Posts

Billy Quinlan

9 Dec, 2024

Posts

Scriptures in question:
1 Corinthians 15:51-53
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 5:9-11

This essay is a response to an article written by Joe Crews. I will not respond to every sentence and paragraph but will hopefully cover all the bases concerning his article. Many who don’t believe in the pre-tribulation rapture event often use the term secret rapture as a pejorative. Whether or not this is the case with Mr. Crews, I don’t know. You can read his article here. His comments are in bold, followed by my responses.

“By the way, that word “rapture” is also an invention of theologians. It can’t be found in the Bible in even a single instance. It is a word coined for the second advent of Jesus.”
• The word rapture is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17; it is the Greek word harpazo translated into English as “caught up” (LSB, NASB ’95, ESV, NET).
• Greek: ἁρπάζω (harpazo) [Strong’s G0726]
◦ to seize, carry off by force
◦ to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
◦ to snatch out or away
• Latin: rapio or rapturo is the Latin translation from Koine Greek where we get the English word rapture.
◦ From the Vulgate: …deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur [we will be raptured] cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus…
• The word rapture, as well as the actual event, has nothing to do with the second advent. I don’t know where he comes up with this doozy of a claim.

“The secret rapture doctrine contradicts the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 13 when He said that the wheat and tares would grow together until the “end of the world” and then would be separated. According to the two-stage teaching of His coming, both groups would not grow together until the end of the world. The righteous would be separated from the wicked seven years before the end. And what about the promise of the resurrection? Christ said, concerning the righteous, “And I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40). No one denies that this means the last day of the world. Yet Paul declares that the saints are caught up to meet the Lord at the same time the dead in Christ are raised. He says, “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17).”
• By stating “…the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 13…” he’s obviously referring to Jesus’ parable of the tares among the wheat. (Matthew 13:24-30)
• Jesus did not use the phrase “end of the world” (kosmos) but the phrase “until the harvest” (therismos) (13:30)
• Secondly, verse 24 makes it clear that Jesus wasn’t teaching about something that would happen at the end of the world. He is specifically teaching about the coming kingdom of heaven. While I do believe in the coming millennial kingdom, defending the actual millennial kingdom is not in the scope of this essay. My only aim in this essay is to defend the reality of the rapture. One topic at a time.
• “…two-stage teaching of His coming” I have no idea where he came up with this phrase. Rather than making an honest effort to understand those he disagrees with, he seems to pull ideas out of thin air and puts them in the mouth of dispensationalists. We should always make an effort to represent opposing views accurately and fairly. No dispensationalist teaches a two-stage coming of Christ. More on this below.
• “The righteous would be separated from the wicked seven years before the end.” That’s not what the parable is teaching, nor is it what pre-tribulationists believe or teach. This event is parallel to another parable, commonly called the separation of the sheep and goats. They both depict a separation between true and false believers prior to entry into the visible Kingdom with Christ reigning on earth. And Jesus’ second advent isn’t “the end” either, so we wouldn’t say He’s coming “seven years before the end.” There’s still another one thousand years to go yet.
• the last day” (John 6:40) (answered below).
• “No one denies that this means the last day of the world.” I deny it, and so do other futurists!

“Please keep in mind that Jesus called this resurrection the “last day.” But how could it be the “last day” if this gathering of the saints takes place seven years before the end of the world? And how could the “last trump” sound if it really wasn’t the very last moment of time?”
• BDAG: the last day [ἔσχατος ημερα] (of this age); cf. John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48. The dead in Christ will be resurrected and given glorified bodies at the rapture prior to those that “are alive and remain. That event marks the end of the church age.
• The trumpet soundings of Israel were used for many things. Numbers 10:2-10 describes several usages for sounding the trumpet for different occasions. (It’s interesting that Revelation 19 makes no mention of a trumpet being sounded on Jesus’ return.) I have no clue where he gets the idea that this particular trumpet will sound at the very last moment of time. That’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
• There were two types of trumpets in the Old Testament. One is the ram’s horn (first mentioned in Exodus 19:16) and the other a silver trumpet (first mentioned in Numbers 10:1). The latter was used to summon the congregation and for having the camps set out (10:2). There was a specific sounding used for compelling the congregation to gather themselves to Moses at the doorway of the tent of meeting (10:3). The word for trumpet in the New Testament is always σάλπιγξ (salpigx). The salpigx was used by the ancient Greeks similar to the way that the bugle was used in in early US warfare, among other things. It corresponds to the silver trumpet of the Old Testament.
• This trumpet sounding will be the last summons for the church at the rapture, calling us to be gathered to Christ. It is part and parcel of the phrase “with a shout [of command], with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. We will be “harpazo-ed” (snatched away, seized by force).

“To say that the second coming of Christ to gather His saints will be secret, in view of these clear texts of Scripture, and in the absence of any text that even hints at His coming being secret, is to deny the Bible as the Word of God. In an attempt to uphold their contrived theory, the rapturists quote Matthew 24:40, 41 out of context. Notice this entire passage: “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left” (Matthew 24:37-41).”
• To say that these verses have nothing to do with the rapture is correct. But he still got the details wrong.
• Let’s take a close look at that passage. A simple question would come in handy in understanding verses 38 & 39. Question: who were the ones taken away in “the day that Noah entered into the ark?” Answer: those who were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” and “did not know.”
• Another good question to ask would be, “what was the flood?” It was a time of judgment when God’s wrath was poured out upon the earth in the days of Noah.
• The Greek word for “took” is αἴρω (airo) means to remove, or better yet, sweep away.
• Tying this all together, it was the wicked who were taken, removed, swept away (Noah and his family were left on the earth after the flood).
• The flood represents (or points to) a future time of judgment, known as the seven year tribulation, the 70th week of Daniel, and the time of Jacob’s trouble. In the eschatological scheme represented in these verses, those left on the earth after the tribulation will populate the coming millennial kingdom. It runs parallel to two parables. One is the tares among the wheat and the second is the separation of the sheep and the goats. The wheat is gathered into the barn (or the kingdom) and the sheep are those who inherit the (millennial) kingdom.
• Now that I’ve corrected Mr. Crews bad interpretation of the above scriptures, I’ll pass over the next few paragraphs because it’s not in the scope of this essay: defending the Bible’s clear teachings concerning the upcoming rapture event.

“Now, I realize that the rapturists hang onto the texts that liken the Lord’s coming to “a thief in the night.” They assume that this must be a quiet, secret coming. But does it really mean that? Let’s show that it definitely does not. Here is one of those texts in 2 Peter 3: 10: “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Obviously the “thief’ part has nothing to do with secrecy because the heavens will pass away with a great noise! And if coming “as a thief’ is the secret rapture which takes place seven years before the end of the world, how can the heavens and earth “pass away,” as Peter describes it? The heavens and earth could not pass away seven years before the world ends – that is the end! The fact is that Jesus Himself explained clearly just how a thief’s coming could be related to His coming: “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up” (Matthew 24:42, 43). There it is, so plain and simple! The thief would come unexpectedly when the owners were not looking for a thief. In the same way, His coming would take people by surprise. They would not be watching or looking for it.”
• The phrase “the day of the Lord” is an eschatological term used in both the Old and New Testaments to refer to a time of God’s wrath being poured out. So in this context, the start of the tribulation will catch those left behind by surprise.
• No scholarly teacher that I’ve ever heard or read likened the rapture to Jesus’ statement that He’ll be coming as a thief in the night. It would be nice if he could name his sources, but then and again he’s probably just repeating things he heard without researching to see if it’s true. We’ll be meeting the Lord in the air at the rapture. The Lord won’t appear on earth until after the tribulation is concluded, so this is a big juicy nothing burger.

“The dispensationalists teach that the two separate stages of Christ’s coming are indicated “in the Greek.” They argue that there will first be the rapture (parousia), a secret coming; then seven years later will be the revelation (apokalupsis), His coming in power and glory. But, actually, instead of teaching two separate events, the Greek terms are used interchangeably in the Bible. They give no indication of a seven-year interval.”
• The whole paragraph is a whole field full of strawmen. No dispensationalist says there are “two separate stages of Christ’s coming.” We say the rapture and the return of the King are two separate events. No dispensationalist says “there will first be the rapture (parousia)…then seven years later will be the revelation.” No dispensationalist uses the term “secret coming” so let’s cut that strawman loose and send him down the yellow brick road so he can get a brain.
• We don’t say it’s “indicated ‘in the Greek,’” we say it’s written in the plain language of the scriptures. Hopefully that should be easy enough to understand; that the scriptures themselves say it is so in the plain language and in the context it’s written in.
• We don’t primarily use the word “parousia” (παρουσία) to point to the reality of the rapture, we primarily refer to the word harpazo (ἁρπάζω).
• The primary usage of parousia in Scripture means “presence,” followed by “a coming/appearance.” Either definition would fit with 1Thessalonians 4:17, but since we will “meet the Lord in the air,” the word presence seems to fit better.
• I don’t follow the statement “…then seven years later will be the revelation. … They give no indication of a seven-year interval.” I’ll assume he referring to the dispensationalists’ teaching that the rapture will be followed by the seven year tribulation (also known as Daniel’s 70th week and “the time of Jacob’s trouble”). At least, that is what dispensationalists say with minor deviations among them. Some say there might be an interval of time between the rapture and the tribulation to allow the temple to be rebuilt and for the Antichrist to begin his rise to power. Others believe the rapture will be closely followed by the tribulation. I don’t know where he gets the idea that dispensationalists teach a seven year “interval,” unless perhaps he’s using the term revelation to refer to the tribulation. The word revelation simply means a revealing (of something previously hidden). If he means that dispensationalists take the word revelation as being synonymous with the words seven year tribulation, then he’s wrong.
◦ The other possibility concerning his use of the word interval could indicate that he’s trying to explain the dispensational view through an amillennial lens and is getting things mixed up. In other words, the amillennialist believes that after Jesus returns He will immediately set up the Great White Throne judgment, which will be followed by the eternal state. So that would mean that the rapture, followed by the seven year tribulation and thousand year reign of Jesus’ Kingdom upon His return, would be viewed as an “interval” or “gap” before the final White Throne judgment mentioned in Revelation 20:11ff takes place. To this I would simply say that the rapture, seven year tribulation period, and Jesus’ visible thousand year Kingdom are plainly taught in the scriptures as chronological. There are no gaps or intervals.

“The other Greek word “apokalupsis” (revelation) is used in a way that indicates it is not a separate coming from the time the believers are gathered up. Peter said to “be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation [apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:13). Why would Christians be exhorted to keep hoping to the very end of the world for the grace brought through the revelation of Christ if their real hope was a secret rapture seven years before the revelation?”
• First of all, the eschaton is not in Peter’s view in this section, which reaches all the way back to the first verse. In this section there are a bunch of imperatives for us to follow.
• There is no language in this verse that infers Peter is saying to hold on to our hope “to the very end of the world.”
• Secondly, the revelation of Jesus Christ is a very broad term. It begins at salvation and becomes complete when we see Jesus face to face, at which time we will be just like Him. I believe the latter is what Peter was talking about. In some contexts it means that when unbelievers finally see Him, they will fully recognize who He is.
• One should be very, very careful when attempting to put words in the mouth of someone else. No dispensationalist I’ve heard or read said that our “real hope [is] a secret rapture.” In the Bible, hope is the confident expectation of what God has promised and its strength is in His faithfulness. Let’s make it clear: God is the One in whom we place our hope.

“Now look at some verses that prove beyond a doubt that the two words “parousia” and “apokalupsis” refer to the same event. In Matthew 24:37 we read, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming [parousia] of the Son of man be.” Luke’s account of the same passage says “As it was in the days of Noe … Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed [apokalupsis]” (Luke 17:26, 30). This shows that the coming (parousia) of Christ and the revelation (apokalupsis) of Christ are the same event. There is absolutely no basis for placing seven years in between.”
• Actually, the Greek word in Luke’s text isn’t apokalupsis, the word is apokalupto (ἀποκαλύπτω), a verb which means to cause something to be fully known, revealed, disclosed. That means someone is causing folks to know who Jesus is, and that someone would have to be the Father or the Spirit, or perhaps both (cf. Matthew 16:17). In Matthew’s text, parousia is a noun. While some commentators say that they are both saying the same thing, it should dawn on us that there’s a different twist on what each author is saying to his audience, as evidenced by their choice of words, including the fact that one uses a noun and the other a verb. Again, this is outside the scope of this essay.
• “…the Greek terms [parousia and apokalupsis] are used interchangeably in the Bible. They give no indication of a seven-year interval.” The two words don’t have the same Koine Greek definitions. Parousia generally means an appearance or an arrival. Apokalupsis means an uncovering or revealing. They give no indication of a seven year “interval” because it’s not part of the definition of either of the two words (or “terms” as he puts it). It’s another big nothing burger.
• As for Jesus’ “coming in power and glory,” that is pictured in Revelation 19:11-16, following the conclusion of God’s wrath being poured out.

“Many dispensationalist teachers actually claim that the rapture is not really the “coming” of Jesus at all. They say His coming is when Christ returns in power seven years after the rapture. But what a contradictory, confusing explanation that is! The fact is that there are many Scriptures that admonish Christians to wait and watch for the coming of the Lord. For example, James 5:7 says, “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.” But why should Christians need to be patient unto the coming of the Lord if there is to be a secret rapture to take them to heaven seven years before His coming?”
• “Many dispensationalist teachers actually claim…” This is a fallacious argument. He should name his sources and state where this was written so we can look it up and read it for ourselves to see if it’s true or false that they claim such a thing.
• “Many dispensationalist teachers actually claim that the rapture is not really the “coming” of Jesus at all.” This guy’s giving me a headache. Dispensationalists believe in and teach a pre-tribulation rapture and a post-tribulation, pre-millennial return of Christ to set up His Kingdom. The quoted text is a complete misrepresentation of what Dispensationalists believe in. I’ve never heard or read a dispensationalist say that.
• “They say His coming is when Christ returns in power seven years after the rapture.” We say He will return to Jerusalem in power after the conclusion of the Tribulation (Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:29-30; 26:64; Revelation 19:11-14) to set up His Kingdom (Matthew 25:41-46; Revelation 20:1-6). Yes, in power. In His first advent He came in humility (as a servant) as Savior and in His second advent, when His feet touch down on Mount Olivet, He will return in power to set up His Kingdom.
• “The fact is that there are many Scriptures that admonish Christians to wait and watch for the coming of the Lord. For example, James 5:7 says, ‘Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.’” That has nothing to do with teaching a biblical rapture, per se. However, since there are no signs to look for concerning our gathering to Him, then we should be ready at all times – because we don’t know when the Lord will come to take us out of this world. I’ll elaborate on this a little more, even if it’s redundant, in the following bullet point.
• “But why should Christians need to be patient unto the coming of the Lord if there is to be a secret rapture to take them to heaven seven years before His coming?” If you read the rapture passages carefully you’ll notice there are no signs or things to look for that precede the harpazo (snatching away) of the saints, unlike the second coming (or advent), which will have signs in the sun, moon, and stars that follows the “tribulations of those days” (Matthew 24:29) and Jesus’ return (24:30). You don’t know when He’ll return for His own at the end of the church age to take them out of this world to save them from the wrath that will be poured out in the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10). The rapture could happen at any time, so keep looking up. On the contrary, believers won’t be caught by surprise when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom (Psalm 110:1-2; Zechariah 14:4; Revelation 19:11-14). We may not know the actual date or time when He returns but we will know the circumstances that lead to it (Luke 21:29-31).

“For example, Paul uses the word “parousia” in the famous rapture chapter of 1 Thessalonians 4 in speaking of the coming of our Lord and our gathering together unto Him. He then goes right on to show that this “parousia” will destroy the man of sin. Speaking of the Antichrist, Paul says, “whom the Lord shall … destroy with the brightness of his coming [parousia]” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). These texts clearly describe the coming (parousia) of Christ as taking place after the reign of the man of sin, not as an escape rapture before the reign of the Antichrist begins.”
• Note: this paragraph was in the original article and was since removed. I will respond to it anyway.
• 2 Thessalonians does not say that the Lord will destroy the lawless one by the brightness of his parousia, but by the manifestation occurring at His arrival. Paul uses the word epiphaneia (ἐπιφάνεια) which means a manifestation. While the two words convey a similar meaning, they do so in different ways. This scene is played out in Revelation 19:20. Again, a big nothing burger when it comes to trying to poke holes in the pre-trib rapture.

“Revelation 3:10 is often quoted to try to prove that the righteous will be taken out of the world before the tribulation. “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is immediately obvious that this text does not speak of the righteous leaving this world at all. Jesus completely clarified the meaning by something He said in John 17:6, 15 which sounds very similar. “They have kept thy word. O I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” Don’t miss the significance of the term “kept the word” in both these texts. Both statements are talking about the same group of people – the faithful ones.”
• He quoted Revelation 3:10 but missed verse 11a: “I am coming quickly…” That statement definitely has eschatological overtones.
• Pay close attention to the context of the two verses. Revelation 3:10, being followed by the statement “I am coming quickly” puts the context in an eschatological setting. The high priestly prayer of John 17:1 ff. is contained in a totally different context. Here, Jesus is about to leave the world and send out the eleven into the world to fulfill the Great Commission, and is praying for specifically for their protection in this corrupt world, (it is applicable to us as well). John 17:15 is clearly not set in an eschatological setting. In this context, the phrase “out of the world” means extreme segregation, along the same line that Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:10.

“Now if those who “kept the word” can be “kept from the evil” of the world without being taken out of the world, why should we suppose that a special coming and secret rapture is required for those who “kept the word” to be “kept from the hour of temptation”? Whatever else may be taught in Revelation 3: 10, it is evident that no extra coming of Christ is indicated.”
• The KJV contains archaic language and sentence structure. A modern contemporary translation will render the second phrase “kept from the evil one.”
• Two verses to help you out:
◦ For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. (Matthew 24:21-22)
◦ For God has not appointed us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
• It’s interesting that in the first quote Jesus does not refer to the church but to the elect. That’s because the rapture will mark the end of the church age after the church is removed from this world. If all of the elect were killed off in the great tribulation Jesus mentioned, there’d be no one left to populate the coming Kingdom.
• Paul opens 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 noting that “For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.” As mentioned above, the phrase “day of the Lord” refers to the day of God’s wrath being poured out in the coming seven year tribulation. This chapter is an extension of the previous chapter that deals with eschatology. The church has not been appointed to be subjected to the wrath of God that will be poured out during the tribulation.

“True biblical doctrine must be based upon clear statements of what the entire Bible teaches on a subject and not upon verses that offer only veiled inferences. Luke 21:36 is an example of that very thing. Jesus said to His disciples, “Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass.” How? By a secret rapture to take them to heaven seven years before the end of the world? Definitely not, for in the prayer of Jesus we read, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” When He told them to “pray … to escape,” He must have meant the same as when He prayed, “I pray not … take them out of the world but … keep them.” This rules out a secret rapture entirely. The text that is used to prove the rapture is seen actually to forbid the saints being taken out of this world during the time of trouble.”
• Because I’ve already answered to the things in this paragraph, I’m only going to deal with the first sentence.
• In order to get your eschatology right, you have to get two other things right.
◦ Hermeneutics. The plain reading of scripture must be the only method of hermeneutics across all of Scripture. God intends for us to understand His word, which was written for all of us, including those of us who fit the category of “not many wise according to the flesh” (1Corintians 1:26). It’s not my intention to defend dispensational hermeneutics in this essay, but if you are willing to learn, here’s a good book for you to read. It’s a short read of only 111 pages.
◦ The doctrine of election as it concerns Israel as God’s chosen (elect) nation. Throughout Scripture, Israel is referred to as God’s elect nation, His chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 10:14-15; Psalm 33:12; 106:5; Acts 13:17; Romans 9:11; 11:28). If Israel were to lose their status as God’s elect nation, what will happen to the church? Can the body of Christ, the church, also be rejected by God in the future? Or if God really means it when He refers to Israel as His chosen/elect nation and sticks to His claim, then we can be confident in the doctrine of assurance.
◦ If you get your hermeneutics, the doctrine of election, and your Israelology right, you’ll get your eschatology right.

In conclusion, dispensationalists do not teach a secret rapture. We teach a pre-tribulation rapture.

Billy Quinlan

13 Sep, 2022

Posts

Part Two — Understanding the Son’s role in relation to when He will return

In the previous post, I asserted that the issue concerning Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse that He didn’t know the day and hour of His return has nothing to do with a lack of omniscience. In this post I will explain why He doesn’t know the precise day and hour of His return (the second advent).

One of the most difficult verses in the New Testament concerns a statement by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse concerning the timing of His return. This statement occurs in Matthew and Mark but is absent in Luke and John. Nothing further is directly addressed about that statement in either the epistles or in Revelation. It’s also interesting that the disciples never questioned Him about that statement. It’s almost like they understood something we don’t.

Here’s what Matthew and Mark record in remarkably similar words:
• “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)
• “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Mark 13:32)
It is interesting that the NET omits “nor the son” in Matthew’s Gospel, yet the phrase “the Father alone” is included. So even in that translation we have the same basic statement that Jesus doesn’t know the exact time when He will return since only the Father alone knows the day and hour. In Mark’s Gospel the phrase “nor the son” is included in the NET.

While this verse is often used as a proof-text by those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, I will not be addressing that issue here. Suffice to say that as a presuppositional apologist, God said what He said through the human authors He selected and I believe what He said. Besides, there are plenty of other passages that assert His deity without question. Instead, I will be making sense of what Jesus said in a way that I hope can be understood by both believers and unbelievers.

As noted above, in the previous essay I have made it clear that the issue does not concern Jesus’ omnipotence. That means there is something else that needs to be said to clear up the issue. So let’s begin.

First of all, let me state the obvious: Jesus is responding directly to the first question put to Him, asking “when will these things happen?” (Matthew 24:3; cf. Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7). While at first blush it may seem to be a question directed only at Jesus’ prediction that the Temple will be destroyed, the phrase these things is plural, therefore more than the Temple’s destruction is in question. The question may presuppose that the disciples thought that the destruction of the Temple signaled the beginning of the end-time events (as noted in the Old Testament) that will eventually result in His return. The disciples were well aware that Jesus is the Messiah who will one day rule over all Israel, but they didn’t know when His reign over the kingdom would be fulfilled.

Another question considering the texts that I’ll consider briefly: what is going on now concerning Jesus’ future return? First, the Father is currently withholding His wrath until the sins of the nations are complete (Genesis 15:16b). Secondly, the Father is currently being patient (2 Peter 3:9).

Please note that the time for the Son’s return might not be a matter of time as we account for it by twenty-first century Western standards (by the use of a calendar and clock), but when things are complete. Consider that God told Abraham that He would bring judgment upon Egypt and the Amorites (Genesis 15:14-16). And yet in verse 16 He says there will be a delay relevant to when He judges the Amorites by saying, “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” It would be some time before He declared the iniquities to be complete. That occurred when He stated in Leviticus 18:25a “For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it,” thus declaring His judgment upon the Amorites ready to be executed. In other words, although the Father obviously knows the precise moment when He will act, it’s not the calendar He has in mind but when sinfulness and lawlessness reaches a point to where the sins of the nations are complete and the time is appropriate for His judgment to begin.

Consider Psalm 110:1-2 (cf. Hebrews 10:12-13), written close to one thousand years before the Olivet Discourse. In verse one Yahweh (the Father) tells David’s Lord (Jesus) to “sit at My right hand,” an event that happened after the ascension (Hebrews 1:3b). In verse two the Father will tell His Son to “rule in the midst of your enemies.” In both cases, the Father is directing the Son what to do. The first directive has already occurred and the second is still future (Revelation 19:11).

We know that during the first advent that Jesus was always obedient to the Father:
• Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34).
• “I always do the things that are pleasing to Him” (John 8:29b).
• “I did not come to do My will but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30b).
• “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38).
This may sound silly, yet the only way Jesus can be obedient is if the Father directs Him to do something. Why do we think that has changed? The Son was being obedient to the Father and carrying out the Father’s will while walking on this earth among men, and He is still being obedient to the Father even now after the resurrection and ascension. After all, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

So does Jesus know when He will return? Yes, when the Father “which the Father has fixed by His own authority” sends Him back to earth (Acts 1:7). Does He know the precise day and hour according to current Western time keeping? No, He’s patiently waiting for the Father to say “Go!” (Psalm 110:2b). How will He know when it’s time to return? When the Father hands the title deed to the earth over to the Son (Revelation 5:1, 7).

When the Father sends the Son again (the second advent) Jesus, always obedient to the Father (John 14:31a), will return (Acts 1:11b).

“It is possible to be so worried about the time (chronos) for something—such as the return of Christ—that we miss the time (kairos) for something—such as living like citizens of the kingdom of God.”
— Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes (E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, InterVarsity Press, 2012)

Billy Quinlan

12 Sep, 2022

Posts

Part One — Debunking the myth that Jesus didn’t have the full content of his omniscience

Some try to come to grips with Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32 by saying that His omniscience was limited somehow, perhaps by His human nature. Or while making the statement “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,” He somehow shifted out of “deity mode” and into “human mode” (or something like that). Others say He voluntarily gave up (or limited) His omniscience during His thirty-three years on earth.

Some point to Philippians 2:6-8 and state that the second Person of the Trinity emptied Himself of some or all of His divine attributes when He became a man. Some also say that He didn’t do any works from His own power or divine abilities; the Holy Spirit did all the works through Him. That leaves us with an empty God on our hands. The Spirit does all the work through an empty God, leaving Jesus to simply go through the motions.

Others try to explain His lack of omniscience in Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32 by pointing to Mark 6:5 and claiming that Jesus’ omnipotence was also limited. He was unable (or, perhaps, even incapable) of doing any mighty works while He was in Nazareth.

That’s difficult to reconcile with our belief that Jesus was fully God (Titus 2:13) and fully man (John 1:14) while He was present on earth in His incarnate form among men. If Jesus had limited divine attributes is He still fully God? I can’t seem to say yes to that question without resorting to some sort of mental gymnastics.

I believe the Biblical record shows that Jesus had all His divine attributes at all times during His incarnation. The only thing He emptied Himself of was the fullness of His glory. I’ll get to that, but first I want to point out what a few commentators say.

From the New American Commentary:
“[Matthew 24 verse] 36 proves equally significant for Christology. Christ’s words disclose his voluntary limitation of the independent exercise of his divine attributes (cf. Phil 2:6-8). Jesus was obviously not bodily omnipresent while he walked on earth. Mark 6:5 describes some restrictions on his omnipotence. Here we have a limitation on his omniscience. Christians who balk at the implications of this verse reflect their own docetism (the early Christian heresy of not accepting the full humanity of Jesus) and lack a full appreciation for the extent of God’s condescension in the incarnation and in the various human limitations he took upon himself.”

First of all, I want to state unequivocally that I agree in the full humanity of Jesus, and that I do have a “full appreciation for the extent of God’s condescension in the incarnation.” I do think we differ on what the “various human limitations he took upon himself” were. I don’t think His limitations included the fullness of His possession and use of His divine attributes. But I do take umbrage of the way the author used Mark 6:5 (“And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” If that were the only thing written about Jesus not performing miracles in Nazareth at that time I would have to concede the author’s point. But it’s not.

Compare that with how Matthew wrote the same thing in his Gospel: “And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:58), and the larger context of what Mark wrote: “And He could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief” (Mark 6:5-6).

So it’s obvious it’s not about any limitation of his omnipotence but a faith issue on the part of the people themselves. Not that Jesus is reliant upon people to believe in Him in order to perform miracles, or that there’s some special requirement to obtain healing (Jesus healed a lot of people who didn’t believe in Him—He practically banished disease in Israel during His ministry). It’s pretty obvious that a lack of faith of the people in Nazareth kept the people away from Him so that He didn’t perform miracles, and not a limitation of His omnipotence. You might ask the question, “Why didn’t He go after them anyway?” I don’t know, other than to note that all His other miracles occurred as a result of people coming to Him, being led to Him by others, or by requests made by a third party to go to the person needing healing.

I’ll get to the statement on Philippians 2:6-8 mentioned in the above commentary but first I want to take a look at another statement in a different commentary.

From the Bible Knowledge Commentary:
“The precise moment of the Lord’s return cannot be calculated by anyone. When the Lord spoke these words, that information was said to be known by only the Father. Christ was obviously speaking from the vantage of His human knowledge (cf. Luke 2:52), not from the standpoint of His divine omniscience.”

I can’t say for sure but perhaps the commentator is apparently confusing the word “wisdom” in Luke 2:52 (“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”) as being the same as “knowledge.” They are two different things.

What does Luke mean by wisdom? There’s two kinds of wisdom: Jewish wisdom and what I call “brainiac” (or Greek) wisdom. Wisdom is often conflated with knowledge in our twenty-first century Western culture, and manifested by a verbal or written presentation of linear logic based on reason, experience, and knowledge. It is defined by Oxford Languages as “the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period.” Jewish wisdom, however, is manifested by one’s subconscious display of behavior and is made known by one’s actions. Here are some scriptures that define that sort of wisdom:
• The wise one is connected to his walk (Proverbs 10:8-9);
• Doing wickedness being like a sport to a fool is contrasted to the wisdom of a man of understanding (Proverbs 10:23);
• The way of a fool is contrasted to a wise man who listens (Proverbs 12:15)
• The wise woman builds is contrasted to the foolish one who tears it down (Proverbs 14:1).
What the person is doing (their consistent actions) shows whether they are wise or foolish.

Knowledge is, well, knowledge. Things that you know. Either you know something or you are ignorant of it. Pretty simple, I would think. One can have tons of knowledge but still lack wisdom. I’m not saying they don’t work hand in hand, of course they do, but that they are two distinct things.

So then, what did Jesus empty himself of in Philippians 2:6-8?
“[Christ Jesus] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

The New American Commentary writer is focusing on the words “emptied Himself” in verse 7 and saying that that verse is a proof-text that Jesus voluntarily gave up or put a limit on his omniscience for some unspecified reason. There is nothing in the plain language of Scripture that supports that notion. There was never a time when Jesus was lacking a divine response to questions put to Him, or that put Him in a position where He had to come up with His best humanistic response. He knew the thoughts of people around Him. When Jesus’ disciples said that He knew all things (John 16:30; 21:17), He didn’t deny it. He never outright stated that He was limited in His divine attributes in any way and He plainly declared Himself to be Truth incarnated (John 14:6).

So what do the scriptures say about Jesus’ omniscience?
• And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25).
• But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward (Luke 6:8).
• “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God” (John 16:30).
• He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep” (John 21:17).
• “And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I [Jesus] am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds” (Revelation 2:23).

So then, what did Jesus empty Himself of in Philippians 2:6-8? It was the fullness of His glory, as you can see from Exodus 33:20 (“But He said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!’”). If Jesus had not emptied Himself of the fullness of His Glory, nobody would have been able to be in His presence during His first advent.

Here is what a writer from Ligonier Ministries had do say about the fullness of God’s glory: “Second, Moses’ request is remarkable because in response God did reveal an essential truth about His glory, namely, that it is all-consuming. As we see in today’s passage [Exodus 33:19–20], the Lord agreed to show Moses His goodness but not His face directly, for no one can see the face of God—the fullness of His glory—directly and live.” The author of Hebrews would agree, “for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29).

In John’s Gospel, just before going to the cross, Jesus was looking forward to the fullness of His glory being restored: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:3). He was also looking forward to the day when all those who are saved would be able to look at His face directly in the fullness of His glory: “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

As you can see, the issue concerning Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse that He didn’t know the day and hour of His return has nothing to do with a lack of omniscience. So how do we understand what He said to His disciples? I will answer that question in the next post.

Billy Quinlan

22 Apr, 2022

Posts

Exodus vs Romans in the Narrative of the Sabbath

Video: “12 Contradictions in the Bible” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Exodus 20:8-11 and Romans 14:5

Mr. Koolaid says,
“Exodus 20:8-11 says that you’re not supposed to work on the seventh day of the week or the Sabbath because that day is holy but Romans 14:5 says it literally makes no difference. Easy. Exodus 20 is clearly a Jewish law applying only to the Jews before Jesus came and fulfilled the law whereas Romans 14 is written to the Gentiles after Jesus’ resurrection. Throughout the Bible God gives different commands to different people and many of them are contextual, not universal or eternal. Contradiction reconciled [pumps fist], crisis averted!”

Well, I’m happy for him that he found some sort of solution. I guess. But he failed to note that whoever came up with what he or she thought was a contradiction between these two sets of verses had picked the wrong scripture to compare to the Old Testament Sabbath law. He also failed to understand that the God who inspired the Sabbath commandment is the same God who exists today and holds the same requirements of obedience today that He did in the exodus days. So while I’m happy he was able to come to a solution, albeit a false one, it would be nice if he could put more work into understanding the Bible.

The contexts of these two sets of verses are vastly different. Below is an outline of what the verses are basically about.

Exodus 20:8-11
1) This is the last of the first four commandments directly concerning man’s relationship with God.
2) God commanded the Israelites and their families, as well as foreigners and expatriates, to cease from working for one specific day of the week.
3) God chose this specific day to remind the Israelites of how He created the entire universe in six days and ceased His creative works on the seventh day – in order to set the pattern for man to follow.

Romans 14:5
1) First of all, that one verse should be read in context with the entire 14th chapter.
2) Now that you’ve read the whole chapter it’s obvious that the basic teaching that Paul was giving concerns the relationships between members of the Church in maintaining unity concerning secondary issues.
3) Paul never mentions the Sabbath or the 4th Commandment. He simply mentions one person esteeming one day over another while someone else considers all days to be equally sacred.
4) He deals with those who had a weaker faith vs. those whose faith was strong to keep them from quarreling and dividing over such secondary issues.
5) His concern is that no one puts a stumbling block in front of a fellow believer that will interfere with the brother’s relationship to the Lord.
6) He reminds his readers to stay focused on Christ and not on ritualistic behaviors.

A few verses that relate more directly to the 4th commandment in the New Testament:
1) Matthew 11:28-30
2) Mark 2:23-28, especially verses 27-28
3) Hebrews 4:1-11, especially verses 9-11

These are two different genres and two different topics that have no direct relation to one another and thus there is no contradiction here that needs to be resolved.

Billy Quinlan

20 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew and Mark vs Luke and Acts: Jesus’ Instructions

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 28:10, 16-20; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:31-36, 24:50-53; and John 20:19-21:25

Mr. Koolaid said,
“Immediately after Jesus’s resurrection, in Matthew and Mark’s Gospels, Jesus’ disciples are instructed by an angel to meet Him up north in Galilee and He first appears to them there where He blesses them and sends them out into the world. But in Luke and Acts, Jesus first appears to all His disciples in Jerusalem and He explicitly tells them to stay in Jerusalem until after they receive the Holy Spirit, which happens after He ascends into heaven. He never meets them in Galilee. In Luke and Acts His disciples follow that command to wait in Jerusalem and receive the Holy Spirit. After Jesus is gone about 50 days after His resurrection on Pentecost, they’re finally filled with the Holy Spirit while sitting alone in a house and they start speaking in tongues and preaching to strangers. But in John 20 verse 21, Jesus breathes directly on His disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit literally on the day of His resurrection.”

Here is a truncated chronology of events beginning with Jesus meeting two men on the road to Emmaus:

  • Jesus is resurrected from the dead on the first day of the week (Sunday).
  • Jesus appears to two men on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus the same day.
    The two disciples hustle back to Jerusalem, find the disciples, and tell them that they have seen the risen Jesus.
  • Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem but Thomas isn’t there. Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit (this will be fulfilled on Pentecost).
  • Jesus appears a second time in Jerusalem to the disciples, this time Thomas is present.
  • The disciples leave for Galilee.
  • Jesus appears to the disciples again, this time at the Sea of Tiberias, also known as the Sea of Galilee. Peter is restored back to his discipleship.
  • Jesus appears to the disciples on the mountain in Galilee which Jesus had appointed for them. This is the approximate time when Jesus issues what is known as the Great Commission.
  • The disciples head back to Jerusalem.
  • The disciples ask Jesus if He is going to restore the nation of Israel immediately. Jesus tells them it’s not for them to know “the times and seasons” of eschatological events.
  • Jesus leads the disciples out to Bethany, where Jesus ascends into heaven. Just prior to His ascension, Jesus tells the disciples to remain in Jerusalem where they will be baptized by the Holy Spirit “not many days from now.”
  • The disciples return to Jerusalem.
  • Roughly ten days after Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the disciples receive the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem on Pentecost (also known as the Feast of Weeks that follows Passover).

Perhaps the above history can help you to see the errors Mr. Koolaid made. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Whenever there seems to be a contradiction in many of the sections of scripture on the same historic occasion, turn to a chronological New Testament (such as One Perfect Life) and that should help you to understand the differing details in each Gospel.

For further reading and understanding of John 20:21, see The Holy Spirit by Sinclair Ferguson on pp. 64-65.

Special note to Mr. Koolaid and his cronies: If you had thought to consider the field of textual criticism, you would know that the longer ending of Mark (verses 16:9-20) are not in the earliest and most reliable sources and therefore are not considered to be part of the original autograph of Mark’s Gospel. Therefore, consulting those verses for any reason is an error.

Billy Quinlan

18 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew and Mark vs John in the Narrative of Jesus’ Crucifixion

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26, 15:22-41; and John 13:1-4, 19:13-16

Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.

“After Jesus’ arrest, the Gospels say that He was crucified but when exactly that happened depends on which Gospel you read.”

Actually, the four Gospels are in agreement with each other. Mr. Koolaid simply read them wrong somehow. Or perhaps there’s always the possibility that he already knows they agree but is preying on his fellow atheists who have never read the Bible for themselves. The chronologies fit together very nicely if you’re paying attention to what you are reading across all four of the Gospels.

The Passover meal is mentioned in all four Gospels:
Matthew 26:20-21
Mark 14:17-18
Luke 22:14-16
John 13:1-2

“Mark and Matthew explicitly have Jesus participating in the Jewish holiday, Passover, by eating a Passover meal with His disciples and they have His crucifixion the morning after Passover. John’s version says absolutely nothing about Jesus eating a Passover meal with His disciples…”

The Passover meal was instituted in Exodus 12:1-13, to be celebrated on the 14th of the month called Nisan.

To the northern Galileans, who reckoned the days from sunset to sunset, the 14th of Nisan fell on a day on what we call Thursday morning beginning at sunrise. The lambs would be slaughtered on Thursday afternoon and be eaten at twilight on what we call Thursday evening. All four Gospels mention Jesus eating that Passover meal prior to His crucifixion.

“…and explicitly [John] says that He was crucified BEFORE Passover.”

To the southern Jews in Judah who reckoned the days from sunset to sunset according to Genesis chapter one, the 14th of Nisan didn’t commence until what we would call Thursday evening at sunset, thereby making the holiday fall on what we would call Thursday night to Friday night. So the Judean Passover lambs would be sacrificed on what we call Friday afternoon and eaten at twilight, at which time it would be the 7th day of the week, or early Saturday morning at dusk. That’s why John, in verse 19:31, refers to that day (Sabbath/Saturday) as a “high day” because it combined the regular Sabbath observation with the eating of the Passover meal.

So John’s Gospel is telling us that Jesus died on the same day that Passover lambs were being slaughtered according to the Judean custom (which would be on Friday afternoon to us in modern times), telling us that Exodus 12:1-13 foresees and looks forward to the crucifixion of Jesus, who is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

“Mark has Jesus crucified bright and early, and very precisely has Him up on the cross by nine o’clock in the morning. John’s Gospel says that He wasn’t even condemned to die until afternoon.”

John is using the Roman system of keeping time:
John 19:14 – “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour.” (6 AM)

Mark is using Jewish system of keeping time:
Mark 15:25 – “It was the third hour when they crucified Him.” (9 AM).
Mark 15:33 – “When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour.” (noon and 3 PM, respectively)
Mark 15:34 – “At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,” (3 PM)

“Again, these seem like minor details but you can’t have it both ways. At least one of these accounts is wrong.”

Don’t need it “both ways.” All of the Gospel accounts can easily be harmonized into a single chronology, as shown above. Once again, I invite you to check out the chronological New Testament called One Perfect Life by John MacArthur if you would like to see how all the Gospels fit together harmoniously to make one continuous narrative of all four Gospels.

Billy Quinlan

16 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew vs Mark vs Luke vs John: Peter’s three denials

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:15-18, 25-27

Mr. Koolaid said,
“Shortly after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus is arrested and His disciples flee for their lives, but one disciple, Peter, follows behind at a distance. In each Gospel, Jesus predicted that Peter would disown Him three times. In Mark, Jesus is accused of being one of Jesus’ disciples by a slave girl, then by the same slave girl, then by a crowd of people. In Matthew it’s a slave girl and then a different slave girl, then a crowd of people. In Luke it’s a slave girl and then a man, and then another man. In John it’s a unspecified [sic] girl at the door, several anonymous people, and then one of the high priests servants. I mean, I guess Peter could have just denied Jesus a half a dozen times, except that Jesus specifically specified that it would happen three times.”

Here is how it lays out according to each denial, chronologically in each of the four Gospels:

Matthew 26:69-75:
1) a servant girl: “a servant-girl came to him”
2) another servant-girl: “another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there”
3) bystanders: “A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter,”

Mark 14:66-72:
1) one of the servant girls: “one of the servant-girls of the high priest came”
2) the servant girl: “The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders,”
3) bystanders: “And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter,”

Luke 22:54-62:
1) a servant girl: “a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said,”
2) another [man*]: “A little later, another saw him and said,”
3) a man: “After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying,”
* since the Greek word is masculine it probably refers to a man

John 18:15-18, 25-27:
1) the slave girl: “Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter,”
2) they: “So they said to him,”
3) slave: “One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said,”

Below, I put the scriptures together into a single composite narrative:

First denial:
Luke 22:54 Having arrested Him, they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest; but Peter was following at a distance Matt. 26:58 as far as the courtyard of the high priest John 18:15-16 and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Luke 22:55 After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them Mark 14:54 with the officers and warming himself at the fire, John 18:18 for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them.

Mark 14:66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest John 18:17 who kept the door Mark 14:66-67 came, and seeing Peter warming himself Luke 22:56 as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him said, “This man was with Him too. Mark 14:67 You also were with Jesus the Nazarene. John 18:17 You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” Matthew 26:70 But he denied it before them all, saying, Luke 22:57 “Woman, I do not know Him. Mark 14:68 I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out onto the porch.

Second denial:
Luke 22:58 A little later, Matthew 26:71 when he had gone out to the gateway, Mark 14:69 the servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” Luke 22:58 Another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” Matthew 26:71-72 Another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” John 18:25 So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.”

Third denial
Matthew 26:73 A little later, Luke 22:59 after about an hour had passed, Matthew 26:73 the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “surely you too are one of them Mark 14:70 for you are a Galilean too, Matthew 26:73 for even the way you talk gives you away.” Luke 22:59 Another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” John 18:26-27 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Peter then denied it again, and Mark 14:71-72 he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. Luke 22:61 The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Mark 14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And he began to weep. Luke 22:62 And he went out and wept bitterly.

I guess Mr. Koolaid was just too lazy to do the work in consideration of how the four Gospels line up harmoniously, so I had to do it for him. Like I’ve said a few times before, many atheists are just too lazy to do the work.

Billy Quinlan

14 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew vs Mark/Luke/John on the question of donkeys

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 21:7, Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:14

Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.

“As Jesus entered Jerusalem, did he ride one donkey or two?”

Man, that’s a tough one. For an atheist.

“But Matthew 21:7 [picture below appears on screen] has Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time, in order to literally fulfill Zechariah 9:9.”

Mr. Koolaid actually said this while the above picture shows up on the screen.

“I thought this was literally just a mistranslation but when you read the original Greek [another picture, as seen below, shows up on the screen] he’s clearly riding on two donkeys.”

Oh, no! He showed a picture of “the original Greek!” What am I to do?

Oh, wait… Let’s take a closer look at the first picture:


What does it say in the words that I circled? “He sat on the cloaks!”

Let’s take a look at the second picture again:

You’ll see that the first “them” refers to the donkeys and the second “them” refers to the cloaks. Pretty simple to understand, eh? Jesus only rode on the one donkey, even in Matthew’s Gospel.

“The important question here is, did Jesus ride two donkeys like this, this, or this?”

Now that I made an ass (pun intended, of course) out of Mr. Koolaid, I shouldn’t forget to thank him for his mockery. That seems to be par for the course with atheists. If you can’t get ‘em with fake facts, get ‘em with “genuine” mockery. That’ll work!

Billy Quinlan

12 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew vs Mark on the question of Jairus’ daughter’s death

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-43 (see also Luke 8:40–56)

Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.

“So when you take a Bible story like the death of Jairus’ daughter, to most people, including myself, it may nitpicky and utterly insignificant that Matthew and Mark disagree about her time of death. Matthew 9 says that she died before her dad asked Jesus to come heal her and Mark 5 said she died after her dad sent for Jesus.”

Craig Blomberg in The New American Commentary writes, “As consistently throughout his Gospel (and esp. with miracle stories), Matthew abbreviates Mark, this time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel accounts (Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56). Instead of coming to plead with Jesus while his daughter is still alive, Jairus apparently arrives only after her death. Yet to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling. What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry, there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated “just came to the point of death”; cf. Heb 11:22) and eschatos echei in Mark 5:23 (which could also be rendered “is dying”). What is important is not the precise moment of death but Jairus’s astonishing faith.”

In all three accounts you have (simplified for atheistic comprehension):
—Jairus approaching and pleading with Jesus,
—Jesus being interrupted by a woman with a blood problem and,
—Jesus bringing the little girl back to life.

“In Mark she’s only sick and her dad asks for Jesus to come heal her, not revive her. Jesus is delayed, gets distracted, and then another messenger comes along, saying forget about it she’s dead. Literally, he says your daughter has died why bother the teacher further. … At which point Jesus revives her to the shock of all, including her dad. But in Matthew’s account, she’s already dead when her dad first shows up asking for a miracle. He’s straight up expecting a resurrection.”

There’s more to the story than saying “Jesus … gets distracted.” That particular narrative within a narrative shows that Jesus was interruptible. There’s a lot that can be said about that. It also shows that He is the God who is approachable by sinners, since by the Mosaic law a woman with a blood issue was unclean and shouldn’t have touched Him.

As for Matthew’s account, what the text says is “…come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.” He’s not saying “come and lay Your hand on her, and she will be resurrected.” Matthew is saying the same thing that Mark and Luke wrote in a truncated way. While Jairus was looking for a miracle, the miracle He was looking for was for Jesus to cure her of her sickness before she died. This is pretty obvious because in Luke’s Gospel Jesus encourages Jairus to have faith after hearing that his daughter died by telling him, “Do not be afraid any longer; only believe, and she will be made well,” something that Matthew in his truncated narrative leaves out for the sake of brevity.

“These might seem like fairly minor details to the overall story but they’re still discrepancies. She couldn’t have died both before and after her dad sent for Jesus.”

As I said in an earlier post, the antagonist is already looking for problems in the texts before he even touches a Bible. When he comes across what he thinks is a contradiction he simply stops reading, slams the Bible shut, and walks away. It doesn’t even occur to him to look and see if the narratives actually complement each other, which they do.

I also mentioned in an earlier post that there are in existence New Testament Bibles that are written in chronological order. One of them is One Perfect Life by John MacArthur. If you’re interested you can read it (on page 183) to see how the three Gospel narratives in this section fit together to make a comprehensive whole.

“Contradictions like these pose a major problem to biblical inerrantists, because errors like these can’t be reconciled without without admitting that if this story happened at all, then it was written down by fallible human authors with imperfect knowledge who made mistakes.”

I’ve already explained why this isn’t a contradiction so there’s no need to repeat myself.

Secondly, while it’s true that these texts were written by fallible men, the Bible defends itself so there’s no need for the “inerrantist” to defend it. It doesn’t matter what the “inerrantist says,” all that matters is what the Bible says. 2 Peter 1:20-21 makes it clear that we can trust what the Bible says about all that is written in it. That’s why we call the Bible the Word of God.

The Bible has no contradictions and no errors in the original autographs. It’s true that errors do creep in (the vast majority of them are spelling errors and the Greek word order in the New Testament) and it’s also true that a science known as textual criticism helps us to discern what most likely is in the original autographs. We can be confident that we have a text that is inspired and accurate (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The authors of the Gospels and Epistles made no mistakes.

If you’re interested in reading more about New Testament textual criticism, you can buy and read The Early Text of the New Testament. I guarantee it will be over your head because it requires a decent knowledge of Koine Greek, but you can put it on your bookshelf and look really cool. Perhaps an easier book for you to read might be Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by Harold Greenlee, if you dare.

Billy Quinlan

10 Apr, 2022

Posts

Matthew vs Luke in the Question of Genealogies

Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38

Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.

“So when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, both authors attempted to tie Jesus back to king David to show that He was of royal descent.”

Sort of, but not quite. Both Matthew and Luke are actually showing the messianic lines. Virtually any descendant of David could claim to be of royal descent. But not every one of David’s descendants could claim to be in the messianic line. More about this will follow below.

“There are just a couple problems. The genealogies are radically different.”

Well, it’s true that there are some problems but not what you think.

“To rectify this Christians often claim that one is for Jesus’ mom, Mary, and the other is for His dad, Joseph…”

I always try to make it clear that what “Christians say” or what “Christians claim” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing that matters is what the Bible says.

“…but this doesn’t work at all because both overtly say that they’re tracing the line of Joseph.”

Only Matthew is tracing the line of Joseph (more on this below).

Luke is not tracing the line of Joseph. It is assumed that the reader has already read what we now know as chapters one and two of his Gospel and are familiar with the virgin birth. Luke is focusing on Mary, rather than Joseph, in those two chapters. When he begins his genealogy Luke 3:23 states, “When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph…” The literal Greek rendering of “as was supposed” is “as it was being thought,” indicating that although Luke had already pointed out that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father, it would seem to those who are unfamiliar with Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit would assume Joseph was Jesus’ father. Luke is showing Jesus’ messianic line through Mary, and moreover, there is no connection between Joseph and Jesus in Matthew’s genealogy.

“In Matthew’s account, Joseph’s biological father is listed as Jacob; in Luke’s account, it’s Heli. You can’t have two different biological dads.”

The statement I already made above should make it clear that Heli is not related to Joseph.

“Matthew’s genealogy has twenty five generations between Joseph and King David; Luke’s account has forty.”

Whoop-de-doo. They are two different genealogies dealing with the messianic lines, written by two different writers for similar but different reasons. The two different genealogies are basically apples and oranges by comparison. But it’s nice to know you can count.

“And it’s weird because a couple of names in the middle are the same in both genealogies [Salathiel and Zorobabel]…”

It could be the same two people or it could be two different people with the same names. We don’t know. Either way, it’s not a big deal.

“…and the Matthew account literally contradicts itself by claiming that there were forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus, specifically fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen more from David to the Babylonian exile; and another fourteen to Jesus. But the names that it lists only add up to 41.”

This is a sloppy way to paraphrase what Matthew wrote. Here’s Matthew 1:17: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.” Matthew made no claim of a total of 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. He specifically stated that there are 14 generations in each grouping. Group two ends with “the deportation to Babylon” and group three begins with “the deportation to Babylon.” This indicates that he counted Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) twice, once each in groups two and three. Why Matthew did his genealogy in that fashion I don’t know, but that’s how he wrote it: fourteen generations in groups of three.

“This is basic arithmetic. The Bible literally fails at counting.”

Mr. Koolaid failed at reading the text carefully. Obviously.

“And if you compare Matthew’s genealogy to the Old Testament genealogies, they majorly contradict each other. 1 Chronicles 3 [3:10-24?] and Matthew both follow the line of David through Solomon; they start off identical with Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jorham, and then Matthew completely skips over three people [yada, yada, yada]…”

It’s true that Matthew broke with strict Jewish practices of listing chronologies. He included women in this genealogy, which is a no-no for Jewish genealogies. He omitted some of the wicked kings of Judah, but for what reason I don’t know. To suggest that Matthew had 1 Chronicles 3 in mind is speculation at best. He might have, he might not have. To compare them is interesting yet rather irrelevant as far as Joseph’s genealogy is concerned. Matthew had another purpose in mind.

The problem I mentioned at the beginning of this post, as I said, isn’t what you think. At least not from a casual reading of this particular genealogy. The problem with Matthew’s genealogy lies in the king named Jeconiah in his genealogy. Matthew knew what he was doing when he wrote this genealogy. By tracing Joseph’s genealogy to Jeconiah, he was eliminating Joseph from being Jesus’ father—because Joseph is disqualified from the messianic line by being a descendant of Jeconiah. He then goes on to solve that particular problem by writing about the virgin birth in verses 1:18-25 of his Gospel. That’s why the genealogy ends with “…Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah,” and immediately continued on to the virgin birth to solve the problem of Joseph’s disqualification.

In Jeremiah 22:24-30, God told him that “none of his [Jehoiachin’s] offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (italics mine). Jehoiachin is the same man listed as Jeconiah in Matthew’s genealogy, and since Joseph is a direct descendant, he is eliminated from contention in the messianic line. So now you should be able to see what I was talking about when I mentioned that there’s a problem in Matthew’s genealogy.

That should also make it clear why Luke’s genealogy is totally different from Matthew’s, and are apples and oranges in comparison. They are not the same and it’s a moot point to compare them with each other because they refer to two different people’s genealogies—Joseph and Mary.

Luke followed a strict Jewish procedure and custom in his genealogy in that he listed only men. That’s why he said that it was thought that Joseph was Jesus’ father, because he only listed men in his genealogy to keep it within strict Jewish custom. That would be a clue, since he already wrote about the virgin birth and his readers would already know that Joseph was of no relation to Jesus.

In addition, Luke not only showed that Jesus’ birth through Mary put Him in the messianic line, but also showed fulfillment of at least three different promises made by God in the Old Testament. One is the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and Jeremiah 33:17), another was the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1–3), and the other was a prophecy made just after the fall Genesis 3:15). That’s one good reason why Luke’s genealogy goes all the way back to Adam.

“But, at the same time, Matthew and Luke both claim that Mary was not impregnated by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit of God, which would mean that Jesus was not the fruit of king David’s loins.”

Now that we’ve settled the issue of Matthew and Luke having different genealogies—that of Joseph and Mary respectively—the quote above is easy to answer. Yes, Mary became pregnant through the power and creative work of the Holy Spirit. But since she’s Jesus’ mother in the line of the messianic promise, Jesus is directly related to David and has the right to be called the Son of David, one of the Messianic titles used of Him throughout the Gospels.

I think it’s worth repeating just in case you forgot already: Luke not only showed that Jesus’ birth through Mary put Him in the messianic line, but also showed fulfillment of at least three different promises made by God in the Old Testament. One is the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and Jeremiah 33:17), another was the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1–3), and the other was a prophecy made just after the fall Genesis 3:15).