apparent contradictions – La Vista Church of Christ

If God wants everyone saved, why does He harden some?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 09 May 2026 03:16:45 +0000

Question:

Hi,

Scripture says God wills all to be saved (I Timothy 2:4), yet Paul says that God hardens whom He wills, and that we are not to talk back to God or question why He hardens vessels of wrath such as Pharaoh (Romans 9:16-19)

How can the two be reconciled, or is this an intentional paradox?

Thank you.

Answer:

Yes, God desires to save everyone. "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:3-4). Yet, notice the condition. Men need to come to the knowledge of the truth. God isn't going to force salvation on people; they must desire to come to God. "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). God wants to save people, but they have to repent of their sins.

So what about people who refuse God's offer? They are lost because of their own choice, not God's. "'Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,' declares the Lord GOD. 'Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,' declares the Lord GOD. 'Therefore, repent and live'" (Ezekiel 18:30-32).

Yet, God makes use of all people to accomplish His will, the good and the bad. Thus, God placed an evil man in charge of Egypt when it was time to free the Israelites from slavery. He gave Pharaoh difficult choices that God knew he would respond to with stubbornness, refusing to let the Israelites leave. God controls the governments (Romans 13:1; Daniel 2:21). So why did God place such a wicked man into power over Egypt? He could have raised up a pharaoh who looked kindly on the Israelites, did not impose severe burdens on them, and would have freed them without a fuss. However, such a ruler would not have driven the Israelites to willingly follow Moses. Many, if not most, would have been happy to stay in Egypt under a kind ruler. A kind ruler would not have given God the ability to show His power, causing the nations to fear Israel and their God. So God put a wicked man in charge of Egypt and then used Pharaoh's wickedness against him.

Ah! Then someone would say that it wasn't Pharaoh's fault that he was killed and Egypt was plundered. God manipulated him. It was God's fault! It wasn’t Pharaoh’s fault that he chose to be stubborn; God put him in a situation where he would be stubborn. Paul's argument is "no."

"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:17-22).

It was still Pharaoh's fault. God put up with Pharaoh for years, instead of removing him as He well could have done. Instead, God used the evil that Pharaoh chose to do against him. The point is that God gets His way with the righteous and the wicked. The wicked can't stand in God's way any more than the righteous.

Do we blame God because we are placed in difficult situations or have to make difficult decisions? We cannot blame God for our lives. We may not be favored. We may not be blessed. The blessings are not automatic. The question remains: What do we do with what we are given? God has the right to use us as He sees fit. His use of us does not justify our rebellion against Him. "Why wasn't I born rich, pretty, strong, athletic, or talented?" I don't know, but what will you do with your life as it is? Do you yield to God or dig in your heels as Pharaoh did?

See:

Notes on the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart

Contradiction or Expanded Details?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:46:09 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Many are those who think they see "contradictions" everywhere in the Bible, but my experience has been that after more careful consideration, these so-called contradictions are but an expansion of details, both of which can be true.

For example, one common claim is that Luke says the men who journeyed with Saul to Damascus stood speechless when the Lord spoke to Saul (Acts 9:7). This text says the men with Saul were "hearing a voice but seeing no one." But later in the book Luke records Saul (Paul) reviewing that very occasion and saying the men with him "did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me" (Acts 22:9). So, one text says they heard the voice and the other text says they did not hear the voice.

Now, on the surface, you would get the impression of a real contradiction in the Bible, but upon further reflection, it might not be what it appears. Recently, this became clear to me when I reflected on how unfair it would be if I used the same language and was called a liar. I could tell my wife that I heard her saying something to me, but later I might say I did not hear what she said. Did I reveal a contradiction in my words? Or could this be one of those occasions where I used the word "hear" in two different ways, expanding the details so that I am now adding to that occasion? In truth, both statements were true. I did hear (audibly receive vibrations on my eardrums), telling me that I was hearing actual words come out of her mouth, but later I revealed that I did not hear (understand the words) she was saying. Jesus talked about people who have ears but do not hear. He meant that they do not "understand." So, we hear sometimes, and though we hear audible sounds, we do not hear or rightly perceive and understand those words. A preacher sees people in a daze. He knows they hear him talking, but he also knows that they are not hearing what he is trying to communicate to their minds. The audio receptors work fine, but the mental connectors are not tuned in, so they are not really hearing the voice.

So, instead of thinking "contradiction," it would be better to explore the probability of different uses of words that merely expand on the details. Those men who came with Saul could indeed have both heard and not heard the voice that was speaking to Saul. They could hear the sound waves vibrating their eardrums, but they might not have heard (understood) the words being communicated to Saul. We should give the Bible the same consideration as we give ourselves. I do not lie or contradict myself when I say that I heard my wife, and later communicate that I did not hear what she said.

Be fair with people, and especially be fair with the words of God. They are true, and they will judge us in the last day (John 12:48).

How Can There Be “Evil from the Lord”?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 21:34:17 +0000

by Roger Campbell

Sometimes, students of the Bible are shocked and confused to read in the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit at times describes the thoughts and actions of God as "evil." For example, in the Book of Jeremiah alone we read that Jehovah "brought" evil (Jeremiah 4:6), He "thought to do" evil (Jeremiah 18:8), He "framed" evil (Jeremiah 18:11), He "pronounced" evil (Jeremiah 26:13,19), He "purposed to do" evil (Jeremiah 36:3), and He "did" evil (Jeremiah 42:10). In each of these passages both the King James Version and American Standard Version of 1901 speak of the "evil" that the Lord planned and carried out.

First, there are many words in the Bible that have more than one meaning. Their meaning in a particular instance in the Scriptures must be determined by the context in which they appear. So it is with the word "evil." When we read the word "evil," perhaps our first thought is that this signifies wickedness, sinful action, that which is wrong or evil from a moral point of view.

The word "evil" does carry such a meaning in many biblical passages. For instance, in the days of Noah, the thoughts of man's heart were only "evil" continually (Genesis 6:5). Is the Lord God guilty of thinking and doing that which is "evil" in a moral sense, or does He do that which is wrong?

Consider three biblical statements that show that God could never think or act in an evil (bad, wicked, immoral) fashion:

"...the LORD is upright: he is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him!" (Psalms 92:15). Since "all unrighteousness is sin" (I John 5:17), and there is no unrighteousness in God, then there is no sin, and thus no wickedness or evil in His character;
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid" (Romans 9:14). Again, no unrighteousness with God means that He could never do that which is not right;
"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth" (Psalms 33:4). That being the case, Jehovah could never be guilty of doing that which is wrong or evil in a moral sense.

If God is not capable of doing that which is wicked, then why does the Bible speak of Him doing "evil"? In the Old Testament, the word "evil" is often translated from the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "bad" or "evil." But it can also mean "adversity, affliction, calamity, grief, harm, sorrow, or trouble" [Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, word #7451]. This information helps us realize that in the Bible "evil" can be used in the sense of adversity, affliction, or calamity, and in such instances it does not refer to "evil" in a moral sense.

When the Bible speaks of God framing, bringing, or doing evil, the meaning is simply that He did that which, from man's point of view, would be counted as adversity, punishment, disaster, or affliction. The Lord does not, and cannot, do that which is wrong or immoral. Thus, the "evil" that He works is that which, from man's vantage point, is some type of punishment or bad and unpleasant experience.

The New King James Version updates some of the verses in Jeremiah. The KJV and ASV state that the LORD brought "evil" (Jeremiah 4:6); the NKJV states that He brought "disaster." The LORD thought to do "evil" (Jeremiah 18:8); the NKJV says "disaster.' God framed "evil" (Jeremiah 18:11); the NKJV again says "disaster." Jehovah pronounced "evil" against His people (Jeremiah 26:13,19), meaning that He planned to destroy the nation of Judah; the NKJV says that He pronounced "doom" against them. God's "evil" was simply some type of disaster or doom for His rebellious people.
When Job's wife called upon him to "curse God and die" (Job 2:9), Job's response was, "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). When Job spoke of "evil" coming from God he had reference to the disaster of losing his children and livestock. By speaking of evil that the Lord sent to him, Job was by no means accusing God of doing that which is immoral. How can we be sure of this? The Bible declares, "in all this did not Job sin with his lips" (Job 2:10).

Three closing thoughts. First, if something is evil in the sense of being wicked or against God's will, then we need to abhor it and abstain from it (Romans 12:9; I Thessalonians 5:22). Second, the Bible never contradicts itself. If God can do no wrong, yet He is said to do "evil," then our explanation of His "evil" must not contradict the many plain biblical statements that point to His flawless character. Finally, let us never under any circumstance accuse God of wrongdoing. Let us never allow Satan to place a doubt in our minds about God's holiness and righteousness!

Nothing Impossible

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 23:20:34 +0000

by Clifton Angel

Jesus comes down from Mount Hermon (see Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-42). Peter, James, and John are with him. They witnessed the transfigured Christ talking with Moses and Elijah about his coming death (Matthew 17:1-13). It was so magnificent that Peter wanted to worship all three of them, but God the Father quickly corrected him. Jesus charged them to tell no man of the occasion until after his resurrection.

At the base of the mountain, the other nine apostles were surrounded by a multitude and were being questioned by scribes. Mark says, “straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him” (Mark 9:15). Imagine school children on a playground. One large group is surrounding and bullying a smaller group. When the teacher arrives, the bullies immediately turn to the teacher, surprised, and act as if they are in her good graces. Jesus asked the scribes, “About what are you questioning my disciples?” (Mark 9:16). The scribes remained silent. “There came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water” (Matthew 17:15). Mark tells us the man’s son is possessed by a demon that has caused him to have fits like epileptic seizures, to be convulsed, foam at the mouth, to grind his teeth, and wither all of his energy. “And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him” (Matthew 17:16).

Jesus’ twelve apostles went to the lost of Israel: “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils” (Matthew 10:7-8). Their miracles confirmed that their message was from God. On this occasion, they failed; they were not able to cast out the demon.

Further investigation revealed a malignancy. The cancer, or malignancy, of the scribes, the multitude, the man, and the disciples was: lack of faith. The scribes’ lack of faith is evident in their “questioning” or “arguing” with the disciples. The multitude’s lack of faith is seen in the exclamation of Jesus: “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” (Matthew 17:17). The disciples’ lack of faith is bluntly revealed by Jesus when after all was over they privately asked him, “Why could we not cast out this demon?” Jesus responded, “Because of your unbelief” (Matthew 17:20). The epileptic boy’s father’s lack of faith is evident in his words to Jesus: “If you can.” Jesus’ response was, “If you can.” There should be no question about Jesus’ ability; instead, the burden was turned on the father’s ability to believe. This man’s reaction is the most honorable because he recognized his unbelief. “Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). Have we examined our own faith deficiencies and turned to Jesus for help?

The father recognized his unbelief and desired to grow in faith. Jesus’ disciples had to be told why they could not cast out the demon possessing this man’s son. Jesus said, “Because of your unbelief” (Matthew 17:20). But that was not all that Jesus instructed his disciples on this occasion. He continued, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you” (Matthew 17:20). Therefore, there is “nothing impossible” for the faithful follower of Jesus.

Why “faith as a grain of mustard seed?” The mustard seed is used proverbially as the smallest seed that grows into a tree. First, Jesus was rebuking their lack of faith. By saying they need to have “faith as a grain of mustard seed,” Jesus was implying that their faith was even smaller than the mustard seed. Second, Jesus was encouraging a faith that is alive and growing. The mustard seed begins small, but it grows into a large, beautiful, and flourishing tree. For this reason, Jesus used the mustard seed in a parable about the church (Matthew 13:31–32). How is our faith? Is it even as large as a mustard seed? Is it alive and growing? Jesus said, there is “nothing impossible” for His faithful followers.

Next, did the disciples move mountains? There is no New Testament record of Jesus and His disciples ever moving a literal mountain. This was also a proverbial phrase used to illustrate the significant tasks accomplishable by a living and growing faith. Paul used it in discussing godly love (I Corinthians 13:2). If needed in confirming God’s revelation, Jesus and His apostles certainly could have miraculously moved an actual mountain. However, the phrase was used figuratively, and its principle holds even today, when men are not given miraculous capabilities. The principle is this: With a living, growing faith, Christians can accomplish even the largest spiritual responsibilities and tasks. There is “nothing impossible” for the faithful followers of Jesus.

Jesus constantly pointed his followers to spiritual things rather than physical ones. Many may be tempted to think that there is nothing physically impossible for followers of Jesus. This simply is not true. Even if I have a living and growing faith, it does not mean I will always have physical health, wealth, and well-being. However, I can have spiritual health, wealth, and well-being. Drug addicts can become clean. Murderers can find life. The sexually immoral can repent and refrain. Liars can learn the truth. In the church, the fatherless can have a spiritual family, the homeless can have a spiritual home, and the diseased can be made well, spiritually. There is nothing spiritually impossible for what God has called upon Christians to do.

The Question of God Repenting or Changing His Mind

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 20 Oct 2025 19:42:48 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

A skeptic thought he found a flaw in the Bible and the God of the Bible. He believes the following is a contradiction in the Bible:

Does God change his mind?

"For I am the Lord; I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Numbers 23:19).

"I, the LORD, have spoken; it is coming and I will act. I will not relent" (Ezekiel 24:14).

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow" (James 1:17).

But on the other hand: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14). Also Genesis 6:6; Jonah 3:10; I Samuel 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Numbers 16:20-35).

The nature of God does not change, nor does His word and will change except in conjunction with higher plans and purposes. But those “changes” are from man’s perspective as he sees changes take place, while God planned those changes from the start. For example, man sees a change in the Old and New Testaments, but God planned those changes from the beginning, so they are not changes in the nature or wisdom of God at all. So the first set of scriptures offered above by the skeptic does not contradict the next set at all.

When God "repents" or changes His mind, it is usually with regard to what He intended to do toward a certain people. The times when God changed His intentions were when the people changed their intentions after being warned of God's coming wrath. God did not change when He destroyed the earth with a flood. Man changed so much that God grieved. When Nineveh was warned of God’s intention to destroy them, they changed, and on the basis of their repentance, it would be said that God changed His intentions against them. Thus, it was not a real change in God Himself, but a change of intent that was conditional to start with.

There are figures of speech for emphasis. One figure of speech is called hyperbole, in which a matter is exaggerated for emphasis. If God had literally been sorry He made man on the earth, He would have simply taken Noah home to glory and destroyed the rest. Why start it up again if you are literally sorry You made man? Look for hyperbole in any kind of literature. When we read that a person "laughed himself to death", we must make allowance that the expression was likely a hyperbole of emphasis.

God's great merciful heart ached and grieved over the condition of man and the need to destroy the creation for another phase. It"repented" the Lord means that it "changed" His delight in His creation into sorrow. From "it is good" to "it is not good". This is not a change in the nature or will of God, but a change in outlook due to man's behavior. Again, this is not a contradiction in the Bible, but two different contexts of two different matters.

By Works or Not?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:44:16 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

An atheist thinks he sees the following verses as "contradicting" each other.

Atheist: Salvation by Faith or Works:
• Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…not a result of works.”
• James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Answer:

Once again, the atheist shows his ignorance of context and word usage. In Ephesians 2, the “works” are contrasted with “grace through faith”. Thus, works of perfect-law-keeping where grace is not needed. None is right with God because of works (perfectly doing what is right without sin). We have all sinned; therefore, works are not the basis of our right standing with God.

However, James is not on that same topic at all. He is talking about the nature of faith. Is it an active and obedient faith? Or is it faith alone with no works (actions) to show it? He speaks of works in an entirely different way than Paul does in Ephesians 2.

Paul speaks of meritorious works of perfect law-keeping where grace is not needed. If I do the law perfectly (work), I don’t need mercy. On the other hand, since I need mercy and need grace, what kind of faith do I need? Is it mental faith alone? Or does it yield in obedience to Jesus? (Hebrews 5:9). Does it need to be like the men in John 12:42, where they believed in Jesus but would not confess Him? Is that a faith that saves? No! We have to have the kind of faith that confesses Jesus and obeys Jesus.

James is speaking of works of faith, not works of merit (perfect law keeping). So, again, both verses are true, and in context do not contradict each other at all. Our right standing with God is “not of works” (our perfect and sinless performance) but by grace through faith. What kind of faith is involved? A working, obedient, active faith. This needs mercy and grace, and these come through an obedient faith in Jesus. In fact, remission of sins comes to those with the kind of faith to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins," and please note that the "gift" is given at that moment, not when they first came into mental faith alone (Acts 2:36-41). Their faith was not just about belief, but a working faith.

Is it wrong to call someone foolish?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 01 Dec 2024 22:39:27 +0000

Question:

I have a question.

If Raca means foolish or moron, why Paul said to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians"? But Jesus said not to call your brother Raca.

Answer:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:21-22).

The topic is anger without cause. The root cause of all intentional murders is anger (I John 3:15). God had stated, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:17-18).

Jesus gives a list of three facts concerning anger:

"whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
"whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council."
"whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire."

Raca, an Aramaic word, means empty-headed. Moros, a Greek word, means dull, sluggish, stupid, or foolish. If you were to translate moros into Aramaic, you would use the word raca. Some people make detailed arguments about the subtle differences in the shades of meaning between the two words, but the difficulty is that they are comparing words between two different languages that essentially mean the same thing. It would be similar to arguing based on the difference between the English word "love" and the French word "amour."

A better answer to discovering Jesus' point is to look at the Talmud, a record of Jewish traditions. L. Harris, in The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, states that to a Jew, calling someone a fool in Greek (a foreign language to them) was not fitting, but to call someone a fool in Aramaic (their native language of that time) was a true insult that could be taken to court for a resolution.

Jesus' point is that being angry without cause, whether calling someone a fool in your native language where both parties understand the insult or calling someone a fool in a foreign language where one might miss the significance, are all equivalent in the eyes of God. To emphasize this, Jesus lists grievances from bad to mild in the view of the Jews but assigns the consequences in the opposite expected order from mild to very bad. In a sense, calling someone a fool in Greek was "worse" because hatred was expressed for another person and disguised or hidden behind the words of another language.

Hatred is not something to be ignored. A person cannot rightly worship God while holding a grudge against a brother. Instead of harboring anger, problems between two people need to be straightened out as quickly as possible. Unresolved problems can quickly grow out of proportion and become major issues that are difficult to end.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?" (Matthew 23:16-17).

Here, Jesus is not speaking without cause. The Jews' games with terms of a vow were wrong. But Jesus' words are also not spoken out of anger. This is an accurate judgment of the type of behavior these people were involved in.

It isn't wrong to describe an action as dumb, foolish, or other terms that express the fact that someone acted without thinking.

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good" (Psalms 14:1).

"For he sees wise men die; Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, and leave their wealth to others" (Psalms 49:10).

"Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool" (Proverbs 10:18).

"The days of punishment have come; The days of recompense have come. Israel knows! The prophet is a fool, The spiritual man is insane, Because of the greatness of your iniquity and great enmity" (Hosea 9:7).

There is a difference between throwing around insults out of anger and accurately labeling bad behavior. In Galatians 3:1, Paul is not angry with the Galatians. He points out that they have been acting without thinking things through. They were being foolish.

How can the families of the earth be blessed through Abraham?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:08:33 +0000

Question:

Hi there! I hope you're well!

Romans 2:24, "Because of you, the Gentiles blaspheme My name." Does this contradict Genesis 12:3? How could the blasphemers be not cursed if they are excused by Romans 2:24?

Thank you so much.

Answer:

"And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Genesis 12:3).

God promises Abram (later Abraham) that everyone in the world will be blessed through him. By this, God is hinting that the Savior of the world will be a descendant of Abram. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, God's blessings are available to anyone who believes in Jesus. "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3:8-9).

"You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,' just as it is written" (Romans 2:23-24).

Paul argued that the Jews had broken God's Law, just as the Gentiles had done. While the Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles because they had God's Law, that law did them no good because they didn't keep it. Worse, many Gentiles saw the Jews' hypocrisy and assumed that the Jews' behavior was what God commanded. Therefore, God's reputation was being slandered.

These two passages do not contradict each other.

Question:

Thank you for this! That helps.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Imagine that in the Old Testament, a pagan was treated very unjustly and harshly by believers. This pagan, not knowing the true God, blasphemes Him or curses them. Is he still cursed because of the verse "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you"?

Answer:

The "you" in Genesis 12:3 is Abram, not God. God told Abram that He would watch over Abram and bring justice. Those who treated Abram well would be blessed, and those who treated Abram badly would suffer. Nothing in this verse indicates the treatment is permanent.

Who was the greatest king?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:13:53 +0000

Question:

Good day, brother Jeffrey!

About Hezekiah, we read in II Kings 18:5-6:

Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. He held fast to the LORD and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the LORD had given Moses.

But then about Josiah, a couple of chapters later in II Kings 23:25:

Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did — with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses.

How can the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah both be the greatest, especially when it is said that neither before nor after him was there a king like him? Is this a contradiction?

Answer:

It depends on what you are measuring. Hezekiah was the greatest king who demonstrated trust in God. Josiah was the greatest king who demonstrated zeal for God. Solomon was unique among the kings for the love God showed to him (Nehemiah 13:26).

Why does Mark 1:2-3 says it quotes Isaiah when it is not just from Isaiah?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 20:15:26 +0000

Question:

Good day,

First, I need to say that I tried to find this answer. I'm unaware if you have answered this. I'm just struggling with the 'new' answers page as the old search mechanic allowed me to find the answers I'm looking for quicker, but I'll probably still get used to it using the new one.

Now, to my question, while watching an apologetics channel I like, an atheist New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, points out that Mark 1:2-3 quotes Isaiah, which Isaiah never said. The apologist quotes Craig S. Keener, saying Matthew combined the Zechariah and Jeremiah prophecies; now I read your answer on that apparent "contradiction" when someone else asked. I agree that we don't know why Matthew quotes what he quotes. That's not the concern I have, but the apologist argues that Mark does the same in Mark 1:2-3, basically combining different prophecies into one but only quoting one, in this instance Isaiah in Mark, what would your answer be on Mark 1:2-3 and why he quotes Isaiah when Isaiah never said anything as such?

Kind regards.

Answer:

If you look at a variety of translations of Mark, you will notice that some say, "As it is written in the Prophets" (NKJV), and others say, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet" (NASB). The difference is due to a variation in the manuscripts.

When there is a variation, scholars apply rules to help determine which reading is most likely close to the original text. One rule is that older texts are preferred over newer texts on the assumption that the more often a text is copied, the more mistakes will appear. In this case, it doesn't help because we have old manuscripts in both camps.

"Written in the Prophets"

Codex Alexandria (fifth century)
Codex Cyprius (ninth century)
Codex Washingtonianus (fourth or fifth century)
Minuscule 13 (thirteenth century)
Minuscule 28 (eleventh century)
Minuscule 1010 (twelfth century)
The Byzantine manuscripts (fourth to tenth centuries)

"Written in Isaiah the prophet"

Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century)
Codex Vaticanus (fourth century)
Codex Regius (eighth century)
Codex Sangallensis (ninth century)
Codex Monacensis (tenth century)

Another rule is that more obscure is preferred over clearer text, assuming copists are tempted to fix the manuscripts while making copies. This rule doesn't always work because a mistake in copying can make a text less clear. It is this rule that caused the newer composite manuscripts to add "Isaiah" to Mark 1:2.

We must keep in mind that quotes in ancient documents are less rigid than modern-day quoting methods. If you state basically what another person said or wrote, even if you modify it slightly to match your use of the quote, it is still counted as a quote. So if Mark did say "Isaiah" even though he quoted both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, it would mean that he is putting emphasis on what Isaiah said. Recall that Mark wrote for the Romans, and they would not be familiar with the Old Testament prophets, so we could say that Mark was simplifying his reference.

It has also been pointed out that while Mark used the wording from Malachi at the beginning ("Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me"), Isaiah had stated something similar in his own writing ("A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."). Thus, what Malachi said had first been said by Isaiah, just in different words. Thus, Isaiah is credited because he originally stated the prophecy.

Response:

Thank you so much. I completely understand it now.

God bless you.