Sermon Notes: The Bible & its Critics IV (Different accounts, but all TRUE!)

The Bible and its Critics (Part IV: Different but True)

(Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA, June 28, AD 2020)

Text: John 17:11-21.

Intro: Final message on Bible Difficulties.

We haven’t answered all the complaints various critics have brought up, but we have sought to arm you with various principles.

One of the reasons we should know these things is because our children often prove to be easy prey for the most absurd of arguments. A few flimsy arguments from a college professor, and many of them are lost to us forever, despite being raised in the church.

1 John 2:19: They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

I. Today: we deal with the uncritical assumption that differing or divergent accounts of the same historical incident means that there has been a contradiction, or error, within the one or both of the narratives. For example: I Samuel & II Samuel and I & II Kings vs. I & II Chronicles give differing (but not contradictory) accounts of the era of the Kings. Likewise, the Gospels each recount the life and ministry of Jesus somewhat differently.

Examples of differing accounts:

o   Matthew & Mark mention an angel at the Empty Tomb (Matt. 28:5, Mark 16:5); but Luke 24:4 and John mention two (20:12).

o   How many women were at the tomb? Matthew only refers to the two Marys, but Mark also mentions Salome.

o   Matthew mentions two demoniacs at Gedara (8:28-34); Mark and Luke only mention one (Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39).

o   Matthew mentions two blind men being healed at Jericho (20:30); Mark and Luke mention only one—Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus (Mark 10:46, Luke 18:35).

o   Matthew & Mark tell us that Jesus healed the blind men upon leaving Jericho; Luke seems to imply the healing took place upon entering Jericho.

How, then, shall we deal with such seeming “contradictions?”

II. Principle #1: These differences are not contradictory, but supplemental.

A. The Gospels—represent four different viewpoints, with different themes and original target audiences in mind.

o   Matthew—unto the Jews—Jesus the Messiah—What did Jesus say?

o   Mark—unto the Romans—Jesus the Man of action and power—What did Jesus do?

o   Luke—unto the Greeks—Jesus the Son of Man—Who were His followers?

o   John—unto the Church—Jesus the eternal Son of God—Who was Jesus? (John 8:24, 58)

Each has his own audience, agenda, message, and point of view… In this regard, it is much like four witnesses to a modern traffic accident—each will involve different details, as reported from different angles. Indeed, law enforcement will tell us that different details from witnesses are a sign of the sort of testimony which is genuine; there has been no artificial collusion amongst the witnesses to come up with an “official story.”

B. Different emphases amongst the writers are reflected in the materials chosen: For example, a Washington party is covered by several different reporters: a political reporter, a society reporter, a gossip columnist, etc. The stories will be different; each reporter will have different themes, and different points of emphasis. Different—but not contradictory information—should not bother us.

In this regard, nor should omitting or leaving out certain information bother us. For example—you wouldn’t talk much about Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali in a formal study about Italian-American boxers. You would, however, speak a lot about Jake La Motta, Rocky Marciano, and Rocky Graziano.

II. The Law of Non-contradiction.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (e.g., the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive).

In accounts where “one” is mentioned instead of “two,” there is no contradiction if you only mention the one. There is no contradiction, provided that you don’t say “only one.”

 Wherever there is two, there is always one! No logical contradiction!

Consider the case of the demoniacs of Gadara:

Matt. 8:28: When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs.

Mark 5:2-3: When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs [Luke 8:27]

III. A Case study: Jesus and the blind men of Jericho.

Compare:

Matt. 20:29-30  And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.

Mark 10:46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

Luke 18:35  And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh [approaching] unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:

Error?

A. How many blind men were there?

Matthew mentions two; Mark & Luke refer to one. But we have already dealt with the one vs. two… there is no contradiction, because Mark & Luke do not refer to ONLY one…

B. But what of the issue of entering (Luke) vs. leaving (Matthew & Mark) Jericho?

o   There are various explanations offered with regard to this incident (e.g., multiple healings, or perhaps one healing in various stages).

o   Archeology and historical research provide the best solution: In Roman times, a new Gentile “Jericho” was built a mile down the road from the old Jewish Jericho. Thus, NT Jericho can be described as follows: two settlements, with a busy little road lined with merchants (and beggars) in between!

o   The healing took place after Jesus had left Jewish Jericho and before he entered Gentile Jericho. Robertson’s Word Pictures:

“It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns… In Kentucky there are two towns about a half mile apart both called Pleasureville (one Old Pleasureville, the other New Pleasureville).”

Error? No—except for the critics’ lack of awareness, knowledge, and faith!

Also, perhaps this factor comes into play: Matthew, with his Jewish emphasis talks about Jesus leaving (Jewish) Jericho; Luke, writing unto the Gentiles, sees Jesus entering (Gentile) Jericho.

So, in the end, four principles come together here to explain this one “contradiction:”

1. Our lack of the knowledge of the historical background creates “errors;”

2. Our lack understanding the laws of contradiction creates “errors;”

3. Our lack of understanding of the emphasis of the writers creates “errors;”

4. Our lack of Faith in presupposing that this is God’s inerrant Word creates “errors.”

IV. Conclusion.

What if there were no ready answers from the realm of history or archeology? Would we still believe the Word of God? Or, must we have to wait until some archeologist makes a Bible-confirming discovery (e.g., the Hittites, the Pilate inscription) before we are able to believe?

What about those generations of saints that lived before such discoveries were made? How did they manage to believe?

Answer: We presume that this is God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16). It gets the benefit of the doubt. We believe God’s Word because it is God’s powerful Word—exhaled from the very Being of the God of Truth.

Circular reasoning? No; God has a direct route, to the human heart. He has hard-wired the human heart, and Man is without excuse if it fails to acknowledge His self-authenticating Word (Rom. 1). His sheep, however, know His voice (John 10:3-5). It is self-evident to them.

Must we first rationalistically “prove” the Bible? No. Rather, we walk by faith, not by sight. We are saved on the basis of trust in what we don’t see…

John 20:29: Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), the Rich Man desires that a resurrected messenger—something “real” and empirical—be sent to his brethren, to convince them of the truth of the Gospel; in his estimation, the Word by itself isn’t good enough to accomplish this.

But God’s shocking response to him was that neither miracles nor empirical evidences can do what the Word cannot do. If the Light is refused, nothing else will work!

1 Cor. 1:21-25: ²¹For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²²For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; ²³but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, ²⁴but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Even the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany from the dead (John 11-12) could not convert the Pharisees! Men must believe on the basis of the inscripturated Word…

John 17:20: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word…”

Our counsel to you, beloved is to stick to Word when witnessing to the lost, and not allow yourself to be distracted from presenting the Gospel by “difficulties”…

God had a purpose in giving us His Word:

John 20:31: “…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”