Problem: Leviticus 17:11 affirmed that God gave blood sacrifices “to make atonement” for our souls. But Hebrews seems to contradict that, insisting that the Aaronic priest “stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (10:11).
Problem: The New Testament writers did not always use Old Testament prophecy in a way that conforms to some people’s idea of how they think it should be used. For this reason, many allege that the New Testament writers take Old Testament Scriptures out of context, or that they “reuse” or “warm over” already fulfilled Old Testament passages in order to make their point. However, in response to this idea, logical solutions can be contemplated that clarify and justify the New Testament writers’ multiple use of Old Testament prophecy.
Problem: As most Bible students know, Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, contains several genealogies. Genesis chapter five gives the genealogy of Adam to Noah. Genesis 10 lists many of the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 11 gives the genealogy of Shem to Abraham. Genealogies make up the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles. What’s more, the New Testament opens with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1, emp. added). In light of such extensive genealogies, some wonder why the apostle Paul instructed Timothy and Titus not to “give heed to…endless genealogies” (1 Timothy 1:4), but rather “avoid” them (Titus 3:9). One Bible critic has alleged that “if we follow this advice we would ignore most of the Bible” (Wells, 2008). Just how is it that we can trust a book that says to “avoid…genealogies,” when that same book contains several extensive genealogies? Is this a contradiction?
Problem: In its root meaning, the word “allegory” means “to say something else.” This method of interpretation “seeks to discern a hidden meaning in a given story or text, a meaning that may be entirely divorced from the historical referent alluded to in the narrative itself.” For example of allegory, in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, we read about various characters and places that clearly refer to a deeper meaning (e.g. Pliable, Faithful, Hopeful, Giant Despair, Doubting-Castle, Hill Difficulty, City Beautiful, etc.).
Problem: Critics argue that Paul is mishandling the OT. Is this the case?
Continue reading →