Reconciling 'Flaws' in the Bible

Tom: Thanks, Gary. You’re listening to Search the Scriptures Daily, a program in which we encourage everyone who desires to know God’s truth to look to God’s Word for all that is essential for salvation and living one’s life in a way that is pleasing to Him. For the last few weeks, we’ve been discussing supposed contradictory passages in the Bible, which critics have jumped on as proof that the sacred Scriptures are far less than sacred. In fact, so flawed that some say the Bible couldn’t be the work of a perfect God, as evangelicals claim.

And, we’re taking our questions from Dave Hunt’s book, In Defense of the Faith, which, if you’d like to order a copy of that, Gary will give you our 800-number at the end of the program.

Dave, let’s begin with the first question: “You Christians seem to have a way of somehow coming up with a reconciliation of whatever contradictions and inconsistencies unbelievers are able to discover in the Bible. However, no matter how convincing the reconciliation may seem to be, I’m left with a question: Why should there be so many problems that you have to work so hard to solve? It seems to me that the very fact that there are so many inconsistencies, even if you supposedly solved every one, is in itself evidence that the Bible is badly flawed and therefore could not possibly be God’s Word.” It seems like this person is working hard at trying to find some problems as well! 

Dave: Yeah, well, Tom, as we point out in the book—I’m not the first to point it out, many others have—I quote a couple lawyers; if you have four witnesses testifying in court, and each one parrots what the other one says, word for word, I wouldn’t have any confidence in them. They supposedly don’t know one another, but somehow they’ve gotten together. There’s some collusion here. I would be concerned.

On the other hand, if you have four witnesses, and generally their story agrees, but they seem to conflict with one another on some important points—there seems to be a contradiction. But if you examine them more closely and check out the evidence more carefully, you find, that, in fact, they are in agreement, then you’ve got a solid case, and that’s why the Bible allows seeming contradictions.

So, as we’ve said in the past, the critics can enjoy their little fun, but actually to show that, if you study a little bit harder, this is the Word of God. This is true. These are eyewitnesses; of course, we’re talking about in the gospels.

Tom: Dave, you have a couple quotes in your book, In Defense of the Faith, from, as you mentioned before, two attorneys, Erwin Linton, who wrote A Lawyer Examines the Bible.

Dave: A terrific book, by the way, but I don’t think it’s in print anymore.

Tom:  Yeah, well, let me give our listeners this quote: “The frank and artless narratives of the Bible are so obviously indifferent to the appearance of consistency and show so clearly that irregularity, which is the sure mark of honest handwork in the Oriental rug, and of spontaneity in human testimony, that they have often lured opponents into attempts at destructive cross-examination which have only brought the Bible’s truths and consistency into clearer light.”

Dave: Very well said, and by a lawyer who knows what he’s talking about. One of the Bible’s great strengths, as he says, is in the reinforcing power of apparent inconsistencies, and, if that happens in court, I think you’ve got a really solid case.

Tom: Dave, you also quote William Paley. What’s his background?

Dave: William Paley was an apologist back in the 1800s. I’m not certain whether he was a lawyer—I think he was—but certainly a very brilliant man. He came up with some tremendous arguments. Let me just quote him here. He says, “Now in historical researches, a reconciled inconsistency becomes a positive argument. First, because an imposter generally guards against the appearance of inconsistency, and secondly, because when apparent inconsistencies are found, it is seldom that anything but truth renders them capable of reconciliation. The existence of the difficulty proves the absence of that caution which usually accompanies the consciousness of fraud. And the solution proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserves every circumstance in its place.”

I have this book [and] it’s more than 100 years old. I find this man fascinating! His logic, his power of reason, and his grasp of the Scriptures and of history and the facts—you know, way back in the 1800s—it’s very refreshing and helpful.

Tom: Yes, Dave, the thing I like about what both of these men write—to me, I’m just a simple-minded guy—what they’re saying is, “Hey, look, this is natural. This is the way things would go on if you have different people looking at something and then giving you their feedback.” Sure, one person might be standing over here, and another person back in the back room, but they have their perceptions, and as long as it plays out that there is a consistency and the end of what they’re saying holds together—it’s just natural.

Dave: It’s all the stronger. Right.

Tom: Dave, let’s get in to some other contradictory (so-called) perspectives from those who are critical of the Scriptures. This question: “There are two contradictory genealogies given for Christ tracing His ancestry back through Joseph. Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, but Luke says his father was Heli. Since both can’t be true, at least one is wrong, but we couldn’t know which. Probably both are wrong. Nor can I see how Christians could defend either genealogy since they both say Joseph was Jesus’s father and thus deny the virgin birth.”

Dave: (chuckling) Well, we’ve got a number of problems in the question, first of all. Whoever this was, and I can’t remember, needs to go back and read the account more carefully. First of all, Matthew is very careful. He never calls Joseph the father of Jesus. He calls him, very carefully, the husband of Mary. And, in fact, he says it was before they came together. He’s very clear. They were espoused to be married. But before they came together in marriage, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and he goes on, and he very clearly says, “She brought forth her first-born son,” —of course, that’s for the Catholics—this was not her only child, but it was her firstborn; you wouldn’t say that unless there were others. And Matthew very clearly says, “. . . and Joseph knew her not . . .  ”—that is a term for sexual intercourse. “. . . he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born, and they called His name Jesus,” etc. Now, both Luke and Matthew are very clear that this was a virgin birth, that Joseph was not the father, so I don’t know where the questioner got that idea.

Tom: That’s the background for these genealogies.

Dave: Right. Now, Matthew’s genealogy is very definitely that of Joseph. Now, the father in the family—in this case, not the father but the husband, but at least the head of the household—it was through him that the line of descent, or succession, from a king would run, and so Joseph was of the household of David. He had to be. In fact, that is how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem—because Joseph was of the lineage of David, and there was a census that was required by . . .

Tom: And a tax— 

Dave: Right. And, everyone was to go back to the town or village of his genealogical forebears so that you could keep track of these people, I guess. I can’t think of any other reason for that. And that caused Joseph and Mary to head for Bethlehem just at the time when the Scripture says she was “great with child,” and it was then in Bethlehem that she gave birth to Jesus.

Tom: Right. To fulfill the prophecy.

Dave: Right, Micah:5:2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
See All.... Now, Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary. He doesn’t use the word “begat.” In Matthew he does. And he says Jesus was supposed, that is imagined, to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli—now that’s Luke:3:23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
See All.... The word “son” . . .

Tom: Now, Heli, that’s the father of Mary.

Dave: That’s right. And the word “son” is not in the original. Obviously, Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s father. So, in Matthew you have the genealogy through Joseph, not the father but the head of the household. And in Luke, you have the genealogy through Mary, who was His mother. So, on both sides it goes back to King David.

Tom: So, Joseph had the bloodline through David. Jesus, through Joseph, being the foster father, Mary being the bloodline, He has the rights to be King of Israel. Isn’t that correct?

Dave: That’s right. He could not have been, of course, Joseph’s son.

Tom: Right.

Dave: Then He would not be the Son of God. Then He would not be born of a virgin. Then He would be very clearly, both father and mother, a child of Adam through whom sin was introduced into this world. On the other hand, He is not a natural man, in that sense. He is a man, thoroughly a man. He is God. He didn’t cease to be God when He became man. But He is not a child of Adam. He is the Son of God through a virgin birth. In fact, He is called “the last Adam.” He is, in fact, the second Adam, but He’s called the last Adam, because He is the progenitor of a new race just as Adam was the father of the human race, which is bound in sin and separated from God by rebellion.

So Jesus Christ becomes the progenitor of a new race, and we are brought into glory in His image. He is also called “the second man.” I’m sure we’ve dealt with that in the past. There was never a human being from Adam until Jesus who deserved to be called a man. The image of God in man had been marred, and we were not what God intended us to be. No one was. But Christ, the perfect man, created by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin, just as Adam had been created fresh by the hand of God from the earth—He is the second man, the last Adam, the Lord from heaven. First Corinthians 15, somewhere around verse 45, tells us that.

Now, sometimes, Tom, the skeptics . . . well, it’s almost ridiculous what they say, because if there is such a contradiction, if both Matthew and Luke are claiming to trace the lineage back through Joseph, and they come up with something so different—they weren’t stupid—somebody would have noticed it, if Matthew and Luke didn’t. And they’re contemporaries, coming out with this probably within a short time of one another, as the Holy Spirit guided them, and do you think they would come up with totally different genealogies? They would be so blind to the absurdity of it and the errors? So you’re charging them with utter stupidity! Even saying this is a contradiction.

Tom: Dave, these aren’t just throw-away . . . or just fillers to put in the Bible. These were critical, very important, having to do with fulfillment of prophecy . . .

Dave: Absolutely. Of course, one of the basic reasons why we have the genealogy in Matthew and Luke is that the Messiah—it was foretold, and the Scriptures had to be fulfilled—the Messiah had to be of the lineage of David. Now, in AD 70, when the armies of Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, they destroyed the genealogical records. So, there is no way that someone today could claim to be the Messiah and prove that he was of the lineage of David.

Now, he could prove that he is a Levite, that’s interesting. There’s a special chromosome that is passed from the males from father to son, and to his son, and so forth, that the Levite—those who say today—Jewish people who say, “Yeah, but my father said we were Levites, and his father told him we were Levites,” and they have checked their blood, and they all have this special chromosome. So, they can declare that because it’s essential, when the Temple is rebuilt, which it will be, that you have the right priests ministering there! So the Lord has allowed that.

On the other hand, you couldn’t prove that you were of the proper lineage to be the Messiah. And, the Messiah had to come before the genealogical records were destroyed. He had to come . . . there was a special window of opportunity in which the Messiah had to come. He had to come before the scepter departed from Judah. That’s Genesis:49:10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
See All.... When Jacob is blessing his sons, and he comes to Judah, he says, “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.”  Shiloh was the name of a place, but it is also, obviously, what the Messiah is called, because it says, “unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

Now, as far as we can trace, historically, that happened in AD 7 or thereabouts, when the Jews lost the right to exact the death penalty—to practice Judaism! So we could say they are not really practicing Judaism today—no one is. To practice Judaism, you had to stone those who broke the law, and they did that. Of course, they tried to do it to Jesus. But they acknowledged . . . and they did it to Stephen—but in John 18 when they brought Jesus before Pilate, Pilate said, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law,” they said, “We can’t. It’s not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” Although they had had a great deal of autonomy, especially in the practice of their religion under the Romans, now they had lost that. They acknowledged that. 

Tom: To the Romans.

Dave: That’s right. So the scepter had definitely, now, finally departed from Judah. The Messiah had to come before that happened. He came about 10-12 years before that happened. Galatians:4:4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
See All..., Paul says, “In the fullness of time, God brought forth His son.” That’s a precise time. The Messiah also had to come when the Temple was still here, because Malachi:3:1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
See All... says, “The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come into His Temple.” And He did, and He cleansed it. Then, the Messiah had to come just before the Temple would be destroyed. The Temple had to be here, but it would be destroyed after He came, as Daniel 9 makes very clear. The Messiah would come, and then the people of the Prince who will come, that is the Romans, would destroy the sanctuary and the city. And, indeed, that happened as well. The Temple and the city were destroyed, as Jesus foretold, in AD 70.

So, you have not only the genealogy, but you have the timing—He had to be here at the right time, He had to come to the right place, He had to be born in Bethlehem, and, most important of all, He had to be crucified—in fulfillment of prophecies that were given centuries before crucifixion was known. Of course, crucifixion, as we’ve mentioned, would not save anyone. That Christ was crucified—that’s what we did to Him—that would only add to our condemnation. But, as He hung on the cross, He became the sacrifice for our sins, and it says it pleased— Isaiah 53— “It pleased Yahweh, Jehovah, to bruise Him. Thou hast put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.”

No matter how you examine the Bible, Tom, as we are trying to point out, one of the main reasons you’ve been taking us through this series of questions is to point out that the Bible is absolutely true. If it weren’t true, we would have no basis for faith. We would have no way of being forgiven, if Christ didn’t die for our sins and pay the penalty. Some people think all they have to do is turn over a new leaf. Just lead a moral life. Do good, etc. That wouldn’t work. The penalty had to be paid. And God, Himself, had to become a man through the virgin birth. He didn’t cease to be God; He’ll never cease to be man; the one, and only God-Man. He had to do that in order to pay the penalty that His own infinite justice required.

And, Tom, I’m astonished that, well, of course the Muslims, they have no way of knowing that Allah didn’t come to this earth to become a man. They deny that Jesus is the Son of God; they even deny that He died on the cross, much less for our sins. They say someone died in His place. There’s no redemption. In Buddhism you don’t need it. Buddhism is basically atheism. But there are many people who call themselves Christians who deny that Christ paid the full penalty, and they think they can get to heaven by their church membership and their good works. It’s not our word, but it’s the Word of God. And it’s also logical. It’s also not only biblical, but it’s logical, that the penalty must be paid.

Tom: Dave, again, one of the reasons we’re going through . . . first of all, this is called, “Search the Scriptures Daily.” But, we’re looking at contradictions here; we’re going to pick up here . . . ”

Dave: Apparent contradictions.

Tom: Apparent contradictions. We’re going to pick up with this next week, because we’re about out of time. But, my point here is, the Scriptures—Jesus had to fulfill all of these things according to the Scriptures. So, when you have critics come along and try to pull the rug out from under what the Bible says, you’ve got some problems. That’s why we have to sort of get up to this. We’ve got to address these things, not just you and I, but we’re encouraging other people to do that as well, because it will be a great encouragement to the building of the confidence of their own faith.

Dave: Amen.