Galatians 3:16-17, “On The New and Old in Regards to Time”

Galatians 3:16-17, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷What I mean is this: The law introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”

In a previous entry I discussed the righteousness of Abraham, which he was granted by God because of His faith. This was not only due to his belief in God, but his faith that God’s promises were steadfast. In addition, I discussed the “offspring,” promised and made known to Abraham. This offspring was to be a singular person, and through Him the world would be offered the reconciliation unto God. Here, in Galatians, Paul presents the argument of the singular seed that was to come by and through Abraham’s bloodline. As profound as this is, Paul goes further, dipping a bit into history to reveal the true nature of the covenants.

Within the philosophical and theological boundaries of the Christian “religion,” we tend to separate the covenants of Moses and Jesus, and break the Bible down, in a general sense, into both the Old and New Testaments. Man loves to put things and ideas into categories or groups, that by their division, they may be easily sorted and understood. Concerning the division of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the old and new covenant, I conclude there is nothing specifically wrong with this. However, one stumbling block does arise that I have witnessed, but this is the fault of man. It usually concerns those new in the faith or exploring it. It doesn’t seem too uncommon for those whom Christ is calling to be curious about the differentiation between the God of the Old Testament and the New, rather than looking at it as a complete revelation from and of God.

We need to remind our brothers and sisters in Christ, and in fact everyone, that the Scriptures represent a singular narrative that explicitly shows God and reveals He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Why the wrath shown in the Old Testament? Paul gives us a clear answer:

“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .” -1 Corinthians 10:11

So am I saying its wrong to refer to old and new? Not at all! In fact, the Lord Himself declared prior to Christ that a new thing was being done, and a new covenant will be established with Israel. The Book of Jeremiah says in Chapter 31, Verse 31:

“‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.'”

Yet, if it was shared with Abraham, what is it that makes it new? Simply, it is new in human, temporal terms. It is not as if man, who is subservient to God, caught God unaware and He had to hatch a new plan to save man. Rather, God’s plan was destined from the beginning. God, let it be known that it is a new covenant, because this is truly what it is in the context of time. Time has no bearing on God, for God controls time, and since time is under God’s belt, to God it is already finished. If anyone believes differently, then one cannot believe in the omniscience of God, for God would be subservient to time. Furthermore, if He is subservient to time, He could not be God, and our faith would be meaningless, for by and out of God came Christ. Yet, to God, it is time that has no meaning. The breadth of its meaninglessness is shown by eternity. We usually think of eternity as it corresponds to time, that time will stretch forever, but in actuality, eternity is a place where time doesn’t exist. The extent of the meaninglessness of time to God is made clear in 2 Peter 3:8:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Therefore, according to time, which we all are subservient, the law came before, and Christ after, and in temporal terms it is new, or more recent. Yet, that’s not all, by this new covenant it gave the law unto the hearts of man, and revealed God unto the world, so that no man or woman is without excuse. Yet, God did promise the new covenant unto Jeremiah and Abraham, and because He refers to it as “new” to Jeremiah, we see that though the promise was made known, and though the revelation of Christ to come preexisted some 430 years prior to the Law, it doesn’t negate the temporal relativity of the coming of Christ and the Spirit. In addition, as Paul says, the two don’t cancel each other out, but instead, they compliment each other to such perfection, they become united and fulfilled in Christ.

It is not necessarily disrespectful or wrong to conclude that the two covenants, outside time, represent one great covenant, where man can be saved through faith, as Abraham was. This, I would argue, when approaching this issue in human linguistics, that the covenants represent old and new revelations, through which God’s attributes and power were proclaimed to man. First, His nature, commandments, and wrath. Secondly, His grace, love, and peace.

The plan of God was singular, but we can differentiate between the covenants, because of what they revealed to man and by the manifestations of God. Under the old covenant, God spoke through the prophets, yet in the new, God came to earth, became man, taught to a multitude, was crucified, and rose again. By this, man does not need to turn to a prophet to know God, but now, His Son and Sprit dwell within our hearts, upon which the law is now written.

Romans 6:14-15, “On Iniquity and The Transition From Grace to Wrath”

“For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. ¹⁵What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!” -Romans 6:14-15

Once a subject comes to the Lord, and evil’s grasp over a person begins to weaken, the enemy reaches into his well worn bag of tricks to pullout a biggie. Those who come to the cross know that they are forgiven for their sins, and the newly created, not yet having moved onto solid food (Hebrews 5:11-14), may be approached with the temptation that Christ’s blood, which grants righteousness through faith, gives one freedom in sin. God’s perfect word addresses this very thing. Yet, even as I mentioned , that this is a common temptation when first coming to the Lord and knowing only the elementary truths, it can, in fact, afflict even those who have moved onto a more mature diet.

As Romans 6:15 urges us not to sin while we are covered with grace, The Book of Hebrews reiterates the danger of using Christ’s blood as an excuse for iniquity:

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, ²⁷but only a fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” -Hebrews 10:26-27

In Exodus 34:7, there are three kinds of sin that are mentioned. There are those sins, which result from the habitual acts and thoughts of the human nature, more or less, because of our “natural” faulty faculties, by which we fall short of the Glory of God. For instance, catching ourselves cursing at someone in traffic. I will refer to these sins as a “breach.” Though I may give these kinds of sin different terms, this is strictly for the purposes of differentiation, and by no means necessarily reflect how the Lord may judge these sins, which is not for me to say. These are just general categories that seem to be implicit in Scripture.

The second category, and addressed throughout this entry, is iniquity. Iniquity is willful sin in the sight of God. The willful sins are of greater consequence. We know this, not only because of the dangers represented through God’s word, but as those who have engaged in willful sin under grace (as I have) should be able to testify, the conviction by the Spirit concerning such sin weighs more heavily than does the conviction of a breach.

Thirdly, and yet first in terms of severity, is “transgression,” or willful rebellion. To rebel against the ways of God, is to rebel against the nature of God, and in such sin there is no forgiveness, for there is no repentance. True repentance is not merely the asking for the forgiveness of sin, but turning and walking away from it.

The similarities of the last two examples reside in the fact that they are both willful. Yet, in the case of transgression, it is a willful rebellion against God. Between iniquity and rebellion there is a subtle difference, in which the degree of the rebellion is emphasized. In iniquity, while one does certainly rebel in the very act of the willful sin, and in fact all sin is disobedience, the rebellion in the heart may not be to the degree of transgression. The latter is often strove for in a permanent sense, that the transgressor is not willing to give all to God, or even allow God to work in that area of sin.

As with some breaches, iniquity too can be habitual by nature. This is usually due to our indulgences in that sin, either prior to coming to Christ, or those times when people fall away and rebel willingly, as I too am guilty of. So for such people like myself, where is the hope? Does it exist for those like me who, by my own admission, have rebelled and fallen away (more than once) having both iniquity and transgression represented in my life? It is somewhat distressing personally to read verses like the one contained in Hebrews. Is there any hope if one is guilty of iniquity?

By the grace of God, I am here to tell you, absolutely! There is still hope, for as I stated earlier, in regards to the convictions of the Spirit, which are manifest when those sins that reside in the scope of iniquity are committed, the conviction is a lot, “heavier.” By the mere conviction alone, we see the Holy Spirit still communicating with us and weighing a burden of conviction upon our hearts. Taking this into account, and knowing that the Holy Spirit is, “a guarantee of what is to come,” (2 Corinthians 1:22) we know by the Word itself we may still be under grace.

Yet, let us not undermine the danger in such intentional sin and disobedience. As with Samson, the Lord eventually left him, and as the Scriptures tell us, he was not even aware that this was the case, which is the biggest tragedy. Thus, when iniquity becomes so prevalent in our lives, we may not know when we have moved from under grace to under wrath. To which point this occurs is not for me to say, nor would I, lest by doing so I may cause a stumbling block for others, for man has a tendency to push the limits of what is right, edging as close as he can before crossing the ethical boundaries he perceives, or that which have been set by the Lord. This kind of knowledge is reserved for the Lord and is between the Lord and the trespasser. The fact is, with a willful progression and steadfastness in iniquity, Hebrews suggest that by engaging in this with abandon, there is no sacrifice to cover the sin!

However, even to those who have at one time in their life, “trampled on the blood of Christ,” or fallen away, you have hope abounding! This is because of our gracious, merciful God, to whom belongs all the glory! Even Samson, though the Lord left him, at his end called on the Lord, and by doing so, God gave him the strength to destroy the temple. In addition, as the parable of the prodigal son testifies, there is much rejoicing in heaven when a former son, or daughter, returns to the Lord. In fact, more so than that of the righteous.

Our Lord is gracious and loving, but He warns us sternly not to take advantage of the grace He has offered us. It has been wrought with the blood, pain, suffering and humiliation experienced by His one and only Son, our savior, Jesus Christ. Shall we choose to hammer the nails deeper into Christ by continuing to sin, knowing full well what Christ endured on our behalf?

The three types of sin brought up earlier can be recovered by grace with a repentant humble heart. Yet, man in his imperfection still continues to sin, but Christ’s blood has both covered the sins of the past, and of the future. The warning is powerful, as it should be, for as some will testify, including myself, with the indulgence of iniquity you by your own accord have departed from under the cleansing blood of Christ. If this is the case, and I pray it isn’t, then you may find yourself much like Samson, with the Lord leaving you and you being unaware. Woe to the man or woman who in such a state is perishing.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “On a Brief Overview of The ‘Historical Christ,’ Contradiction, and Biblical Omission”

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” -1 Corinthians 15:3-8

This passage written by Paul, is a brief overview of the events contained in the gospels. He briefly recounts Christ’s death by crucifixion, for what cause, His eventual resurrection, and His appearances to the apostles, His brother, crowds, the early church, and finally, Christ appearing to Paul himself. This can be said to be more of a historical summary, for it quite simply contains events without any references to the teachings of Christ, or the preexisting Scriptures, in the form of the Old Testament. Paul obviously brings the Old Testament and New together, illuminating them within His other writings, indicating and revealing to us, that the Scripture does not exist in two parts, rather it is one large narrative, Christ being revealed, both implicitly and explicitly, since the beginning. Indeed, because of the Gospels, Paul, and independent sources such as Pliny the Elder, or Josephus, The vast majority of historians believe Christ to have been a real person, but the events surrounding the crucifixion, resurrection and who Christ was, are the topics that are truly questioned by the students of history.

Though Paul obviously believes Christ to be fact, that He was both man and God, and that He died and rose again, there are some details missing from Paul’s “historical” synopsis. One of these concerns the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene and other women who visited the tomb on the third day. Why was it not included if it is indeed fact like the gospels tell us? It is this question, among others, I am going to endeavor to explore.

"Christ Appears to The Holy Women," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1886-1894

The first thing we need to understand, is that as Christ and Paul revealed the complete unity in both the New and Old Testaments, and we find that even in the case of the Gospels, they are not supposed to stand on their own, though they most certainly can. Rather, they mesh or interlace perfectly to form a concise narrative of the events that took place. Though perfect as a whole, it helps to recognize that each gospel was written to address a different purpose or group of people. This may account for that which was included or omitted in the particular gospels.

• Matthew Levi wrote the Book of Matthew. Matthew prior to his discipleship was a tax collector and therefore, not exactly a revered individual in the eyes of the world. His gospel was directed at the Hebrews and contains many quotes from the Old Testament.
• John Mark wrote the Book of Mark. This books scope of focus was directed at the Romans. It is believed that Peter had a large influence on the authorship of this Book, and indeed it is believed to contain more words of Peter than any of the other gospels.
• Luke wrote the Book of Luke and was a close confidant of Paul. His book is said to take more of a “scientific” approach, and Luke, a physician and not being one of the original Twelve, acted as a historian, gathering the accounts about our Lord and Savior. This is the longest book of the New Testament and was directed at the Greeks.
• John was responsible for the writing of the Gospel of John. This gospel is the most broad in terms of focus and audience. In addition, the book contains more words of Christ than any other.

Another thing to consider is that if something is omitted, this in no way, like some suppose, represents an inevitable contradiction. In fact, using more than one gospel can give us a much clearer understanding of the events which surrounded Jesus Christ, and what He went through for us, that we may be saved by faith upon Him. For example, let us look at the question concerning Mary Magdalene’s visit from the Lord and how it’s omission by Paul doesn’t necessarily lead to contradiction, or even suggest that it didn’t happen. By using the accounts from Scripture, we can begin to piece together what happened at the time of the resurrection without any contradiction being evident.

In Matthew, Chapter 28, several things happen which can be considered the first, or beginning of the resurrection narrative. After a violent earthquake an angel of the Lord descended, rolling back the stone and sitting upon it. In fact, it’s reasonable to say that the angel may have been the instrument of God, which brought about the quake. At any rate, there were several guards at the tomb who all suddenly became greatly frightened by the manifestation they were privy to. These guards were placed there by Pilate in Chapter 27, after the chief priests and Pharisees recounted to Pilate what the Lord had said about being raised after three days. They were afraid the disciples would come and try to steal the body, initiating a great deception. Pilate told them they could go make the tomb as secure as they wanted, until the third day. These guards were terrified by the earthquake and angel of the Lord. They were later bribed by the Jews, to say that His body was indeed stolen. Matthew, Chapter 28, Verse 15, tells us that this story was circulated among the Jews, “to this very day.” It certainly has, for it has surpassed the Jews and has become a frequently cited explanation for the resurrection of Christ.

"Roman Guards Watch Over Tomb," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1884-1896

In addition to the guards being witness to the event, so too, according to the Gospels, was Mary the Mother of James. Other Books even include more companions. The Book of John mentions Mary Magdalene alone, while the other books of the gospels include others in her party. According to the Book of Luke, 24:10, her companions were Salome, again, Mary the mother of James (which is held to be the Sister of Mary, mother of Jesus), and Joanna. Though some commentary considering the reconciliation of these accounts in Scripture believe Mary to be alone at some point, before running to tell Peter and John, I don’t think this is the case. I believe the Scriptures themselves refute this. The exact time this happens is similar in all the accounts, the day after the sabbath at day break. Furthermore, their purpose was not to just visit the tomb, but for anointing His body with spices and perfumes. I believe this purpose suggests a group rather than just a couple individuals. Lastly, the words of Mary Magdalene herself indicate it, when in the Book of John (the same Book that only mentions Mary Magdalene as a witness), Chapter 20, Verse 2, she says to Simon Peter and John, “They have taken the Lord out of the Tomb, and we don’t know where they have put Him?” In her statement, she says, “we,” this obvious plurality indicating that it was not just her who witnessed the empty tomb, or even the first angel.

"Penitent Mary Magdalene," by Titian. oil on canvas, c. 1565

Why does the Scripture indicate only one person when more may be involved? Simply because it may not be relevant, or because Mary, and later Peter, are the real focus of attention, for it was their experiences which are recounted, though others may have been present. At this point we have Mary Magdalene and her companions walking up to the tomb of the Lord, again to anoint His body. As far as I can tell there are two possibilities when considering how the stone was placed before the tomb. First, we look to Matthew. In Chapter 27, Verse 60, Joseph of Arimathea rolls a large stone into place. Now, it doesn’t mention other people, but that doesnt mean there weren’t more involved in this process. Yet, if we assume he was alone, we find at this time the rock wasn’t as big as often depicted. But wait, before you start writing a e-mail, there is more. In Verse 66, the guards are said to make the tomb secure by posting a guard, which in this context would be made up of several guards. In addition, they put “a seal” on the stone. Most feel this refers to a “stamp” of sorts which would discourage anyone from breaking into the tomb, for with the breaking of that stamp, one would incur the wrath of the Roman Empire. However, some other translations offer another perspective. These refer to the guards as “sealing” the stone. The Romans at this time are believed to have concrete, also known as “Opus Caementicium.” In fact, by the mid-first century, underwater construction of edifices containing this concrete were underway, so the seal could have been an actual “sealant,” of the tomb.

"Christ with Joseph of Arimathea," by Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo. oil on wood, c. 1525

Despite my pondering, the simplest explanation might be the best, for on their way to the tomb, they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?” It is possible that they didn’t know the actions of the Romans in securing the tomb, for this could have occurred on the sabbath, which they all observed. In spite of the fact I said Joseph may have moved the rock on his own, it doesn’t line up with Scripture, for Mark 16:4 tells us, indeed, that the stone was very large and Mary Magdalene was there to witness Joseph move the stone into place. So I do believe the latter to be the case, and feel it is easily explained by the fact that when people are in a state of grief or emotional anguish, they don’t always react or behave in a rational fashion.

Next we have a curious account of the appearance of angels and this is where many find contradiction in the Bible. Before tackling this issue, however, I think we should focus somewhat on the particular attributes of these heavenly beings, as is represented in Scripture. An angel is not only a messenger from the Lord, but can also be used to complete His commands. We even know from Revelation, Chapter 16, that they can also be used by God to pour out His wrath. Furthermore, an angel is not bound to physicality and can appear or speak to whom it wishes in accordance with God’s command.

"Angels With Jesus Inside The Tomb," by William Blake. c. 1805

The spiritual eyes of one needs to be first opened before one can perceive of an angel. For instance, contained in Numbers 22:21-40 is the account of Balaam and his donkey. In this case the donkey can perceive of the angel, but Balaam himself can’t. Thus, if one is granted to gift of seeing such beings, the angel that is perceived might not be the only angel in attendance. Also, if you are in company with another individual, it remains a possibility, that if you are privy to such a manifestation, the other party may not be able to perceive of it. This is exactly what happens in 2 Kings 6:15-17:

“When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. ‘Oh, my Lord, what shall we do?’ the servant asked. ¹⁶‘Don’t be afraid,’ the prophet answered. ‘Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.’ ¹⁷And Elisha prayed, ‘O Lord, open his eyes so he may see.’ then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.”

This provides ample evidence that there may have been actually two angels in the tomb and the account of one, could have been given to Luke from a source who didn’t have eyes to see both of the heavenly beings. In fact, there could have been a multitude for we know. Yet, the Lord knows. There is even speculation that this “lone” man was actually Christ. However, I do not believe this to be the case, for not only is there scriptural evidence that shows angels can appear as man, but also, and more importantly, when Mary is weeping by herself two angels appear to her while she is in the presence of Christ. More on that later.

"The Morning of The Resurrection," by Sir Edward Coley Burne-Jones. oil on canvas. c. 1882

According to Matthew 28, we find that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary travel to go view the tomb of our Lord. As mentioned before, they had already discussed how they were going to move the rock in front. An angel, given the assignment of perhaps causing a large earthquake had come down from heaven, rolled away the stone and sat upon it. This left both Mary’s and their other companions, free to enter the tomb as they will without any hindrance at the hands of the guards, for all the guards cowered before the heavenly being upon the stone. The angel in Matthew 28:5-6 calms the women, saying to them to not be afraid, as angels frequently do. In addition, the angel tells them that Christ has risen, just as He said He would, and invites the women into the tomb to see where He had lain. The angel then instructs the women to run to the disciples once they leave.

I feel it is at this point the women enter the tomb, at the invitation of the angel outside. It was not only this angel’s duty to remove the stone, or cause an earthquake, but also protect the women from the guards, who were there from orders directly from Pilate. By entering the tomb they essentially broke Roman law, and the Romans were not known for their kind, humane punishments.

At the angels urging, the women, both Mary’s with Salome and Joanna, entered the tomb, where a “young man,” according to Mark 16:5, in white sat at their right side. Why is this angel the only one mentioned in Mark, when the Book of Luke says there are two? Concerning the nature of angels it could be that this is the only one that appeared to all, while the other may have been unseen by some of the group. It’s also important that we remember what, “angel” means. Angel, literally translated, means: “Messenger.” Perhaps there were two beings, but only one is mentioned in Mark due to the fact he may have been the lone communicator among the two. So though one isn’t mentioned in Luke, I don’t find any inevitable contradiction in the accounts, for it never says there is ONLY one. The angel restates what the angel outside said, and it makes sense. For the uniformity of their words, suggests obedience to God’s commandment concerning what they were allowed, or not allowed, to say. Although an angel of the Lord was posted outside to protect the tomb, the evidence was inside the tomb, which the woman were invited to see and report to the disciples.

Although the angel told the women that Christ had risen, Mark 16:8 gives us some insight into their state of mind. What they were just told is the phenomenal truth of Christ our Lord who had risen from the dead. It’s a little hard, knowing what we know, to conceptualize that these women couldn’t grasp the truth right away, but that’s only because we are quite distant from the actual occurrence of walking into Christ’s tomb, seeing our beloved missing, and a stranger telling us He has rose. The women were understandably confused and frightened by the encounter, not because they didn’t love Jesus, quite the contrary, but rather because it was so outside the realm of normal everyday occurrence. Such things produce fright and though they were afraid, Matthew tells us, at the same time they were filled with joy.

What I regard as the next account is what happened on the women’s way to tell the disciples of there encounter. This is recounted in Matthew 28:8-10:

“So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell the disciples. (9)Suddenly, Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ He said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshipped Him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

As the women were on their way to tell the disciples and had their encounter with Jesus, the chief priests and elders bribed the guards to say that His body was stolen as they slept. In addition, the elders promised that no harm would come to them if they did so. They were bribed to lie and keep quiet about the amazing events they had indeed saw.

There are some who believe that Mary Magdalene was alone, when she ran and told the disciples, or that all the women were there, but in more than one group. However, I feel the Scriptures tell us different. Luke 24:10 says explicitly:

“It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.”

Another name, Salome, is mentioned in the Gospels, but Luke indicates that there was a group of women who experienced the risen Christ. If Christ indeed appeared to this women, which nobody at first believed, citing it as “nonsense,” Why did Mary Magdalene say that she didn’t know what happened to the body? John 20:9 tells us that they yet didn’t know that Jesus had to rise from the dead, so there was obviously some confusion about what was taking place. If we interject ourselves in the resurrection account, is it really that hard to believe that such confusion was evident? Mary and her companions didn’t see the body of Christ, but saw Him on their way to inform the disciples. It’s possible that Mary considered Christ as some kind of apparition, like the disciples themselves did, and He may have looked somewhat different. We know at a later time that Mary Magdalene is unable to recognize Christ, and Mary isn’t alone in this. Christ veils His identity from a number of the disciples after His resurrection. Mary Magdalene being witness to the crucifixion, which are quite obviously grisly and brutal forms of execution, may have not realized as of yet, the nature of His new body. Thus, though she disclosed to the disciples of their encounter, what happened to the body that was missing from the tomb still could have been a mystery to Her.

The Book of John tells us that Peter and John started running for the tomb once the women told of their encounters. This was dangerous undertaking especially after the charges that the elders and guards were making against them, and indeed their very lives could have been in danger. John reached the tomb first, but did not go in, while Simon Peter on the other hand did. Peter saw the strips of linen and burial shroud neatly folded up. I find it probable that at least Mary followed the two men. Then John went inside observing the same thing as Peter and believed, though John 20:9 suggests they didn’t have a full understanding of what had occurred. Also Luke 24:12 says that after Peter left the tomb, he wondered what had happened. One of the gospel accounts only tells the account of Peter running to the tomb and peering in, but this could have been a simplification, for adding John doesn’t necessarily add anything but an extra witness. There is no consequence for John being there and He may have been ommited due to it’s irreverence.

"Peter and John Running to the Tomb," by Eugene Burnand. oil on canvas, c. 1898

Continuing in the book of John, we find Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. The disciples returned home as John 20:10 tells us, but she stood there outside the tomb weeping. Why? Hadn’t she seen the Lord? She indeed had, but the disciples’ time to have their eyes opened hadn’t yet come to pass. I am certain she wept, at least in part, due to frustration, for the collaborating evidence she wished would be there was not. There were no men or angels while Peter and John were there, but as she leaned into the tomb after they had gone, she saw two angels of white, seated where Christ’s body had been. One at the head and one at the foot which could be symbolic. They asked her why she was crying, to which she responded, “they have taken my Lord away.” Now she turned and saw Jesus, but  here she too had her eyes blinded, until Christ spoke her name. She then recognized Him, and after being stopped from embracing Him, she returned to the disciples telling that she had seen the Lord.

"The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene," by Alexander Ivanov. oil on canvas, c. 1834-1836

I offer this viewpoint of the reconciliation of the resurrection accounts, not as Gospel, but as just one possibility of what could have happened. Indeed, it comes from my own study of these accounts, thus it may be full of error. I don’t encourage anyone to follow this explanation or consider it as infallible as the Bible, please don’t, my main goal was to point out that these resurrection accounts can have many different interpretations, and don’t necessarily reach a contradiction. Some say there are at least 18 contradictions in the resurrection accounts, but I don’t find any evidence for this, for I believe the differences can be explained, and that most the citied contradictions are just examples of biblical omission.

Often times, we Christians are asked questions that do not appear within the Gospels or even the rest of Scripture. To those non-believers, and even, at times, believers, for the Bible to be true, it needs to satisfy all our curiosity concerning events. I recall once being asked how Christ’s father, Joseph, died? There is no biblical answer, other than the Bible speaking to Joseph’s character, but how He died is not stated in the Bible. Why? Simply, I believe the Bible tells us what we need to know, and there are certain details that have no consequence concerning our relationship with the Lord.

Omission in the word of God is suggested by the Gospels themselves. The last verse in the Gospel of John, 21:25 states:

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

It should be evident by this verse that indeed certain events are not recorded in the Scriptures. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that the short attention span of man wouldn’t lend itself to a Bible that would dwarf the size of the full Encyclopedia Britannica. Thus, the Scriptures only reveal to us what we need to know, and the spreading of the word and of Christianity throughout the world testifies to its perfection. Yet, as I have brought up here and in a previous entry (see my note concerning 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, “On The Chaos of Reason, The Firstfruit, and The Transfiguration”), let us be wary not to see omission as contradiction.

In addition, we need to be aware that the Bible may contradict, not by the word itself, but because of the beliefs we hold on to, which may be perpetuated by the traditions of the Church, Catholicism or any number of other schools of theology. I recall hearing at one time that the first person Christ appeared to was His mother Mary. This tradition, as far as I am aware, began in the Catholic Church. Yet, it isn’t mentioned in scripture. However, because we know things are omitted as confirmed by the word, it doesn’t mean He didn’t, just that we can’t say for sure in a biblical context. In reality, this belief is based on what man thinks Christ had ought to have done, which is extremely prideful. If this or such tradition is juxtaposed with the word, contradiction can easily arise from it, and perhaps cause confusion among the Body.

In the 14th-century, a Franciscan friar, Father William of Ockham’s namesake was applied to a popular philosophical theory, known as, “Ockham’s Razor,” or now more commonly spelled, “Occam’s Razor.” This theory suggests that from any competeing hypotheses, the one with the least amount of assumptions, or the hypothesis containing the simplest answer, is usually the correct one. Though I have reservations about this particular philosophical theory, when it comes to finding contradiction in the Bible it applies, though not absolutely. There are times when we think too much behind scriptural passages, when the true reconciliation is apt to be something much more simple.

A great example of this is the supposed contradiction between Christ’s first meeting of Simon Peter and Andrew. The two, “contradictions,” are found in Matthew 4:18-20 and John 1:35-42. The account in John describes their first meeting with Jesus. Andrew went to see where Christ was staying, and called on his brother Simon Peter exclaiming they had found the Messiah. In Matthew however, Christ calls to Andrew and Simon Peter as they were casting a net into the Sea of Galilee. He tells the men to follow Him and that He will make them fishers of men. Many make the assumption that both of these are representational of Simon Peter and Andrew’s first meeting of Christ, but this is false. Rather, the Book of John describes how they met, while Matthew describes how they were called into discipleship. “Occam’s Razor,” turns out to be appropriate in this case, for if one lets go of assumptions and looks at the verses in a more simplistic manner, the contradiction is negated, and these two accounts come together in complete unity.

"The Calling of Peter and Andrew," by Duccio di Buoninsegna. tempra on wood, c. 1308-1311

Within this entry I have attempted to identify some of the means by which people are tripped up by contradiction. I believe that most of it is based on assumption, tradition, and omission. Indeed, these are some of the very things that have led me astray in the past. We need to be aware of the stumbling blocks such things pose and that it is the Scriptures that should change our point of view, rather than our view distort the Scriptures. I pray that all those attempting to find answers would rely on the revelation and teaching of God and not that of man, who due in part to his faulty nature, can promote the use of assumption within the Word of God. May the Lord protect His word and keep us free from falsehood. Amen.

I would like to once again acknowledge Terie for her input concerning this entry. Her propensity for grammar is an amazing gift, that I tend to lack. Thank you Terie!

Romans 5:18, “On The Negation of Original Sin”

“Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” -Romans 5:18

 The compare/contrast stated in Romans is truly an amazing one to behold, yet it presents a question at the same time. The amazing aspect of it concerns the almighty power that came to fruition by Christ’s death and resurrection. One man, Adam, was responsible for bringing sin into the world, and by our worldly birth we are born into this curse. However, how much more can that sin, which afflicted all mankind, be negated by the perfect obedience of one who descended from heaven? If Christ was mere mortal we would still be in our sins, but because He rose again, the Firstfruit of righteousness, we can partake in the glory offered, not by any deed, but mere acceptance of the gift and belief upon Him. It is of this fruit we should eat, the one that leads to life, and not of the one offered by Adam, which leads only to death.

Why did sin come through one man as opposed to through one woman? Isn’t it the scriptures that tell us that Eve first sinned? There are many plausible commentaries I have read, as well as the outlandish, but I find it more simplistic and satisfactory to say that the original sin was first made possible through Eve, meaning her action opened the gateway unto sin, and Adam’s action led man through that gateway. In the same way Christ’s death opens the gateway to righteousness, and by His resurrection, which pays the toll, we can walk through the narrow doorway that we may receive it.

Sin was a partnership between Adam and Eve that led to their expulsion. Sin wouldn’t have the foothold it does without Adam’s disobedience. If Eve had just sinned, and Adam remained righteous, the curse would not have entered the world. Thus, the responsibility rested on Adam. Furthermore, the biological union between them passed the curse along to their offspring, until Christ, who was in perfect obedience with the Lord, and thus partook of the first fruits of righteousness. Now, in Christ, we partake of the full fruit of righteousness, offered by our Lord, rather than the spoiled fruit offered by Adam. Thereby, let us come into eternal life and grace rather than into death and wrath.

In addition, may we see Adam and Eve as a warning and example, to not to take the sin of others, encourage it and indulge in it, thereby forming it into a “greater,” more ensnaring sin. Rather, let us convict with encouragement and help bring those, whom the Lord has set in our path, away from their iniquity and out of the darkness into the radiant light of God.

Galatians 2:21, “On Righteousness by The Law”

“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” -Galatians 2:21

As the scriptures tell us, the law is not only good (Romans 7:12), but it also condemns. This may have been a tougher paradox to reconcile if the reconciliation wasn’t eventually solved by Christ Jesus.

The Law is good because it comes from God, and shows us the nature of God and His perfection. Yet, what it also shows is the impossibility of mere man to attain righteousness, hence the condemnation. Even the most pious of Christians need to remind themselves that obedience comes through faith and not the other way around (See my note on Romans 1:5, “On The Obedience That Comes From Faith”). If this were not the case then, as the verse tells us, Christ need not have come in the first place.

What this all shows us is the need for grace, for if we were judged without it, then no one would be saved. The Law prepared the way for Christ and God’s grace was manifest in His Son, who died upon the cross, that we may no longer live under wrath, but grace and dwell in the Father’s house forever and ever. Amen.