Blogs

I saw an atheists’ website that listed one of their favorite “contradictions.” God says he will punish “the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exod 20:54; cf. Deut 5:9). However, in Ezekiel 18:4 God says, “The person who sins is the one who will die.” So which is it? Are children punished for the sins of their parents, or does the parents’ punishment end with them?

John says Jesus was taken to Annas before going to Pilate (John 18:13), while Matthew says he was taken to Caiaphas (26:57f.).

This is one of the more difficult apparent contradictions in the Bible. In one gospel it appears that Jesus said the disciples could take a staff, and in another gospel it appears that Jesus said they could not take a staff. The solution is somewhat complicated but it is satisfying.

Two different names are used for the same mountain in Exodus 3, 19, and elsewhere. What is its name, and can you trust a book who can't get the name of the mountain correct?

Before you get into a discussion of an apparent Bible contradiction, you should always make sure that your interpretation is correct. So many times, your interpretation of the texts might be wrong and there is no contradiction.

Matthew and Luke have two different genealogies for Jesus, not even agreeing on the name of his grandfather. Is this a contradiction? I will look at three possible solutions and the problems of each. The whole issue of genealogies is compounded by the fact that they can skip generations, the same person can have different names (or different spellings), and levirate marriage can result in a physical father and a legal father.

“Cornelius said, ‘Four days ago at this hour, I was praying at the ninth hour in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing.’” The challenge here is that it was only three days earlier that Cornelius had his vision. So is this an error?

The variations among the Gospel accounts of Peter’s three denials of knowing Jesus are a common example of biblical contradictions. Actually, it is a fascinating exercise in seeing how the Gospels vary in some of the details in ways that are complementary but are wholly consistent in the core of the story.

There are two stories in the Gospels about a woman pouring perfume on Jesus, and there are enough differences that some people argue Luke created the account and hence he is not trustworthy. But despite the similarities, there are so many differences that they must be two different accounts, and hence there is no contradiction.

In speaking of Judas’ burial, Matthew writes, “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me’” (Matt 27:9–10). The problem, it is claimed, is that the citation is from Zechariah and not Jeremiah.

As we all know, some information from Greek is often left out of an English translation. Usually, it is just nuances, but the information is a little more important in this passage.

Romans 13:9 provides several interesting points of discussion. Here is the verse with its critical apparatus.

Every once in a while, you have to guess as to what words have been omitted from a Greek sentence in order to explain the form of those that were included. Sentences are often abbreviated, and I have lost count of how many times I was stuck, trying to understand the form of a word, and the answer was that some word (or words) was assumed.

There is a lot of flexibility in the significance of subjunctive. Once you move a statement out of fact (indicative) into possibility or probability, lots of nuances can be present.

What do these three have in common? My life today. What does a normal person do when they are getting ready to drive 2 1/2 days home from vacation? Get a puppy! He is an alpha male German Shepherd, and we named him "Brady," the G.O.A.T. But in between the chaotic times (Brady can find bear poop faster than anyone I have ever seen), I have been thinking about how to teach our children about God's sovereignty.

When Jesus was arrested, did he go to Annas (John 18:13) or Caiaphas (Matt 26:57) before going to Pilate? Mark 14:53ff. does not name the high priest. Luke 22:66ff. refers to “elders of the people ... both chief priests and scribes.” So John is alone in specifying that Jesus went first to Annas.

My nephew Dave Gundlach preached an excellent sermon (at 39:00 in the video) this morning (March 24, 2024) that alerted me to something I had never seen before. It's about singular and plurals. James 4:1 says, “What accounts for the quarrels and disputes among you? Is it not this—your desires that are at war in your members?”

My assumption is that Paul’s use of Greek would have been relatively easy for a native speaker to understand. Peter‘s objection (2 Peter 3:15), I assume, would have more to do with Paul's concepts than his use of Greek. But when I see passages like Romans 7:2–3, I am reminded how much is lost by not being a first-century Jew. Our distance from Paul's context should encourage an element of humility as we attempt to exegete his writing.

I received an email asking me about the translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses in John 1:1. Because there is no article in front of the Greek word for "God," they insist that it's translated, "and the word was a god." This shows a significant lack of understanding of how Greek grammar functions relative to the article, I can think of no better response than Dr. Daniel Wallace's "Exegetical Insight" in chapter 6 in my Greek grammar, "Basics of Biblical Greek."

I was reading in Romans this morning and came across a passage that uses ἄνθρωπος in a totally generic sense. I thought that all the translations would use some generic word or phrase. Well, all but one.

I would guess that most Greek students think of the aorist tense as a general, nondescript tense. In one sense, this might be somewhat accurate. The aorist is certainly the default tense. If you want to describe an action occurring normally in the past and you don't want to say anything else about it, the Greek writer defaults to the aorist. When the writer wants to make a specific point, the other tenses come into play.

However, the aorist can be more nuanced than that. While its basic meaning is to look at an event as a whole from the outside, it can also carry specific meanings that are indicated by context.

Someone asked me the other day about the angel’s address to Mary. In the King James it reads, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” The person said that the address “Hail” indicates that the angel viewed her as a high personage, probably a queen.

I am sure that all languages have abbreviated ways of expressing meaning, and for a native speaker interpretation is probably quite automatic. It is something else for someone who is not a native speaker.

Pete wrote me the other day about commas and how they can affect the meaning of a passage. Acts 20:28 does have a lot of phrases, and the commas are the translators’ way of trying to help convey the meaning of the verse. But what modifies what? And perhaps, more importantly, are your elders appointed by the Holy Spirit or by people?

At the end of time, will the earth be destroyed or renewed? This is actually an important question for me. I would love to go to New Zealand, and I'm hoping that New Zealand is there after the end of all things. So will New Zealand be renewed or will New Zealand and the rest of the world be destroyed and replaced by something that will possibly be different? To say it another way, should I go to New Zealand before I die? As I dug into this question, it turns out that there is quite the theological debate on the issue.

One of the most basic rules in hermeneutics is context. As a friend of mine says, “Context is King.” But how much context? Does the issue of context extend beyond a single verse? Perhaps to the paragraph or even the paragraph before? This is the question you have to ask in translating 1 Timothy 3:11.

Someone wrote me the other day and asked why γυναῖκας is accusative, why do some translations add “the” or “their” (wives),” and why there is no verb in the sentence. If you look at the different translations, especially all the footnotes, when you see this much variety you can be assured that the Greek is not clear.

There are times I feel myself being drawn back to more of a word–for–word translation. I think that the form in which meaning is conveyed can often be part of that meaning. I see this again in Hebrews 12:1–2 were a participle is usually translated with an imperatival sense, and doing so, I think, distracts from the actual meaning of the passage.

There is a distinction between two uses of the genitive case that is especially important. When Mark introduces his gospel by writing “gospel of Jesus Christ” (εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), does he mean that Jesus proclaims the gospel or that Jesus is the content of the gospel?

In speaking of Judas’ burial, Matthew writes, “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me’” (Matt 27:9–10). The problem, it is claimed, is that the citation is from Zechariah and not Jeremiah.

Gone are the days of thinking the aorist must refer to a past event. Even though it is a default tense, it still has a wider range of meaning than most first-year students of Greek may suspect. I have often pointed out that English tends to see verbs in a row sequentially — verb A happened, then verse B, then verse C — Greek doesn’t and it uses a different mechanism.