complement each other. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). The gift of God, which is salvation, is a conditional gift, a gift which hinges on the obedience of the one who wishes to receive it.
I was once asked the following question by one who seemed to constantly be looking for ways to invalidate the inspiration of the Scriptures: “Psalm 41:9 is a prophecy of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. Was he compelled to betray Jesus because of this prophecy? Churches of Christ teach that individuals are not predestined to be saved or condemned, but doesn’t this prove the opposite point?”
First of all, there is no Scriptural reason to believe that Judas was compelled or forced to betray Jesus into the hands of His enemies. If he was compelled, then it would have been God who compelled him, and he would not have been responsible for his actions. It would have been God Himself who was responsible for this betrayal.
The key lies in an understanding of what prophecy truly is. God, in looking down through the ages of history, knows just exactly what events will happen. He knows what each individual will do in their lives, but to say that He forces people to do things against their will is just not true. The best example of this comes from the life of His Son. On the night of His betrayal into the hands of His enemies, Jesus prayed to the Father. Look at what He said in Luke 22:42, “…Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”
It was the momentary wish of Jesus that there would be some way in which the salvation of mankind could be achieved without the suffering and agony of the cross, but Jesus, knowing that it was the will of the Father (revealed in the Old Testament by prophecy) that He partake of that cup of agony, submitted Himself to the Father’s will and plan. The Father did not force even the Son to be obedient to His will in the fulfillment of prophecy, so to maintain that God forced Judas to betray Jesus is not a sensible position to take.
What is evident here is that it was Christ’s attitude, personality and character which compelled Him to be obedient to the Father’s will. It was the inherent personal qualities of Jesus which came through in His willingness to die on the cross for our sins. So too, it was the personality, attitude and character of Judas which compelled him to betray Jesus. Scripture gives us a very clear picture of the personal qualities of Judas. Jesus Himself described Judas in no uncertain terms in John 6:70-71, “Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Now he spake of Judas (the son) of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, (being) one of the twelve.”
The word “devil” in this passage comes from the Greek word diabolos, which means “a false accuser, treacherous, a traitor.” Judas, from the description of him given by Jesus, was already the sort of person who could be expected to perform such an act, so in saying that he was the one that should betray Him, it only means that he was the very sort of man that would betray him when the time came, not that he was foreordained to do it. He would do it of his own accord because his personality was such that he would not hesitate to do such a thing if it served his purposes. Notice also that the New Testament gives other evidences of the character of Judas.
We read in John 12:1-6 the following revealing story about Judas: “Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. So they made him a supper there: and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat with him. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.”
Note carefully the character (or lack thereof) of Judas. Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with a very costly ointment, and Judas protested her actions on the pretext that it would have been better for Mary to have sold the ointment for a great deal of money, so that the proceeds of the sale could have been given to the poor. On the surface, this sounds like a very noble attitude, and a reasonable question by Judas, but John reveals that Judas was nothing but a thief and a hypocrite! His real intention was to sell the ointment and then steal the proceeds of the sale for his own possession. John states that he “had the bag.” He was responsible for the care of what meager funds belonged to the band of apostles and disciples, and he apparently was already in the habit of regularly stealing money from the disciples for his own use! Judas loved money and would do anything which would bring more of it into his own hands.
Let’s notice here that God did not make him “a devil,” but that Judas was already one. It’s likely that this is the reason why Jesus chose him to be one of the twelve, knowing that he would not hesitate to betray him when the time came. In saying that Judas was compelled to betray Jesus by God, it is also implied that God decrees that certain men shall do certain wicked things, and then destroy them for it with eternal punishment. This just cannot be true! What God does decree is that if men will live wicked lives, they shall surely suffer for it. There is a huge difference between these two points!
One final point in all of this is seen in the story of the betrayal itself. In Matthew’s account of Mary’s use of the valuable ointment on the feet of Jesus and the reaction of Judas, we see that the very next thing which Judas did was to go to the chief priests. “Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him (unto them)” (Matthew 26:14-16).
Does this sound like a man who was being forced to betray the Son of God? His words to the chief priests make it sound as if this was completely a matter of his own choice, and this is not surprising, considering the depths to which his character had fallen due to his love of money. It is true that God ordained and revealed through prophecy that Jesus should be crucified, but God did not ordain or prophesy that Judas would be the particular man to betray Him. His words to the priests indicate that if they would pay him an acceptable amount of money, he would deliver Jesus to them, but the language here also indicates that he might have done so for an even smaller amount of money! The whole story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas shows that it was a voluntary and deliberate act on the part of Judas, which is made even clearer by his actions after the fact: “Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor. Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou (to it). And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:1-5).
Judas shouldered the entire guilt for his actions. He said, “I have sinned…” Look also at the words of the priests to Judas after he brought back the silver, confessing his sin of betraying an innocent man into a decree of death. What the priests basically said to Judas was, “So you believe that you have betrayed an innocent man for money…why should we care about what you think in this matter? The responsibility for that is yours and yours alone! You deal with it!”
The responsibility for the betrayal of Jesus lay squarely on the shoulders of Judas and on him alone. God did not force him to commit this sin, but as we’ve seen, it was his own character and personality which caused him to do these things. Notice one other thing about this incident. John’s gospel reveals the following: “And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s (son), to betray him…” (John 13:2).
The story of the temptation by Satan of Jesus in the wilderness shows us that there are two responses one might make when Satan tempts man. Jesus resisted those temptations, remaining the only sinless man to have ever lived. Judas gave in easily to those temptations, his own character and desire for money causing him to be obedient to the temptation to betray Jesus for monetary gain. The lesson for us is clear. It is our desire to live for Jesus which will make it possible to resist the temptation to sin. Judas could also have resisted Satan’s temptations, but he chose to commit sin by betraying Jesus. No one forced him to do so, but he did it purely of his own will and determination.
In one of his most famous defenses of the Christian faith, Paul discussed the details of his conversion to the Lord in the 22nd chapter of the book of Acts. In Acts 22:13, we read where Paul said that he was met by the preacher Ananias, who addressed him as “brother Saul.” After this, Ananias commanded Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
Those denominational preachers, who deny the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, sometimes refer to these passages of Scripture in an attempt to prove that immersion in water is not a condition for salvation. Their reasoning goes like this: since Ananias referred to Saul as a “brother” prior to his baptism, then Saul was a child of God before and without the rite of baptism. In other words, Saul was saved on the road to Damascus when he acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus, and his baptism wasn’t necessary.
If this was the case, then Saul became a Christian without having his sins washed away, which makes no sense, because Acts 22:16 states that baptism is the act that washes away sins.
Second, the term “brother” is not applied by Ananias in the Christian sense. Instead, it is applied in a “nationalistic” sense because they were both Jews. They were both Jewish brethren. To clearly understand this, note Peter’s usage of this term “brethren” in the second chapter of Acts. When he addressed those who had murdered the Lord, and who accordingly needed to repent of that evil deed, Peter declared in Acts 2:29, “Brethren, I may say unto you…” So, if the use of “brother” in Acts 22:13 proves that baptism is not essential for salvation, then the use of “brethren” in Acts 2:29 teaches that repentance is also not essential for salvation, because these Jews had not yet repented of their sins (Acts 2:38). The reference to Saul by Ananias as a “brother”does not teach that we are saved from our sins without performing certain things which are conditions of salvation, including repentance and baptism.
It’s been my goal in tonight’s class to in some small way encourage each of you to a deeper study of God’s Word. If we are to remain true to the admonition found in 1 Peter 3:15, that we “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear,” then we must know how to respond to those who would seek to destroy our faith in the inspired Word of God. We must study with that goal in mind.