Problem: Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?
Problem: The Gospel accounts seem to disagree as to when the temple veil was torn in two in relation to Christ’s death. A quick look at the relevant passages will highlight this supposed contradiction.
Continue reading →
Problem: A few years ago, a journal dedicated to revealing (alleged) Bible errors petitioned its readers to submit their “best” biblical questions and arguments that “they have found through actual experience to be exceptionally effective vis-à-vis biblicists…and they will probably be published for all to see and use” (McKinsey, 1988a, p. 6). The first response printed in this journal (two months later) was from a man who listed among his top five “Bible contradictions” a question of whether or not the veil of the Temple was torn in two “before” (Luke 23:44-46) or “after” (Matthew 27:50-51) Jesus died on the cross? The skeptic stated that this question was one of his favorites to ask because it elicits “such ludicrous rebuttals from Christian apologists” (McKinsey, 1988b, p. 6).
Continue reading →
Problem: Very likely, the most well-known, nameless person in the Bible is “the thief on the cross.” The Lord demonstrated His mercy one last time before His crucifixion by pardoning the thief who begged Jesus, saying, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). Having the “power on Earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6), and an overflowing amount of compassion, Jesus told him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).
Solution: After rehearsing the story of “the thief on the cross” countless times from Luke’s gospel account (a story that, sadly, has been misused by many to justify that a person today can be saved without being baptized “for the remission of sins”—Acts 2:38; cf. 22:16), some Bible students are puzzled when they eventually compare the “beloved physician’s” account with what Matthew and Mark recorded. Whereas Luke wrote: “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us’ ” (23:39), Matthew and Mark stated the following:
“Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Matthew 27:44)
“Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Mark 15:32)
The obvious question is, why did Matthew and Mark indicate the “thieves” (plural) reviled Jesus, while Luke mentioned only one who insulted Him?
First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short while later after receiving more information?
A second possible explanation for the minor differences in gospel accounts regarding the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as synecdoche. Merriam-Webster defines this term as “a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)” (italics. in orig.). Just as Bible writers frequently used figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, sarcasm, and metonymy, they also used synecdoche. As seen above (in the definition of synecdoche), this figure of speech can be used in a variety of ways (see also Dungan, 1888, pp. 300-309):
It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.
Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat, or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word children.
We must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to an alleged contradiction; he need show only one or more possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. The skeptic cannot deny that both of the above options are plausible explanations to the question of why Matthew and Mark wrote of “thieves” reviling Christ, instead of “thief.”
Problem: The Bible states that thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God, but Jesus told a thief that he would be with Him in Paradise.
Problem: Controversy has surrounded the death of Christ on the cross for almost two millennia. In the days of the apostle Paul, it served as a “stumbling block” to the Jews, and was “foolishness” to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). Throughout the past 2,000 years, men and women of all ethnicities have rejected the story of the crucified, resurrected Savior named Jesus for many objectionable reasons. Sadly, for some today, even the physical cross itself has become a stumbling block. Because of an alleged contradiction surrounding the actual words written on the cross of Christ, some have suggested that the message of the cross once preached by John, Paul, Peter, Philip, and others simply cannot be trusted. According to skeptics, the gospel writers disagree regarding what the title read that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head.
Problem: Why do the inscriptions on Jesus’s cross differ among the four gospels?
Continue reading →
Problem: What was written on the sign that was hung on the cross above the head of Jesus? How many languages was the inscription written in? Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19
Continue reading →
Problem: The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.
Matthew: “This is Jesus the king of the Jews” (27:37).
Mark: “The king of the Jews” (15:26).
Luke: “This is the king of the Jews” (23:3).
John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” (19:19).
Problem: In what many consider to be the most well-known prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the sufferings that Christ would endure amid His trial and crucifixion, saying (as if it had already happened):
Continue reading →
Problem: One of the most commonly neglected rules of interpretation that Bible critics overlook when attacking Scripture is that extra information is not necessarily contradictory information. When one Bible writer offers more details than another on a particular subject, it is inappropriate to assume that one of the writers is mistaken. When a journalist in the 21st century writes about a man on the side of the road who has just escaped death following a particular catastrophe, while another journalist writes how this same man and his wife (standing next to him) are suffering survivors of the devastating disaster, it does not mean that the first journalist was dishonest in his representation of truth. Similarly, countless times throughout Scripture, and especially within the gospel accounts, extra information is given that critics cannot justifiably prove to be contradictory.
Continue reading →
Problem: Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction centers on Peter’s triple denial of Jesus and the crowing of a rooster. For years, skeptics have charged that Mark’s account of this event blatantly contradicts the other gospel accounts, thus supposedly “proving” the imperfection of the Scriptures. Even Bible believers have questioned the differences surrounding this event, yet relatively few have taken the time to understand them. Whenever people ask us about Peter’s denials and the differences within the gospel accounts, we often fail to give an adequate answer to their questions (see 1 Peter 3:15). This lack of understanding and poor defense of God’s Word has led skeptics to become more confident in their position (that the Bible is not God’s Word), and has caused some Bible believers to abandon their position on the infallibility of the Scriptures.
Continue reading →
A concerned Bible student once wrote our offices regarding the apostle Peter’s triple denial of Jesus. It was not the usual inquiry regarding how many times the rooster crowed following Peter’s denials of Christ. LUkRather, his question focused on the charges made against Peter prior to each of his denials. All four gospel writers first testify that a “servant girl” confronted Peter (Matthew 26:69; Mark 14:66; Luke 22:56; John 18:17). The writers then seem to “go their separate ways.”
Continue reading →
Problem: Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter’s third denial of Jesus? Matthew 26:34-35, 74-75; Luke 22:34,60-62; John 13:38 and Mark 14:30.
Continue reading →