"Contradictions" The Crucifixion

Of the series of supposed Biblical contradictions that were presented to me, this one was the most challenging. There certainly are some obvious variants in the book of John as opposed to the synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. 

First, let me say a few words about supposed contradictions. To the average reader, they generally go by unnoticed. They are so insignificant the reader passes over them and the message of the Gospel is transmitted and carried by the pages of the Bible generating hope and trust in God's people and calling the sinner to repentance. However, the Bibles we are reading come to us through the great effort of gathering and observing many different manuscripts, many of which are very old going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. All of these manuscripts have variant readings and it is the job of the translators to render those variant readings into the most likely one. Many of these variant readings are simply punctuation errors and misspelled words. For the more serious variant readings, meticulous work is done by the translators in comparing the text and associating them with other sources. We have over 5,000 manuscripts to compare, so we have a lot of information to work with to ensure accuracy. As a result, we have a very reliable reading of the Old and New Testament texts. All this work and source material are made public and their efforts and work are all verifiable. 

You also have cultural practices, language usage, as well as ancient customs all to bring into consideration. Doing all of this and bringing it all from ancient languages into our modern English or any current world language as you can imagine is no easy task. So when the critics go to their work and start combing the pages for something to critique, they are certain to find something. And that is not to disparage the critics, as a matter of fact, they are a great asset to the work itself. They keep driving us back to the pages of the Bible to see what's up with that.  We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who go to the text for the sole purpose of trying to break it down.

Having said that, let's take a look at the Crucifixion, since the synoptic Gospels agree, I will use just one synoptic to compare with John's Gospel so we can see where they seem to contradict.   According to the synoptic Gospels, before His crucifixion, Jesus sent his disciples to prepare the Passover meal, killing the Passover lamb. They note that this task was completed on “the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread,” the 14th of Nisan on the Jewish calendar, the day before Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7).

Matthew 26:17 KJV (17)  Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

John, however, seems to indicate that Jesus’ crucifixion actually took place before the Passover even began. 

John 13:1-2 KJV (1)  Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

(2)  And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

The Synoptics Gospels present the Last Supper as being the Passover meal but in John’s Gospel, the Last Supper does not appear to be the Passover meal. A straightforward reading of this passage leaves the impression that the last supper that the disciples ate with Jesus was not the Passover meal, but actually “before the feast of the Passover,” as though the Passover began the next day.  One could say Jesus knowing the coming events simply ate the Passover meal early with his disciples. However, for Jesus to fulfill all prophecies he had to keep the law perfectly and that would include keeping the Passover on the correct day. If we are going to make the claim that the Bible is accurate in all accounts, this is a very serious issue. There are a number of ways to solve the issue of the phrase, "Now before the feast of the Passover" stated by John. It seems to me the most likely one exists in the way the culture reckoned time. The Jewish day began at 6 PM in the evening and ended at 6 PM the next evening. Jesus and his disciples could have eaten the Passover meal anytime in the evening after 6 PM before the Crucifixion while others ate the Passover the evening of the next day before 6 PM during or after the Crucifixion and both be said to have eaten the Passover on the 14th of Nisan. Also, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were two different events sometimes viewed as one. Passover was technically only a 24-hour event, with the Feast extending seven days after Passover. But sometimes, because the two holidays were related, they were viewed and spoken of as one event. For instance, listen to Luke 22:1 “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.” Because of this blending of the two holidays, it could be that Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover meal together, and we can still talk of other meals as being “the Passover meal” later on in the weekend or the following week. 

But then you have John 18:28 KJV (28)  Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

This verse seems to indicate that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal, which again leaves the impression that either the Passover had not yet begun, or that the Jews had failed to eat the meal at the proper time, which seems very unlikely. What must be understood here is that the Passover festival lasted seven days, not merely the one night when the lamb was slain and eaten (Exodus 12:6-20). The Passover week had begun the night before with a feast and Jesus would have eaten the last supper with his disciples and events would continue over the following days with more feasting. The Jews, therefore, did not want to become defiled before the next unleavened meal of the Passover week. 

But we're not done yet, John 19:13-15 KJV (13)  When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

(14)  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

(15)  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Verse 14 suggests that Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover began, the Preparation Day of the Passover. Again, this would imply that the supper that Jesus ate the night before with His disciples was not actually the Passover meal and the Synoptics are wrong.

However, the phrase “Preparation Day of the Passover” is referring to the Sabbath Preparation Day that occurs during the Passover week on Friday. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in unison clearly portray Jesus as being arrested and crucified after the Passover meal, all also state that the “Day of Preparation” was the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. They simply make it clear in context that they apply that description to the Sabbath Preparation Day, not the Passover meal. All of the supposed contradictions in this account between the Synoptics Gospels and John's Gospel are easily solved when the text is understood correctly. 

We need not get bogged down answering everything the critics throw at us. Look at what they have to say, and if it is a legitimate concern, try to give them a satisfactory answer. You may hear accusations like "Matthew says Jesus rode two donkeys at once when the other Gospels say only one." Then make sport of how silly that must have looked trying to ride two donkeys at the same time! All to suggest Matthew contradicts the other Gospels which only mention one. Everyone knows of course Jesus rode on only one donkey. Even as a young boy reading I understood Jesus rode on one donkey, I just understood from Matthew there was two present. That is oblivious from the quote Matthew gives from Zechariah. 

Zechariah 9:9 ESV

(9)  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Zechariah’s text appears as poetry, and the primary characteristic of biblical Hebrew poetry is parallelism. In its purest form, one line is followed by another that repeats itself. However, sometimes the parallelism is integrated into a sort of stepped structure that builds with repetition. That’s true in Zechariah 9:9, which gets rendered in the KJV "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." In Hebrew, it is only parallelism, which in translation can easily become plural in structure. For instance, the ASV catches this and renders it, 

Matthew 21:6-7 ASV

(6)  And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them,

(7)  and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.

Matthew was most likely quoting from the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scriptures in Greek. His wording became rendered in a plurality instead of reflecting the parallelism. The critics try to point to such like phases as contradictions and make issues of them, yet, when reading the other Gospels, it becomes obvious to the reader how many donkeys Jesus road. This is not something one should spend a lot of time fretting over.

Listen, folks, don't be dismayed by the critics, they are there to serve their purpose. Sadly, for many, their purpose is not to discover the truth but simply to disparage the integrity of the scriptures. This is obvious when after presenting a solution to their query, it is rejected and they continue to promote their findings as if they have gone unanswered. Of all the contradictions I have discovered over the years there remains none I have been unable to satisfactory solve, sometimes with multiple possible solutions.  The tools we have available to us today make it remarkably easy to find answers to our questions. The issues presented in this blog post demonstrate how easy it is to make a mountain out of a molehill. If I were to come across a contradiction I seemingly couldn't solve, it wouldn't be a huge issue to me, for I can see how easy the truth can hide from our sight. Phrases and words from an ancient text because of our lack of understanding of their cultural usage and customs of the day can present themselves to us in a way it can appear to be a contradiction. There will always be hard sayings and riddles to solve, and it is our joy and pleasure to solve them as Christians. 

I should probably say a few words concerning inerrancy. Generally speaking, absolute inerrancy is attributed only to the original articles which we no longer have. However, you will still hear the term inerrancy applied to the Bible today. Generally speaking, that is not intended to mean free from grammatical errors that have occurred over the centuries through handwritten copies. Even the English Bibles themselves have undergone multiple revisions to correct grammatical and translation errors. Inerrancy as applied to our English Bibles would imply it is free from error in all manner of doctrines and practices of worship. It would state a belief in the accurate transmission of God's words in a reliable text through God's providence of many handwritten copies. The Chicago Statement contains wording like, "We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations." What is to be understood when inerrancy is applied to our English Bibles is all that was contained in the original autographs has been faithfully transmitted to us today. 

The truly amazing thing to consider is that the Bible is a collection of sixty-six books composed and compiled over 2,000 years by forty authors on three continents. Despite the impressive diversity of authors, genres from history to poetry, from prophecy to personal accounts and languages, the Bible displays an irrefutable unity of purpose, undivided harmony of thought, and an unfolding narrative that is both unified and progressive. It has one ultimate purpose beaming from its pages, Psalms 40:7 ESV

(7)  Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me:

Hebrews 10:7 ESV

(7)  Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

John 5:39-40 ESV

(39)  You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

(40)  yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

You will hear things from the critics like, "Jesus was just a Legend that developed over time" or "The scriptures can't be trusted, we have no way of knowing if they are even what was supposedly written in the beginning" and many similar things to try and discredit the Bible. None of it has any reasonable validity, all is but hype and smoke. 

For instance, you will hear the cry made that we don't have any original documents to compare our scriptures to, suggesting we can't know for sure we are even reading the true text. The hard facts are we have over 5,000 Greek texts of the New Testament alone in the original language to compare our English bible to. Codex Vaticanus is one of the near complete copies of both the Old and New Testaments dated to the 4th Century. It is currently online for anyone to read or download and examine to your satisfaction. It is one of the resources that is used in today's newer English translations. The critics' charge is, it is a 400-year-old copy, there is no way to know if it is accurate without the originals. 

Consider the book shown to the left, it is a 1562 printed edition of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. It can be seen at  Bridwell Library Southern Methodist University Dallas TX. I am currently reading Calvin's 1541 French edition recently translated into English in 2014. According to the reasoning of the critics, there is no way I can know if I am actually reading Calvin's Institutes unless I can compare it to the 1562 copy in Texas. The one I am reading was printed over 400 years after it and written in French and then translated into English. That would be absurd, of course, I know I am reading Calvin's Institutes. The wording, phraseology, and punctuation may vary in the 1562 edition and my 2014 copy, but they are the same Institutes of Calvin. The wide distribution and acceptance of the institutes over the years would not allow major changes to be made in his writings. The same would apply to what we call the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th Century. It would not be outrageous to suggest there possibly could have existed original copies or even the originals themselves when the Codex Vaticanus was assembled. The wide distribution and acceptance of the scriptures would not have allowed major changes in the Vaticanus or other works during that time period. How amazing is it that we can go back to such documents and compare what we have today to what they had then? Absolutely amazing!   

Just remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, repenting of your previous sins, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how salvation works itself out in our lives can be a lifelong journey if we desire to dig into the text. You can read the Gospel as presented by Paul below in the Modern ESV English translation, or you can read it in Greek from a 1,900-year-old copy, or you can go online and read it in the Codex Vaticanus, you will find the same Gospel.  

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV

(1)  Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

(2)  and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

(3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

(4)  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

(5)  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(6)  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

(7)  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

(8)  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

(9)  For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

(10)  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

(11)  Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

May the grace of God be with each of you,

David

"Contradictions" The Genealogy of Jesus

It has been suggested to me that the genealogy given of Jesus in the Bible contains numerous contradictions and errors. So I thought we would look at it for another blog post, let's examine some of these suggested contradictions and see if we can unravel the mystery. The first point that was brought to my attention was that two different fathers were listed for Joseph. If you read the accounts in Matthew and then the one in Luke, they do indeed list two different fathers and obviously, you can't have two. So one or both accounts must be wrong was the charge being brought. 

Our first task is to apply some hermeneutics, for a brief explanation of hermeneutics see Hermeneutics.

We need to pay close attention to the wording we are given in the text itself. Matthew says: {Matthew 1:16 KJV(16)  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. And Luke says: Luke 3:23 KJV(23)  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,}

Matthew specifically says that Jacob begat Joseph, no ambiguity there. But notice how Luke puts it, he does not use the word begat (ἀναγεννάω) which means son, but simply Heli. The phrase "which was the son of " is not there in the original language. The phrase "which was the son of" was added by the translators to make it read more smoothly in English. Luke's account is of the lineage of Mary, so the language and customer of the time would place Heli the father-in-law in the list, not Jacob. To say that Luke's genealogy is overtly stating it is tracing Joseph is simply not supported by the text.  With a little work one can clear up what appears to be a contradiction is really an accurate account of the genealogy.  

It was pointed out that Matthew's account lists 25 names while Luke's account has 40. This is somehow supposed to invalidate the genealogical account. The list is two different lists of two different genealogical lines by two different writers. Nothing suggests or would one expect them to be the same in number. If it is the margin of difference that is being pointed to, that suggests nothing out of the ordinary either. It was common in Jewish tradition to refer to the grandson as the son of the grandfather. Jesus was said to be the son of David, which was a huge generational skip, but keeping with the cultural norm the meaning was understood and accurate. This practice would naturally make one list longer than the other depending on how the writer chose to establish his account. This charge of contradiction has no merit and is a straw argument.

It is then pointed out that both genealogies contain a couple of the same names. I have to ask, "are you serious?" How do both genealogies having some of the same names discredit anything? In my family, there are 5 Johns in two different lines. I must assume this statement was made out of absurd ignorance or a direct attempt to embellish his argument deceitfully.  This really shouldn't require any attention or explanation, so we will quickly move on.  

The charge is then made that the Bible can't even get simply arithmetic correct. He states that Matthew contradicts himself by claiming 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but when you count the names you only have 41. Again, I am suspicious of deceit, for the Bible does not claim 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus, which is stated nowhere in the text. Here is the full text from Matthew in question. 

Matthew 1:17 KJV

(17)  So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

If you simply read the text you can see that 42 generations are never mentioned. What is mentioned in verse 17 is three different lists with each list containing 14 generations. If you count each list, you will discover each has 14 names for each different time period addressed just as Matthew stated in the text. Since David appears in two of the three lists, when you count a straight count you have 41 names, however, when you divide the single list into three separate lists as Matthew did in verse 17, and count them separately with David's name appearing in two of the three you have 42 names, why that makes a contradiction escapes one's imagination. There is no contradiction in the text and the count is accurate. The supposed contradiction is simply a sleight of hand deception taking a list of names from two different categories of thought and creating one. 

The Bible provides us with two lengthy genealogies of Christ. Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham through David, then Solomon and the royal line, to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) and the husband of Mary. Luke traces the bloodline from Adam and once Luke gets to Abraham, the genealogy is identical to Matthew’s up to the House of David. Then Luke goes from David, through Nathan (a different son of David) to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38).

It was also suggested the list in Matthew does not match the list in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. There were 4 names left out by Matthew, this however presents no problem since we have already established previously the custom of skipping generations when creating lists. I only mention it because he used it to embellish his argument again. 

His next charge was to suggest the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Jesus would be the son of David and from his loins while holding that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph. Therefore, Joseph not being his father Jesus could not be of the lineage of David, and the Prophecies therefore wrong. Why he would attempt to make an argument of point here I am quite surprised. It seems that making a real argument is not the main overlying motivation driving his discussion. Embellishing his arguments with statements that hold no merit knowing most of his listeners will simply believe what he is saying. The genealogy of Mary is traced back to David through Nathan, Jesus being born physically of Mary connects Jesus to David in the natural line of the human lineage.  There was not a single contradiction in any of his arguments whatsoever, they were all straw man arguments presented to hold his audience at bay.

Remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how this all works itself out in your life is a wonderful journey the Christian then has the pleasure of enjoying for the rest of their lives. 

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV

(1)  Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

(2)  and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

(3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

(4)  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

(5)  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(6)  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

(7)  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

(8)  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

(9)  For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

(10)  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

(11)  Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

May the grace of God be with each of you,

David

"Contradictions" 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

In this post, I would like to take the time to address some apparent contradictions in the scriptures that are frequently presented by non-Christians. I mean not to cast any disparaging thought toward those that present them.  I am aware they may not be familiar with the scriptures and the proper hermeneutics of interpretation. 

(Marriam-Webster Definition of hermeneutic)

1. hermeneutics plural in form but singular or plural in construction: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

2. a method or principle of interpretation a philosophical hermeneutic

Christians throughout their histories have used various hermeneutics of study, the primary purpose of hermeneutics, and of the exegetical methods employed in interpretation, has been to discover the truths and values expressed in the Bible. Without hermeneutics, the true understanding of the text would most certainly allude us. For instance, if one used the hermeneutic of literal interpretation only, one would have to concede that God has feathers, for  Psalms, 91:4 KJV states: He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Well, of course, it takes a method of study to understand the true meaning of that text, one which a literal interpretation will not lead you to. As you become familiar and skilled with the use of these hermeneutical tools that have been applied over the centuries to the Biblical text, it becomes much easier to arrive at some of the more difficult texts. These tools are not something to simply smooth over contradictions, but to unveil the truth as clearly as possible. They are tools that are used not just for Biblical text, but any text that is being examined where the author or original sources are no longer available. These methods of study have been developed over the centuries as the science of study has driven men to unravel the mysteries of ancient documents. 

Christians throughout history have held to what they call the perspicuity of scripture, perspicuity meaning clear and lucid. The Westminster Confession of Faith explains what Christians believe when they speak of the perspicuity of Scripture: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." In other words, not everything in Scripture is easy to understand, but what we must understand to be saved is clear. However, there are some hard sayings found throughout Scripture and as a result, many times people unfamiliar with the scriptures see things as contradictions when in reality the learned Christian can harmonize them in his studies. That is not to say the hard sayings and their understanding come easy, the scriptures themselves tell us much work and study is involved. 

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

(15)  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

Having said that as a lead-in, let's look at a few scriptures.  

2 Samuel 24:1 ESV

(1)  Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

1 Chronicles 21:1 ESV

(1)  Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

Many times someone wanting to disparage the Biblical text will cite this passage. And we certainly can't fault them for doing so, for the text does ascribe by one writer the LORD ( Yahweh) as the inciter and the other writer as Satan. You would be hard-pressed to find a contradiction with greater polar ends than that. A full explanation of all the hermeneutical tools that are useful here would go beyond the scope of this blog post, however, I think we can get a working idea without being that comprehensive.

One tool is the idea that scripture interprets scripture. One simply takes an unclear passage and applies an understanding by observing what a more clear passage says about the subject. It's like having a Q&A session with your favorite teacher. For example, everyone has had someone say something that at first sounded unclear. You might have asked, "what did you mean by that?" Then upon a fuller explanation, the ambiguity was cleared up. Well, obviously we can't ask Samuel or Ezra assuming he was the author of 1 Chronicles, what's up with you two? The Christian however, understands the scripture to be of a single author though there were about 40 different writers. 

2 Peter 1:19-21 ESV

(19)  And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

(20)  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

(21)  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So we can go to the scriptures themselves, the author being the Holy Spirit, and say, "Hey! What's up here, you seem to be contradicting yourself?" Then, with some time and a little work, we can not only harmonize the two statements but also arrive at the intended understanding. 

We find in another scripture passage something similar, 1 Samuel 16:14 ERV "The LORD'S Spirit left Saul. Then the LORD sent an evil spirit to Saul that caused him much trouble." Who caused Saul his trouble? One could say the evil spirit, for it is said he was the active cause. However, one could say the LORD (Yahweh), for it was under his authority the evil spirit acted. Or one could do as was done here and ascribe both in a fuller explanation. A writer could ascribe the cause to one, while another writer ascribes the same to the other, and both be correct. This type of interaction of men and the unseen realm is seen throughout scripture in many narratives, when the well-studied Christian reads texts such as 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, he sees no contradiction, for his method of hermeneutics gives him the understanding of how and what has occurred. The book of Job is filled with this type of narrative.

It is a misconception by many that Satan is roaming about independently of himself when it is not the tenure that is presented in scripture. What you find in scripture is a Sovereign Creator with absolute control over his creation. There are fallen creatures and evil in the world, they exist only because Yahweh allows it to be for his own good purposes and the ultimate plan. 

Isaiah 45:5-7 ESV

(5)  I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

(6)  that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

(7)  I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

Yahweh is not the cause of the evil itself in that he somehow infused it into his creation, but only in the sense that he allows it to be and arise from the creation itself. The sin and acts of Satan and men are truly in and of themselves and they bare them alone. Sin in no way can touch or be attached to Yahweh in any fashion, but in His Sovereign wisdom and understanding, he commands and directs those evil acts for righteous ends. The most outstanding example of that is the crucifixion of Christ. 

It is said in Acts 4:23-28 ESV

(23)  When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them.

(24)  And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,

(25)  who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people's plot in vain?

(26)  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—

(27)  for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

(28)  to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

It was Yahweh who had purposed and planned the crucifixion of Christ from eternity. Yet, the envy, hatred, and political posturing of Herod, Pilate, and the people were all real and motivating emotions driving them from within their own souls. Yet, it was God who was using and directing all those sinful acts for the righteous end of bringing Salvation to the human race. At the moment God's righteous end could not be seen, only the tragedy of the moment.

The contradiction of  2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 is solved with the understanding that Yahweh, by the means of allowing Satan to influence David by tempting David via his sinful nature to sin in trusting in his own strength and command of his forces. We see the tragedy of that sin, God's righteous ends in the directing of that sin are found in the full scope of Israel's history and the path that took them in accomplishing of God's purpose. Both statements are correct, If you are a critic that, perhaps, will not satisfy you, but at least you can understand how the text is harmonized. 

Remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how this all works itself out in your life is a wonderful journey the Christian then has the pleasure of enjoying for the rest of their lives. 

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV

(1)  Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

(2)  and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

(3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

(4)  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

(5)  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(6)  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

(7)  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

(8)  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

(9)  For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

(10)  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

(11)  Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

May the Grace of God be with each of you, 

David

B.C. to A.D. the way we see time.

 

Is Jesus Christ really the center point of World history? How can this be when the question of his actual existence is brought into question by many? Some will acknowledge there is mention of a man who was Crucified around the time period this so-called Jesus was supposed to have lived that could correspond to this event, and perhaps from this reference, the Christian myth was developed. However, there seems to be more than these folks want to admit. It seems a very strange thing for a myth to be the dividing event of all human history.

The term "A.D." stands for anno domini (Latin for "in the year of the lord"), and it refers specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ. "B.C." stands for "before Christ."  

One of the main motivations for the European study of mathematics was the problem of when to celebrate Easter. The First Council of Nicaea, in A.D. 325, had decided that Easter would fall on the Sunday following the full moon that follows the spring equinox. The Calculations for this most important date were set forth in documents known as Easter tables. It was on one such table that, in A.D. 525, a monk named Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor introduced the A.D. system, counting the years since the birth of Christ. Dionysius attempted to set A.D. 1 as the year of Jesus Christ's birth, but was off in his estimation by a few years, with modern estimates placing Christ's birth at around 4 B.C. Dionysius devised his system to replace the Diocletian system, named after Diocletian who was a Roman Emperor. 

So prior to the 6th century the system we know as A.D and B.C. did not exist. It came into existence as a result of the afore mention Easter celebration date determined at Nicaea in 325. This celebration has nothing to do with Biblical instruction or proper Christian worship. It was simply a desire of the early Christians to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. At the time, many Asian Christians held the celebration on Nisan 14 of the Jewish Calender, while most others observed Easter on a Sunday that fell within that week since the Lord was resurrected on a Sunday. 

At Nicaea (325 AD), it was agreed that the date for Easter should be divorced from the Hebrew calendar and the Jewish Passover. It was further decided to observe the holiday on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox.  The council, however, did not issue specific instructions regarding the method of computation.  The Alexandrian Easter tables, based upon a 19-year cycle, became the main method for its calculations, but several others continued to be used, and by the end of the fourth century, the celebrations varied each year by as much as five weeks. So Nicaean Council attempted to standardize an official date, but without a unified method of calculating, they were still in disagreement on when to celebrate. 

As time progressed, various calendar systems were in place until finally the current Gregorian calendar was utilized almost worldwide. Non-Christian nations initially saw no reason to switch to the Christian-based calendar but, as with the Anno Domini dating system, they eventually adopted it over the centuries due to the global economic, political, and scientific dominance of Christendom. It took 1,500 years for it to be accepted across Western Europe and would become an international standard in 1988 when the International Organization for Standardization released ISO 8601, which describes an internationally accepted way to represent dates and times.

It really is not an accurate statement for Christians to suggest the Cross and the life of Christ as being the recognized dividing line of world history. It is of course the center of biblical history and the indirect means by which we have now come to view our historical dates, but it took centuries to arrive at this universal acceptance, and that largely as a result of influence from the Church. The world is ever-changing and the acceptance of A.D. and B.C. is changing with it. The popularity of B.C.E & C.E (Before Common Era & Common Era) is increasing, largely due to sensitivity to other religions. As the influence of Christianity diminishes so will the acceptance of the B.C. and A.D. system. 

What is interesting about all of this is it all comes about over when to celebrate Easter. That is important because unbelievers always bring the validity of the resurrection of Christ into question. The very event they say there is no evidence for is the very event that has fashioned the way the world calculates time and its calendars. It is difficult to imagine that a non-event could have such an impact on the world. The first recorded celebration of the resurrection is in the middle of the 2nd century. It would be most unlikely the first celebration would be recorded without special mention, so it is most probable it was celebrated much earlier. There are no Scriptural instructions for the celebration, nor is there any record of the infant church doing so. However, the Christian Passover would naturally grow out of the Jewish Passover, as the Lord’s Day (Sunday) grew out of the Sabbath (Saturday). The Jewish Christians would very naturally from the beginning continue to celebrate the legal Passover, but in the light of its fulfillment by the sacrifice of Christ, they would dwell chiefly on the aspect of the crucifixion. The Gentile Christians, for whom the Jewish Passover had no meaning would chiefly celebrate the Lord’s resurrection as they did every Sunday of the week. Christians commemorated the entire period between the death and resurrection of Christ with vigils, fasting, special devotions, and meetings culminating in a resurrection feast celebrating the whole work of redemption. The feast of the resurrection gradually became the most prominent aspect of the Christian Passover. 

The celebration has no scriptural basis and is entirely an invention of the church arising from a desire to commemorate the resurrection. However, that in itself is a remarkable validation of the actual existence of the event. Even if the first recorded celebration was the first event, it would have had its fulfillment just 150 years or so before. If the resurrection did not actually occur, it would be much like us today celebrating a momentous event in the life of General Stone Wall Jackson, one which was never recorded. Someone could say it happened, but it would be very difficult to establish a general acceptance and celebration of it without some kind of record or general knowledge it actually occurred. One certainly couldn't establish a General Jackson day to commemorate his successful recovery from his injuries, for historical evidence and general knowledge would prevent that deception, even though it would be said to have happened 150 years ago. For the church to have such a widespread common desire to acknowledge the resurrection speaks volumes against the modern accusation there is no evidence it ever happened. The Christian faith rests upon the resurrection, for without it there is no remission of sins, therefore, no basis for the faith. Without the resurrection there is no Christian faith, the fact there is a Christian faith is the greatest voice to declare to the world there was an actual resurrection.

May the grace of God be upon each of you,

David