Bible Contradictions

Are They Valid?

 Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, and discrepancies?  Skeptics say yes, it contains hundreds, and they've compiled some pretty extensive lists of them all.  Apologists (fundamentalists ones) say no, the Bible contains no errors or contradictions whatsoever, at least not that were in the "original autographs".

Now is it a problem if the Bible does contain contradictions?  Strangely, atheists and fundamentalists are in agreement on this.  They agree that contradictions WOULD be a problem, the reasoning being that God is a perfect being, and if the Bible is from God then it would have to be perfect also.  So it is claimed by the fundamentalists that the Bible is inerrant, that it is true in all matters.  For the fundamentalist to admit any error in the Bible at all, no matter how insignificant, is to open the door to questioning the entire book.  If it is admitted that the Bible is wrong when it speaks of some trivial detail such as the number of fighters in some battle, or the age at which some king began to reign, then how are we to know that the Bible is true when it speaks of the resurrection of Christ?  Its the slippery slope argument.

The more extreme skeptics are of a similar, obstinate mindset, yet approaching the issue from the opposite direction and with opposite motivations.  Sometimes it seems as if they think all they have to do is point out a few discrepancies in the Bible, even if they are minor, insignificant details about some pretty insignificant event, and that is enough to invalidate and reject the entire book.  I just don't think that its going to shake anyone's faith to learn that the 2nd book of Samuel list the number of fighting men of Israel at 800,000 while the book of Chronicles lists the number at 1,100,000!  So some/many of the discrepancies the skeptics cite are really nit-picky and chicken-sh*t (pardon my French), and I don't think it makes that much difference to most people. 

So the mistake the skeptics make is going for quantity over quality.  That is, in trying to rack up a high score in total number of discrepancies, they can sometimes include some rather dubious ones that are easily shot down by the apologists.  And besides the nit-picky numerical discrepancies, they also list some more abstract ones which can be subject to interpretation; for example they list what are seemingly inconsistent sayings from the Book of Proverbs.  Yet proverbial sayings are generally never absolute, and inconsistencies can even be complimentary when taken together.  One apologist (somewhere- I forgot where) gives the example of a couple of modern sayings: "two hands are better than one" and "too many cooks spoil the pot".  On the surface these appear contradictory because one says its better to have more help while the other says its better not to.  But when taken together they are complimentary, meaning that more help is better, but only up to a point.  So in a similar situation the skeptics will actually list Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" and 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" as a contradiction. Now any idiot can see that sometimes each saying applies, sometimes its better not to waste time in answering a fool because you'll end up stooping to his level, but sometimes its better to go ahead and show him up so that he doesn't go around influencing others in his foolishness.  And besides, these two "contradictions" are listed in the Bible together right next to each other!  If it were really considered a contradiction then even ancient goat-herders would have noticed it with the one verse following the other!  No divine guidance would be needed to see that.

In other contradiction cases cited, the skeptic's attitude does not allow for a certain amount of reasonableness in interpretation, and often the context is ignored. For example, it is listed as a contradiction as to whether of not we should let others see our good works.  In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says yes "Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven", yet in Matthew 6:1 he says no "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven".  Yet, the difference lies in the MOTIVATION for the good works.  Jesus is saying to let the works be seen by others in order to serve as an inspiration and to glorify God.  What Jesus is condemning in Matthew 6:1 is the actions of people who do the works in order to glorify themselves, to "show off" before others.  And reading the verses in context does plainly support this interpretation. (see Matt 5:14-16 and Matt 6:1-6)

So with the skeptic lists including these dubious "contradictions", it makes the impression on believers that skeptics are looking for an excuse, any excuse at all, to reject the Bible, so that they can go about with their wretched, immoral lives without having to answer to a higher power- or at least that's how the believers will tend to see it.  You can just imagine the image it must conjure up in the believers' minds, one of those nasty skeptics, all hunched over and pouring through the Bible with ill intent, looking for mistakes.  "Aha! Found one!" they exclaim,  no-doubt with Satan perched over their shoulder goading them on. (this is the believer's image/idea, not mine!) 

Another thing about the use of these numerical discrepancies- the apologists can always claim a scribal error, a slip of the scribe's pen, sort of an ancient equivalent to today's typographical error.  Even inerrantists will concede these types of errors, because they only claim that the "original autographs" were inerrant.  But since we don't have those the point is moot anyway.  However the apologists are loath to overuse this silver bullet, so will typically only use the scribal slip defense as a last-resort against the real werewolves, when no other explanation will fly.  And they won't concede any errors more substantial than numerical slips, as they maintain that God has preserved the Bible from any serious error.  Of course we could wonder why, if an omniscient and omnipotent being would take the time to intervene in order to prevent serious error why he wouldn't prevent minor error as well.  

But in any event it makes the skeptics look petty and overly critical.   And their use of such petty and dubious contradictions allows the apologists to concentrate their rebuttals on those that are easily resolved and create the impression that ALL the claimed contradictions are petty and suspect, while often ignoring the more substantial ones.  And there ARE more substantial ones then simple numerical discrepancies.

But not that the more difficult problems are ignored completely.  In response to the skeptic's extensive lists of Bible contradictions, difficulties, and discrepancies, apologists have published extensive lists of their own rebutting each and every one of the claims from the skeptic's lists.  In the apologist's mind, in every single case the seeming contradiction has been cleared up.  And do their explanations work?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe, in my opinion.  Basically its all a matter of degree as to just how reasonable is the explanation. 

One of the main methods used by apologists to resolve a discrepancy between different accounts of the same event is to envision details or scenarios not mentioned in the Biblical text that will reconcile the differences.  Some of the more extreme skeptics want to disallow this- they say that no, the text didn't say it so it isn't so.  However, I think it can be perfectly reasonable and valid to allow that the text indeed doesn't provide EVERY detail, so that if reasonable details can be imagined that eliminate the problem, then I think it can be a sensible tactic.  But at times it can go beyond reasonableness and border on absurdity.  For example in the manner of Judas' death, in Matthew 27:5 it says that Judas went and hung himself, while in Acts 1:18 it says that he fell headlong and his intestines gushed out.  So to resolve this contradiction the apologists surmise that Judas must have hung himself on the edge of a cliff, at which point the rope broke, he fell and his insides gushed out.  So this explanation seems to satisfy them, and shows that in their mind ANY explanation will do, no matter how far-fetched.  It makes me wonder, if hypothetically the Bible in another place said that Judas stabbed himself, and if in another place it said that Judas took poison, and if yet in another place it said that Judas was stoned, could we surmise that Judas must have hung himself on the edge of a cliff after first taking poison, and while he was hanging there people were throwing rocks at him, at which point he stabbed himself just as the rope broke (or was cut after being hit by a sharp rock maybe?) at which point he fell and his intestines gushed out (out of the stab wound maybe?)!  It just goes to show you that with enough imagination and an accommodating attitude, just about anything can be reconciled if you're not concerned about plausibility.  

So you can read through the apologists list of refutations, and at first glance it seems like they've got everything covered.  However, at some point you realize that the very same tactics used by the apologists to maintain that the Bible is inerrant, could be used to maintain that ANY book is inerrant.  Unless a book errs in making a direct, unequivocal statement of fact, like saying 2 + 2 = 5, then there is always room for an explanation that may resolve it.  Hmm, wait a minute! As I say this I've just thought of a way to resolve it even if a book DID make the statement 2 + 2 = 5.  Here goes: 

The very same methods are used by Muslim apologists to defend against critics of the Qu'ran, and by Mormon apologists to defend against critics of the Book of Mormon.  Skeptic WinAce has even compiled a tongue-in-cheek defense using such tactics against those critics who would claim that Star Trek has errors!  (I must actually give some credit to WinAce, along with the circumference of Solomon's bath defense, for inspiring my hypothetical 2 + 2 =5 defense above.)

Part 2: Unity of Theme?

So as I've tried to explain above, I don't think that the issue of contradictions and discrepancies in itself is a very good reason to reject the Bible, since an explanation can always be conceived.  So that might work somewhat for DEFENSIVE apologetics, where apologists are trying to defend the Bible against criticism.  However when you look at OFFENSIVE apologetics (I don't mean where the apologists are acting offensively, which they sure can BTW), when you see apologists trying to provide positive arguments and evidence to make a case that the Bible is the word of God, "unity of theme" is actually the first argument they will use.  They make a statement something to the effect "the Bible was compiled by over 40 different authors from different walks of life, written in several languages and in different countries over a period of more than a thousand years, and amazingly they all present a single unified theme".  One apologists states "one might expect that so diverse a group of men, writing on so varied a group of subjects, over such a lengthy span of time, would have produced a book that would be a tangled mishmash of subjects more often than not marred by inconsistencies, errors, and incongruities. Yet this hardly is the case. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The Bible exhibits such astounding harmony, such consistent flow, and such unparalleled unity that it defies any purely naturalistic explanation.".  

So all I can say to that is... "huh?"  Are they talking about the same Bible that I am?  Its one thing to reject contradictions and discrepancies as a reason for invalidating the Bible, its quite another to cite LACK OF contradictions and discrepancies as proof of divine inspiration!  I suppose its a matter of burden of proof. If the burden of proof is on the skeptics to disprove divine inspiration of the Bible, then as I said I think the Biblical contradictions issue falls short, at least for someone of faith who will have an accommodating attitude and is willing to bend over backwards to cling to their cherished book..  But if the burden of proof is on the apologists/believers to prove divine inspiration of the Bible to a neutral and impartial observer, then I think the harmony/unity of theme" argument falls way, way shorter.  When I read the Bible, I actually do see, in many places, "a tangled mishmash of subjects marred by inconsistencies and incongruities". 

What is really apparent to me, is that God, and the message of the Bible, seem to very plainly evolve over time.  The oldest parts of the Bible, generally the first five books (with the possible exception of Deuteronomy), reveal a primitive concept of religion, they reveal a God that is at times brutal and capricious, one who often lashes out in anger, strikes people down for sometimes petty offenses, prone to jealousy, one who punches innocents along with the guilty (for more on that see here), and commands the killing and plunder of entire nations (see here for more on that).  Yahweh in the older parts of the Old Testament seems to be more of a tribal deity.  He sends lions to kill the people who resettled Israel/Samaria because they don't know how to worship him, but he didn't seem to mind when they weren't in Israel (2 Kings 17:24-41) But then, in the later parts of the Bible, such as with the major prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, God becomes more just, becomes a universal God of the world, and says "people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes-his own teeth will be set on edge" (Jer 31:29-30)   

Just like the geological layers of the fossil record have preserved the evolution of species, so have the pages of the Bible preserved the evolution of the religion.  Below are just a few of the major inconsistencies that I see:

The evolving nature of God:  God is believed by Christianity (except maybe Mormons) and Judaism alike to be a transcendental, immaterial, and abstract being, pure spirit and without form: 

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."  John 4:24   

Yet in the older parts of the Bible, the writers seemed to have a more primitive idea of God.  They seem to have conceived of him as being somewhat humanlike, like some sort of Greek or Roman demigod/super-human.  In Genesis, God walks in the garden: 

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.  Genesis 3:8

In Exodus, God tells Moses that he can't see his face or he will die, so God uses his hand to cover Moses so he can't see his face but then allows him to see his back-side:  

But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" ...  I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. "Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."   Exodus 33:20-23 

In Genesis 32, there is a strange little episode where Jacob actually wrestles with God, and they come to some sort of stalemate, where God only succeeds in wrenching Jacob's hip: 

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.... Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome....  Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."  Genesis 32:24-30 NIV

The idea of God's presence also seems to evolve through the Bible.  The idea today, and in the later parts of the Bible, is of God and heaven existing in some kind of other dimension, a purely spiritual world outside of time and space.  But in the older parts, God seems to live in a heaven that is physically located up in the sky, above the firmament.  Sitting way up there, people look like grasshoppers to God.  And of course there is that little tower of Babel story, where the people are trying to build a tower to reach heaven, and God seems genuinely  concerned that they will succeed. 

Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:7-8 NIV

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."...The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Genesis 11:4,6

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  Isaiah 40:22

Interestingly God is not even omnipotent in the early parts of the Bible.

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.  Judges 1:19

One God or a Trinity? The Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament are clear about one thing- there is one God, and one God only.  

"Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other. Deuteronomy 4:39  "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!  Deuteronomy 6:4  See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.  Deuteronomy 32:39  You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. "I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.   Isaiah 43:10-11 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.  Isaiah 44:6  For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.....Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.  Isaiah 45:18, 21-22  

Yet, with Christianity, suddenly a man- Jesus, is God?  Even though it says in Numbers 23:19 " "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent.  (Jesus continually referred to himself as the "Son of Man").  The Gospel of John even has Jesus as being there at the creation of the world!  Does declaring Jesus to be part of the same God-head really solve the problem?    But yet for being co-equal with God the father, and being up there with God all along, Jesus seems to be conspicuously absent throughout the Old Testament, despite the Christian claims that Jesus was prophesied throughout (see here for an in-depth look at THAT issue). The Bible even commands you to PERSONALLY kill those who advocate the worship of other gods:  

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.  Deuteronomy 13:6-9 NIV  

If the Jews of Paul's day had followed their own scriptures there might be no Christianity today, since Paul was advocating the worship of a new God, Jesus, who certainly their fathers did not know.  And for being fully 1/3 of the "Godhead", a person of the trinity co-equal with both God the father and Jesus the son, the "Holy Spirit" doesn't seem to play that much of a role in the Old Testament.  There are a total of only two occurrences where "holy spirit" is mentioned, and it doesn't seem to be referring to any distinct being, the "Holy Ghost" of Christianity:

Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Ps 51:11

In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people- where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand Isaiah 63:9-12

Now if anyone wants to claim that this text is talking about the holy spirit as a distinct "person", co-equal to God the father, then there are some problems.  In Psalm 51, the writer, speaking to God, refers to several of God's attributes: "Your loving kindness", "Your compassion", "Your face", "Your presence", "Your Holy Spirit", "Your salvation", "Your ways", "Your righteousness".  The "holy spirit" seems to be merely one of the attributes the writer gives to God, and has no special significance over the others.  Its used in the same way a person can have a "spirit", or inner essence, and in fact the writer refers to his own spirit in verse 10: "...renew a steadfast spirit within me".  In Isaiah 63, its used much the same way, though someone could say that in verse 11 "Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them" sounds like a reference to a distinct person, the Holy Spirit of Christianity.  But in the very next verse it says  "Who caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses".  So if verse 11 means the Holy Spirit is a distinct "person", then does verse 12 mean that God's arm is also a distinct "person"?

Now the Old Testament does mention "the Spirit of the Lord", but it still isn't that substantial of a role considering it is supposed to be fully 1/3 of the "Godhead", a person of the trinity co-equal with both God the father and Jesus the son.  Now you can see some evolving ideas of the "Spirit of the Lord".  In the early parts of the Old Testament, it seems to be a case of that person being overcome with a "zeal" or passion for God, sort of the same way someone could be filled with "school spirit" for their school, or someone could be overcome with patriotism, a form of "country spirit" for their country.  In fact, in the early cases when the "Spirit of the Lord" comes upon someone in the Old Testament, its often right before they go and kill a bunch of people!  Such as in Judges Chapters 6, 7, and 8, after the "Spirit of the Lord" comes upon Gideon, he then goes and has some Midianite leaders killed, and their heads are cut off and brought to him.  And then a little while later after the "Spirit of the Lord" came upon him, Gideon kills the men of a city- fellow Israelites, because they didn't give his army any bread! Then he personally kills a couple of the Midianite kings that he's captured..

Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the sons of the east assembled themselves; and they crossed over and camped in the valley of Jezreel. So the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon; and he blew a trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called together to follow him....  They captured the two leaders of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb, and they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and they killed Zeeb at the wine press of Zeeb, while they pursued Midian; and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon from across the Jordan.... He said to the men of Succoth, "Please give loaves of bread to the people who are following me, for they are weary, and I am pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian." The leaders of Succoth said, "Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hands, that we should give bread to your army?" Gideon said, "All right, when the LORD has given Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, then I will thrash your bodies with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers". He went up from there to Penuel and spoke similarly to them; and the men of Penuel answered him just as the men of Succoth had answered. So he spoke also to the men of Penuel, saying, "When I return safely, I will tear down this tower." ...."He came to the men of Succoth and said, "Behold Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom you taunted me, saying, 'Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hand, that we should give bread to your men who are weary?'" He took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and he disciplined the men of Succoth with them. He tore down the tower of Penuel and killed the men of the city.... Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, "Rise up yourself, and fall on us; for as the man, so is his strength." So Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescent ornaments which were on their camels' necks.  Judges 6:33-34, 7:25. 8:5-9, 15-17, 21

The "Spirit of the Lord" even came upon Jephthah before he made a vow that would entail him sacrificing his own daughter! (note: this is a much debated episode, see here)

Now the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah... Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering." So Jephthah crossed over to the sons of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand.... When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing... When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back."... At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made...  Judges 11:29-32, 34-35, 39

The "Spirit of the Lord" comes upon Samson several times, the 2nd time being before he rips a lion apart with his bare hands, and the 3rd being right before he goes and kills 30 men in a fit of rage for solving his silly riddle! 

Then the woman gave birth to a son and named him Samson; and the child grew up and the LORD blessed him.  And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.... The Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a young goat though he had nothing in his hand; but he did not tell his father or mother what he had done.....Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house. Judges 13:24-25, 14:6,19  

The "Spirit of the Lord" comes upon Samson yet again and he kills 1000 Phillistines with the jawbone of a donkey.

When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands. He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. Judges 15:14-15

Yet in the later writings of the Old Testament the "Spirit of the Lord" is starting to sound more like the "Holy Spirit" of the New Testament.  For example:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners  Isaiah 61:1

Then the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and He said to me, "Say, 'Thus says the LORD, "So you think, house of Israel, for I know your thoughts. Ezekiel 11:5

Especially Ezekiel 5 does sound like the "Holy Spirit" could be a distinct being, but then again it could also be speaking of it as an attribute of God.

See here for all mentions of "Spirit of the Lord" in the Bible.

Revenge: Love your enemies or SMITE your enemies? An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

In the famous sermon on the mount, Jesus exhorts his followers to not seek revenge, but rather to turn the other cheek, and to love their enemies.

"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.  Luke 6:29

That's all well & good.  However in the Old Testament, there is a totally different, more primitive concept, one of revenge and retribution.  The view there, supposedly commanded by the very word of God, is "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth":

"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Exodus 21:23-25

"Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.  Deuteronomy 19:21

Now I've heard apologists say that Jesus here is talking about someone not taking personal revenge, while the "eye for eye" commands of the Old Testament are really talking about retribution within a legal system, and what they really mean is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime.  However, the version from Matthew throws cold water on this defense, as here Jesus is directly linking the opposing commands, showing that Jesus was indeed talking about the same thing: 

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.  Matthew 5:38-39

And of course in his famous statement, Jesus says to love your enemies.  

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matthew 5:43-44

However, throughout the Old Testament there is quite a different concept- one of revenge and holding grudges.  Time and again the Israelites take revenge on their enemies.  Often their reward for turning from other gods and following Yahweh is to have their enemies handed over to them: 

And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand. He gave him a tenth of all... indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies... Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies  Genesis 14:20, 22:17. 49:8

But you will chase your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword  Leviticus 26:7

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies... but do not stay there yourselves; pursue your enemies and attack them in the rear. Do not allow them to enter their cities, for the LORD your God has delivered them into your hand... and said to them, "Return to your tents with great riches and with very much livestock, with silver, gold, bronze, iron, and with very many clothes; divide the spoil of your enemies with your brothers.  Joshua 10:13,19, 22:8

"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. "I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. 2 Samuel 7:8-9

Every man of Judah and Jerusalem returned with Jehoshaphat at their head, returning to Jerusalem with joy, for the LORD had made them to rejoice over their enemies.  2 Chronicles 20:27

Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked... When my enemies turn back, They stumble and perish before You... I pursued my enemies and overtook them, And I did not turn back until they were consumed. I shattered them, so that they were not able to rise; They fell under my feet... And in Your loving kindness, cut off my enemies And destroy all those who afflict my soul, For I am Your servant...  Psalm 3:7, 9:3, 18:37-38, 143:12

... Ransom me because of my enemies!... All my adversaries are before You... And I looked for sympathy, but there was none,... May their table before them become a snare; And when they are in peace, may it become a trap. May their eyes grow dim so that they cannot see, And make their loins shake continually. Pour out Your indignation on them, And may Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be desolate; May none dwell in their tents..... Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness. May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous.  Psalm 69:18-28

In the book of Esther, the Jews were going to be destroyed by their enemies, but Queen Esther is credited with turning things around so they get to kill their enemies instead:

Now in the twelfth month (that is, the month Adar), on the thirteenth day when the king's command and edict were about to be executed, on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them...Thus the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying; and they did what they pleased to those who hated them....Now the rest of the Jews who were in the king's provinces assembled, to defend their lives and rid themselves of their enemies, and kill 75,000 of those who hated them; but they did not lay their hands on the plunder.  Esther 9:1,5,16

Some examples of holding grudges: 

No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you....You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days. Deuteronomy 23:3-6

Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. "Therefore it shall come about when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget.  Deuteronomy 25:17-19

Yahweh in the Old Testament says that if someone is accidentally killed, the person that did it can be killed by an "avenger of blood" if he is caught outside the "city of refuge". (the text doesn't say exactly who this "avenger of blood" is, but it seems to be someone who was close to the deceased and is out for vengeance).

'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death....  The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death." 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil." 'But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. Numbers 35:16-27 NIV* 

Now I'm sure some will say that this was a significant improvement in those ancient times to provide a safe haven for the person to flee, instead of the avenger being able to chase and kill him anywhere he pleased.  Yet it still is in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus, who would instead tell the victim's family to forgive the person (especially since it was an accident).

* In verse 27, other translations say something to the effect "if the avenger of blood kills the accused he is not guilty of murder", which is not quite as condoning as saying "the avenger may kill the accused", but it still reflects a overall concept of revenge instead of forgiveness.

Stone adulterers to death, or don't?  In the famous incident from John 8:1-11, where a woman caught in the act of adultery is about to be stoned to death, Jesus says that only those without sin should throw the first stone.  Since no one is without sin, that effectively refutes the commands of the Old Testament that adulterer's are to be put to death:

If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.  Deuteronomy 22:22

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying... If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  Leviticus 20:1,10

Now Jesus' way certainly is more forgiving and less barbaric, which must be why the incident from John is famous, while the commands from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are more obscure and largely ignored.  Yet why did Jesus give the command that adulterers are to be stoned to death in the first place?  "What? Jesus didn't give those commands" you might say.  But isn't Jesus supposed to be God, or 1/3 of him?  In Leviticus 20, this is supposed to be the actual word of God here (as stated in verse 1) for adulterers to be put to death.  Yet Jesus says they aren't?  Now I've heard some apologists say that the reason Jesus let the woman off is because the law commands both the man and woman committing adultery to be put to death, and since the man wasn't there to die also, then the law wouldn't have been followed if only the woman was put to death.  But this defense seems pretty lame.  In the first place, you don't know if the man might have already been put to death first, or else maybe he was next to get it after the woman.  The text doesn't mention the man one way or the other.  (If apologists can speculate details not in the text then why can't skeptics?)  But what really shows this defense as absurd is to relate it to a modern-day offense.  If two guys rob a bank and murder some people, under U.S. laws that makes both of them, upon arrest and conviction, subject to life in prison or even capital punishment.  But if only one of the guys were caught, would anybody really say that he should get off scott-free because the other guy wasn't also caught?  Because after all, under the law they are both equally guilty and justice demands criminal penalties for both!

Some might say that this was the difference between being under "the law" and being under grace, that is, with basic orthodox Christian theology, the idea is that before the atoning sacrifice of Jesus the wages of sin are death.  So Jesus' sacrifice changed all that.  So the thought is that Jesus fulfilled and superseded the Old Testament law.  With the argument aside over whether "the law" was to still be valid (see the discussion on the law below), it could be pointed out, that at the time of this incident Jesus' atoning sacrifice had not yet occurred.  Now maybe that's being nit-picky, but if the atonement had not yet occurred, then technically they were still under the law and not yet under grace.  Was it "close enough", considering that God knew that the atonement was about to happen?  But God knew the atonement was going to happen from the beginning of the world!  If God could forgive without someone or something dying BEFORE he had appeased himself by having himself or 1/3 of himself killed, even if it was only a few months before, then why couldn't God forgive a few years before, or a few hundred years before, or a few thousand years before?  What does the time frame matter, especially to an eternal being?  As a side note, this entire discussion may be moot anyway, because apparently this story was a later insertion into the Gospel of John by some unknown person, as it is not found in manuscripts before the 5th century according to this site. 

Don't eat this, don't eat that, it will make you unclean versus "what goes into you will not make you unclean but what comes out of you"

Jesus told the Pharisees that "what goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean".  That's all well and good, and does make perfect sense.  However, if that is the case, then why did Jesus (since Jesus is supposed to be God, or 1/3 of him at least) go on, and on, and on, in the Old Testament about what sorts of food are "clean" and "unclean", and it specifically says that eating something "unclean" makes the person unclean?

The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. 'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. 'Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. 'Likewise, the shaphan...it is unclean to you; the rabbit..... it is unclean to you; and the pig...it is unclean to you. 'You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. 'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. Avoid the Unclean'... These, moreover, you shall detest ...the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon ... raven... the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk...and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl...the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.' All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you..... 'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you. 'By these, moreover, you will be made unclean... 'Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. Leviticus 11:1-8, 12-20,23-24, 43

"Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. "The pig... it is unclean for you...anything that does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. "You may eat any clean bird. "But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, and every raven in its kind, and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat. "And all the teeming life with wings are unclean to you; they shall not be eaten. "You may eat any clean bird.   Deuteronomy 14:7-20

Now it is true that Jesus here wasn't exactly talking about the Jewish food laws per se, but was actually talking about the Pharisees' view that failing to wash hands before eating is an unclean act.  However the same principle applies, if something that you put into your mouth won't make you unclean, then that contradicts the extensive parts of the Old Testament that say otherwise.

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ... “Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ” Matthew 15:10-11, 17-20

Paul agrees with this, specifically regarding the food laws:

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  Romans 14:14

The Law, is it good, is it forever?

In the letters to the editor section of our local newspapers today, sometimes you will see a letter opposing civil rights for homosexuals, gay marriage, etc.  Nearly always the writer bases their opposition on religious and biblical grounds, and they often will declare that homosexuality is an "abomination to the Lord", citing the book of Leviticus:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.  Leviticus 18:22 

Yet, no one ever seems to never cite a related verse only a couple of chapters later:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.  Leviticus 20:13

In general, you just don't see people today advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, despite it saying so right there in the Bible.  Also, a little later in Leviticus the death penalty is prescribed for someone who is a medium or spiritist.  But you just don't see Christians today trying to enact legislation to have capital punishment instituted for those offenses, or not even to make them illegal.  Most towns and cities today have some kind of fortune teller or tarot reader operating, and you just don't see Christians trying to have their business shut down, much less have the person put to death! 

Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.  Leviticus 20:27 

And in the very next chapter of Leviticus after the one usually cited declaring homosexuality an abomination, the Bible says to not wear clothes made of two different kinds of material (Lev 19:19 ), or to cut your side-burns or the edges of your beard (Lev 19:27), or to have tattoos (Lev 19:28)!  Yet Christians give no thought at all to wearing shirts made with a polyester and cotton blend, they appear proudly in church with their faces cleanly shaved and sideburns neatly trimmed, and even among the young Christians today tattoos are becoming fashionable.

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together... You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.   Leviticus 19:19, 27-28

And I doubt you'd find very many people today willing to cut off a woman's hand without pity for helping her husband in a fight by grabbing the other guy's genitals!

If two men... are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.  Deuteronomy 25:11-12 

Even Old Testament commands that were not part of "the Law" (ones given later) are ignored.  Christians today (most) have no problem putting up a Christmas tree in their homes to celebrate the holiday, despite the practice being explicitly condemned in the Bible: 

This is what the LORD says: "Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.  Jeremiah 10:2-4 NIV

So even though the Bible contains these direct, unambiguous commands, commands that were supposedly given by God himself, they are largely ignored today.  Nobody follows them. Now of course the Christian answer to this is that those commands in the Bible are part of "the Law" which only applied to the Jews.  The general view is that the Old Testament is still valid, but only in regards to moral commands.  The "ceremonial" commands are not binding on Christians or non-Jews/gentiles.  The view is that Jesus superceded the Old Testament law.  While the "old covenant" was to the Jews, the "new covenant" is to both the Jews and Gentiles.  While the old covenant was one of works, the new covenant was one of God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Of course this is nothing new.  This was Paul's theology, that salvation could not be attained through works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ:

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified... I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly Gal 2:16,21

To Paul, the law was only leading up to Christ:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.  Gal 3:24-25

Many of the Pauline epistles deal extensively with this subject.  For example, see Romans 2:17-29, Romans 3, Romans 4, Romans 7, Romans 14,  Col 2:6-20, Gal 3, Gal 4,  Gal 5, Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9, Hebrews 10

Now the first problem is that nowhere in the Old Testament where the law is given is it stated that "these are ceremonial laws and aren't binding to gentiles, but THESE are the moral laws that EVERYONE must follow!".  It seems quite arbitrary as to which laws still apply today.  It seems that if something in the Bible agrees with some people's modern ideas of morality, then those are still to be followed.  But if the Bible has a command that seems irrelevant, primitive, immoral, or just downright silly, then Christians have not problem in disregarding it. The other problem is that instead of it saying that the law only applied to the Jews, in several places the Bible in fact states that they are to be followed by both the Israelites and the "aliens" living among them. (see Lev 16:29,  Lev 17:12-15, Lev 18:26)   

But the biggest problem regarding "unity of theme", is that in contradiction to Paul's theology, where the laws are given in the Old Testament- supposedly by God himself, it isn't stated that they would eventually be superceded by some kind of new covenant.  On the contrary it is explicitly stated that they were to be binding forever!

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant…  you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.  "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations… thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  Genesis 17:7-13

'Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance. 'You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance. "And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever. Ex 12:14,17,24

Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac. He also confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant 1 Chron 16:15-17

To Paul, observance of the Sabbath is voluntary, a matter of conscience.  

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.  Romans 14:5

Yet in the Old Testament God very plainly stated that the Sabbath was to be observed forever, and the penalty for not doing so was death! 

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'   Exodus 31:12-16

To Paul, the law was a curse, and those living under the law were under a curse.  He even quotes Deuteronomy 27:26:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law...  Galatians 3:10,13

Yet that's not what Deuteronomy says- it says that those who DON'T follow the law are cursed! 

Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'  Deuteronomy 27:26

Psalm 119 is one long praise for the law, stating quite clearly that it is righteous, should be kept, and is eternal! Now does it sound like the person(s) who wrote this think that the law is a curse?

Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart... I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches... I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word... You rebuke the arrogant, who are cursed and who stray from your commands. Remove from me scorn and contempt, for I keep your statutes... Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors... I hold fast to your statutes, O LORD; do not let me be put to shame. I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free. Teach me, O LORD, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end. Give me understanding, and I will keep your law and obey it with all my heart. Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight... I will always obey your law, for ever and ever. I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts. I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, for I delight in your commands because I love them... The arrogant mock me without restraint, but I do not turn from your law. I remember your ancient laws, O LORD, and I find comfort in them. Indignation grips me because of the wicked, who have forsaken your law... Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I believe in your commands. Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word. You are good, and what you do is good; teach me your decrees. Though the arrogant have smeared me with lies, I keep your precepts with all my heart... I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me... All your commands are trustworthy; help me, for men persecute me without cause. They almost wiped me from the earth, but I have not forsaken your precepts. Preserve my life according to your love, and I will obey the statutes of your mouth... Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long. Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me... Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God!... Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them... The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy. My zeal wears me out, for my enemies ignore your words... Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true... Your statutes are forever right; give me understanding that I may live... Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever... All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal... Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous laws... I wait for your salvation, O LORD, and I follow your commands. I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly. I obey your precepts and your statutes, for all my ways are known to you...May my tongue sing of your word, for all your commands are righteous  Psalm 119:2, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 31-35, 45-47, 52-53, 66-69, 75, 86-88, 97-98, 115, 129, 138-139, 142, 144, 152, 160, 164, 166-168, 172  (NIV)

Paul condemns the Galatians for observing special days and months and seasons and years, calling them weak and worthless things: 

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. Galatians 4:9-11

Yet what Paul says directly contradicts what God himself was supposed to have said in Leviticus.  According to the text, God said that it was to be a PERPETUAL statute.  He didn't say that it would only be in effect until some kind of new covenant would be made:

The LORD spoke again to Moses, saying,"... The LORD'S appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations--My appointed times are these... In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover. Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread... You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh sabbath..." Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "In the seventh month on the first of the month you shall have a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation...."On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you... It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "On the fifteenth of this seventh month is the Feast of Booths for seven days to the LORD... These are the appointed times of the LORD which you shall proclaim as holy convocations... On exactly the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the LORD for seven days... You shall thus celebrate it as a feast to the LORD for seven days in the year. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations... Leviticus 23:1-41

Now it is true that many of the laws given in the Old Testament did specifically state that they were for Israel (and the foreigners living with them).  Yet this has more to do with the fact that the Old Testament God was a tribal/national god, and most of the Old Testament was concerned only with Israel.  The idea that he was a universal god for the entire world was one that evolved later, with the major prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Now as far as the law being no longer in effect, in some ways, Jesus agrees with Paul.  As stated in the section above, he seemed to contradict the cleanliness laws, and when he was criticized for violating the Sabbath, he replied "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).  Yet in other places, Jesus affirmed the law:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.   Matthew 5:17-19

The last time I checked, heaven and earth have not passed away, so it would seem here that Jesus is saying that every part of the law is still valid.  And according to Jesus, Paul must be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, because as we've seen above he certainly teaches others to annul the commandments.  But in any event, the message of the Bible in regards to the law does not seem to be a coherent one in the least, certainly not a "perfect work of harmony", or showing 'unity of theme"

Animal Sacrifice, is it good and what God wants?

Any religion today that would practice the sacrifice of animals, ritually cutting their throats, draining the blood, sprinkling the blood around and marking people or objects with it; well everyone would pretty much assume that it has to be some kind of strange and satanic cult, or at least that has something to do with voodoo.  People today consider such behavior to be bizarre, barbaric, and reprehensible.  Yet right there in the Bible, in plain black and white, are command after command supposedly from God himself to do that very thing.  A command for animal sacrifice is given a mere 7 verses after the Ten Commandments are given:

'You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.  Exodus 20:24

It seemed to be very important to Yahweh, the Old Testament God.  Entire sections of books are devoted to detailed instructions for conducting animal sacrifices, with God going into excruciating, gory detail on exactly how he wants it done:

"The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep. You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons None shall appear before Me empty-handed." Exodus 34:19-20

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering... He shall slay the young bull before the LORD..  offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar... then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces....arrange the pieces, the head and the suet over the wood... Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.... he shall offer it a male without defect. He shall slay it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar. 'He shall then cut it into its pieces with its head and its suet... The entrails, however, and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it, and offer it up in smoke on the altar; it is a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD. 'But if his offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering from the turtledoves or from young pigeons. 'The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head and offer it up in smoke on the altar; and its blood is to be drained out on the side of the altar.... he shall tear it by its wings, but shall not sever it And the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar on the wood which is on the fire; it is a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.  Leviticus 1:4-17  (See also Numbers 15:1-13 and Leviticus Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 23)

So it seems pretty clear that God wanted people to sacrifice animals.  He seems to have really like the smell of the burning animals wafting up into heaven, as the Bible states over and over and over that it is "a soothing aroma to the Lord"  (see here).  Of course the view of Christianity is that sacrifices are no longer needed because Jesus was the final sacrifice, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".  But even before Jesus, the later prophets began to take a dim view of such practices.  To them, no longer does God want these sacrifices (and adherence to new moons and festivals), but rather prayer and repentance, abstaining from evil, and doing good.. Most Bible versions even have Jeremiah denying that God even gave any commands for burnt offerings*:

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats... Bring your worthless offerings no longer...  I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly... Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.  Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow". Isaiah 1:11-17

"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'  Jeremiah 7:22-23*

* in most Bible versions, it says " I did not speak" or "I never gave any commands" regarding burnt offerings, but in the NIV, it says "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings" see here

God smites sinners on the spot versus waiting for a final judgment 

God seems to have mellowed out quite a bit in old age.  When he was younger and known as Yahweh, he had quite a temper and would lash out and kill people right on the spot for transgressions, sometimes for seemingly petty offenses.  Yet we see a pattern that with time, God seems to directly kill people less and less often, and by the time of the New Testament, he was a much kinder and gentler God, and hardly killed anyone anymore (with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11).  By then he was content to wait until a final judgment, and just send people to hell instead of taking them out in this life.  Its quite a change for an eternal unchangeable being to make within a span of only a thousand years or so.  Below are just a few examples of God killing people for transgressions:

God first kills Judah's son Er for being evil, then kills Onan for trying to have his cake and eat it too by performing his, ahem, "duty" to his brother's wife without actually impregnating her:

Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.  Genesis 38:6-10

Yahweh sent down fire to kill a couple of guys who "offered strange fire before the Lord".  Apparently they were performing some burnt offerings in a manner not prescribed:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.  And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2

Yahweh/God got mad when people complained so he sent fire down to burn some of them up:

Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.  Numbers 11:1

Sometimes God sends animals to kill people, sometimes snakes, sometimes bears, and sometimes lions:

The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died... as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number...  At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them. Numbers 21:6, 2 Kings 2:23-24, 2 Kings 17:25

God killed a mere 50,070  men because some had looked in on the ark:

He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter. 1 Samuel 6:9

Quite amazing that these were such grievous offenses to God that he had to directly kill these people.  Onan spilling his seed on the ground was such a bad deed that God had to take him out right then and there? Yet today when a child turns up missing and is found to have been kidnapped, as the family, friends, and community are holding prayer vigils, all the while God sits up there passively while the kidnapper rapes and brutalizes the child, not even intervening as the child is savagely murdered?  Surely that would call for God to kill somebody wouldn't it?  God doesn't want to interfere with the kidnapper's free will?  But why didn't God care about Onan's free will to continue to spill his seed?  

Faith versus Works  There is one thing that's most important of all, one thing that the Bible should be absolutely clear on.  That thing is salvation.  When it comes down to it, that ultimately is what the Bible is supposed to be about.  Shouldn't we expect that if the Bible truly is divinely inspired, then it should present a concise and coherent message on exactly what is required for salvation?  Is it faith only that is required?  Or is it works?  Or is it faith AND works?  Yet, it seems like the Biblical writers couldn't even agree on this one crucial thing.  We're not even talking about an Old Testament versus New Testament disagreement.  Even the New Testament writers couldn't agree.

Verses that say faith only, not works (or the law):

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life... "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already... "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."  John 3:16,18,36

..."Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."  Acts 26:30-31

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin... For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.  Romans 3:20,28

Other "faith only" verses:  Mark 16:16, Romans 1:16-17, Romans 4:2-9, Romans 5:1, Romans 10:9-13, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5,  

Verses that say salvation is by works (or the law):

Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19-20

Other "works verses":  Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel 18:5-9, Matthew 12:36-37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:16-19, Matthew 19:29, Mathew 25:31-46, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 2:6-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, James 2:14-26, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation 20:12-13

Now many will undoubtedly say that the Bible IS clear on salvation.  It is through faith in Christ only, and works are only an outward sign of that faith.  But they are ignoring the many verses that specifically say people will be judged according to their deeds.  And if the Bible is so clear on it then why is there so much disagreement in Christendom on this point?  This is one of the major issues of contention between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and has been ever since the reformation.  Its one thing for nasty skeptics with ill intent and hardened hearts to "not get it".  But even among sincere and devout believers, different people reach different conclusions, and yet they all claim to base their conclusions on (basically) the same Bible.  If all scripture is God-inspired, then that fact that the Bible presents such an incoherent message on this most crucial subject presents a thorny problem, requiring quite a bit of convoluted explanations to try to make sense of it all.  But if the Bible is merely different men giving different opinions, then it makes perfect sense.

Note: Unless otherwise noted, these verses are from the New American Standard Bible.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Web Site Hit Counters