Twelve Things God Hates

What does the statement “God hated Esau” really mean? (Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:11-13) Is it the same kind of hate that a person has for cheesecake or lemon meringue pie? The purpose of this article is to list twelve things that God really does hate. In doing so, we will discover that God loves all people, but it is not the same kind of love that a person has for dessert.

Does God Love and Hate At the Same Time?

It is so very important for us to understand the difference between loving a person and hating the sin. Generally speaking, “God hated Esau” means that God hated sinful behavior, not the actual person of Esau. Since God is love (1 John 4:16) and He hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19), it follows that God must love all people in the world (John 3:16) unconditionally while also hating the person’s sin at the same time.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only unique Son, and whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Five More Things God Hates

In addition to dealing perfectly with each person, God also deals perfectly with nations and groups of people. In Malachi 1:1-3, we find out that Edom refers to Esau’s descendants who are called the Edomites (Genesis 25:30, 36:1, 9). The Lord calls Edom a Wicked Land (Mal. 1:4), meaning a wicked people always under the wrath of the Lord. Why were they under wrath? They were under wrath for the following reasons:

1.) Siding with Israelite enemies (Psalm 83:1-8)

2.) Inflicting revenge on Judah (Ezek. 25:12-14)

In the context of Malachi chapter 1, Edom suffers as a group of people not because God inflicts punishment in a cruel random way, but rather, God is perfectly just when He gives both warnings and consequences. Malachi uses the illustration of “Edom under divine wrath” in order to warn the Israelites that the Israelite priests need to repent from showing contempt for the name of the Lord Almighty. Otherwise, Israel will also suffer divine wrath. Israel was warned about their following sins:

1.) Priests who despise the name of the Lord Almighty (Mal. 1:6)

2.) A people who do not offer the best to the Lord Almighty (Mal. 1:11)

3.) A people who do not fear the name of the Lord Almighty (Mal. 1:14)

Another Thing God Hates

In the book of Revelation, we find out that God commended a certain group of people for hating sin. What sin was that? The people in the church of Ephesus were approved by God for hating the sinful work of the Nicolatians. (Early church Fathers explained that the sin of the Nicolatians refers to allowing heretical doctrine.)

Revelation 2:6 – (The Lord Almighty said,) Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolatians, which I also hate.

The key word in Revelation 2:6 is the word works. It was not the person, per se, that was hated. It was the work of those people. Everyone is called to honor the Lord, no matter who you are or where you live, by following sound doctrine. In addition to being saved by grace through faith in order to do good works, we are also commanded to live by sound doctrine. In order to reject heresies and unorthodox doctrine, one must know the truth of sound doctrine. This is why it is so important to be a student of the Word of God, learn from educated theologians, let the Holy Spirit reveal truth to you, and daily put on the new life in Christ, walking in step with divine guidance.

Does God Only Love Some People?

Maybe you’ve heard a Christian such as a Calvinist say that God only loves some people. Oddly enough, atheists often say the same thing. It is not a good interpretation of Scripture to conclude that God only loves some people. It is false to say that God only loves some people. John 3:16 does not say, “For God so loved only part of the world…” Telling people “God only loves some people” can actually end up triggering hopelessness, anger, and depression.

God’s character is so loving that it is impossible for Him to not love. God is love (1 John 4:16), and that means God naturally loves you. He is always loving in all that He does and in all that He says. The word that we use for God’s all-loving moral attribute is called omnibenevolent. It means He is always good, always loving, and perfectly limitless in being good and loving toward everyone. Nothing is forcing Him to love you. He just does love you with an infinite amount and a divine eternal love. He is so good, that He extends grace and carries out perfect justice to individuals as well as nations.

Just as a parent disciplines his child in order to keep him from repeating dangerous actions, our Heavenly Father pours out divine wrath in wicked places – out of His desire for people to repent from sin. Even though He actively hates sin, His loving character does not change. His loving character is constantly loving and constantly unchanging. The way God loves is not the exact same way a person loves dessert. The way God hates is not the exact same way a person hates cheesecake. Psalm 5:5 says, “You hate all workers of iniquity.” Psalm 11:5 says, “The Lord’s soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” Divine hate and divine wrath are a means of divine discipline in order to get a human being to repent from sinful behavior.

How Do I Know If God Really Loves Me?

I met a lady one day who told me she thought God did not love her. When I asked why she thought that, she said it was because someone told her that God only chooses to love some people, and He decided to love other people but not love her. What?! That is a terrible misunderstanding of God’s unchanging nature. I assured her that God does love her with an everlasting love that endures forever, and He is just waiting for her to love Him back. Rest assured, you can be confident that God first loved you. Most certainly! “God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). The love that God has for all people is impartial, universal, and unconditional. He loves you so much that Jesus willingly died for you in order to pay the penalty for all your sin. The natural response is for you to thank God for the good work He did for you. We love, because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).

I might never know if God hates cheesecake, but I do know He hates pride, lying, murdering innocent blood, devising wicked plans, rushing into evil, false witnesses, and stirring up conflict. Never give up what you know for what you don’t know.

It is very clear in the Bible that God does not love sin. In the Scriptures, we find out that He loves all people. Likewise, we are commanded to love one another just as Jesus loved one another. We are never commanded to love the sin in a person’s life. Rather, we can dislike the sin in a person’s life while continuing to love the person. A parent is always expected to love his or her child unconditionally, impartially, and at all times.

If you have not done so already, get in a good Bible study with a teacher who follows sound doctrine and prays for you. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15). Never give up being a student of the Bible. The best way to genuinely love God is getting to know His divine attributes, the good work He has done, and all the good promises He has for you. And praise Him for it all!

Ultimate happiness is found in a right relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

Story of the Woman Caught In Adultery

Was John 8:2-11 in the original book of John or not? (The story of the woman caught in adultery.)

Bartolomeo di Giovanni “A Bishop Saint”

One of the very earliest complete Greek copies of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus from circa AD 350, does not have John 7:53-8:1-11. The purpose of this article is to give a few possible reasons why those verses might have been intentionally removed by a bishop in circa AD 350.

Story of the Woman Caught In Adultery

from John 8:2-11

2Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

I was recently told that most people are not interested in finding out if the story of the woman caught in adultery was in the original book of John. That might very well be true, but I am hoping to find some clues. In Bible study, when we get to that passage, we usually ignore the note attached to that passage. Someone brave enough might say something like, “Well, the early manuscripts didn’t have that story.” No one really wants to ask why in a small group study. An awkward silence clouds over when someone says it: an early manuscript did not have it. Someone with a keen mind might respond, “Yes, but earlier manuscripts probably had it.” Your Bible might give you the following note related to that passage:

“The early manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-John 8:11.”

I’ve been in enough Bible studies to know that the group usually leaves it at that. Are you one of the few people like me who walks away and wonders, “Well, did the original book of John have it or not?”

Out of curiosity, I gave a poll on Twitter, asking people if John 8:1-11 was in the original. After seventy-three people voted, the results came in as follows: 41% said yes, 36% said no, 12% said probably yes, and 11% said other. If those verses WERE in the original, then why were they removed? I would like to explore a few possible reasons, one in particular. Was it an accident? Did the scribe simply not place that story in the manuscript by mistake? Scribes were trained to not make that kind of a mistake. Was the scribe directed by a bishop to remove that passage? Was the scribe actually a bishop who left that passage out on purpose? If so, why did he leave it out?

Once I began studying early church history, three main things stood out. First, the Roman laws were extremely hostile against Christians during the first three centuries, forcing many to deny the Christian faith or face a death sentence. In a letter from governor Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan in AD 112, Trajan gave a reply, commanding Pliny to punish Christians. Pliny requested a consultation, and the emperor’s reply can be found in the letter, Pliny the Younger and Trajan on the Christians. Roman leaders were instructed to punish anyone who said he was a Christian. However, Christianity continued to spread. In AD 185, sophisticated philosophers such as Pantaenus were converting to Christianity. By AD 249, Roman Emperor Decius thought Christians were a threat to the empire and Christianity had to be eliminated by law. He issued legislation for every Christian to recant, earning a certificate for recanting, while bishops were punished to death.

Second, a new form of church structure began to take place in church congregations where the bishop became the sole leader in a local church. Third, a major split was happening among the church bishops over whether a Christian should be kicked out of church for apostasy, murder, and adultery. Some bishops wanted to kick a Christian out of church while other bishops wanted to welcome them back. Kicking Christians out of church for adultery is a legitimate reason why John 8:2-11 might have been removed on purpose by a bishop.

Today, some people refer to the story of the woman caught in adultery as Pericope Adultrae or Pericope de Adulterae. For the sake of conversation, I will abbreviate it PA from here on out.

Here is a simplified account of what might have happened if the PA story WAS in the original.

  1. PA was a story in the original book of John. It was not a parable. The adulterer was forgiven by Jesus.
  2. During the first few centuries, three big sins were major issues for the local church: apostasy, murder, and adultery. By the second century, some church leaders were kicking Christians out of church if any of the three big sins were committed. However, many many of the followers of Christ thought that a Christian who committed any one of those big sins should somehow be allowed to return to the local church. In AD 251, Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome, claiming the bishop has the power to forgive sins in a public act of humiliating penance where the offender displayed genuine sorrow.
  3. During the second or third century, a bishop may very well have been motivated to leave out the story of PA on purpose. Augustine of Hippo stated that some of the “men of little faith” were fearful of wives committing adultery. It could be that in an effort to keep adulterers permanently out of church, he removed the passage. Finally, it might be that the bishop wanted to kick Christians out of church since bishops wanted no part of the sin of sexual immorality in church.
  4. By the third century, Christians were still considered outlaws. Copies of the New Testament books were secretly being made, some with the PA story and some without, depending if the bishop was for kicking Christian adulterers out of church or not for kicking them out. Church theologian Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) stated that some people removed the story of the woman who committed adultery, saying people knew the story before Jerome’s time (c. 350), and the story was well known in the entire area of Alexandria. Didymus was from Alexandria.
  5. By circa AD 350, a copy of the Codex Sinaiticus was finished. That copy does not include the story of PA. In 1844, the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered somewhere at Mount Sinai.

    Codex Sinaiticus John 8
    Codex Sinaiticus John 8
  6. Early church Fathers had been writing many books. Some of them made reference to the story of PA.  Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine of Hippo refer to the story of PA. Augustine clearly stated that some men of little faith left out the story of the woman who committed adultery. The reason he gave was because some husbands feared their wives would commit adultery if the passage was left in.
  7. During the third century, the first century originals might have still existed. Copies that were made during the first and second centuries could have included the story of PA. Copies were made from those copies, and that is why we have the story today.

The reason why the Codex Sinaiticus left out the PA story might have been because 1.) A scribe made an error and left it out by mistake. However, scribes were trained not to make such mistakes. 2.) It could be that the PA story was never in the original, but then why did the early church Fathers refer to it as an issue that some bishops wanted to remove?  3.) Like Augustine said, it could be because husbands feared their wives would commit adultery if the passage was left in. 4.) It might be that since some of the bishops wanted to kick Christians out of church for committing adultery, they removed the story on purpose.

It is unbiblical for any bishop to refuse to welcome a Christian who repents. Paul was a murderer. Peter denied the Lord three times, and Mary Magdalene used to have seven demons. They all repented, turned to the Lord, asked God to forgive them, and thanked Jesus for paying the penalty for all their sins – past, present, and future.

Whatever the reason was for leaving the PA story out of the Codex Sinaiticus, we can’t ignore the fact that many early church Fathers wrote about the PA story and even stated that at least one scribe removed it.

As for the scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus, handwriting experts say that at least three scribes wrote it, possibly four. Whoever wrote the copy of the book of John in the Codex Sinaiticus might have left out the PA story on purpose or the scribe might have been advised by a bishop who managed the writing process.

 

 

4 Ways To Respond To Wellhausen Problems and Astruc Cuttings

 

It has been estimated at least 90% of the Christians today and perhaps 99% of all people have no idea what is being taught in liberal universities today under the disguise of biblical criticism, textual criticism, source criticism, or literary criticism. In this blog, I will be opposing a (failed) hypothesis that is being taught at the college level by some professors who call themselves specialists, scholars, and critics.

The Documentary Hypothesis was first presented in 1878, just twenty years after Darwin published his hypothesis on how one living species might have started a process of biological changes in a macroevolutionary process called natural selection. In this blog, I will be examining the Documentary Hypothesis, but I will most often refer to it as the Wellhausen Hypothesis. Liberal scholars who devote entire careers on biblical criticism like to call the complex Wellhausen Hypothesis by its more traditional name, the Documentary Hypothesis. At the heart of it all, the Wellhausen Hypothesis is much more than just a four source claim on the origins and development of the first five books of the Bible. It wrongly posits that many contradictions exist, and it literally rips apart the text in an attempt to conclude, “See? I found two authors.” 

Wellhausen Followers Continue to Fool the World

In the fall of 2018, the problem of Wellhausen’s teaching and his followers came to my attention while working on my master’s degree. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) was a German historian, linguist, and Bible critic who lost his faith in the Bible. He began to research certain people in the past who made incorrect assumptions and speculations on whether or not Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible. These historical Bible critics who opposed Mosaic authorship include Abraham Ibn Ezra, Benedict Spinoza (a pantheist), and Jean Astruc just to name a few. Each one of those figures stumbled upon difficulties that they struggled with in the Pentateuch, and they did not find good answers to their satisfaction. Even if they did find a good answer that explains why a verse does not contradict another verse, for example, or why two divine names are sufficiently used, they rejected it. Today, Wellhausen followers continue to claim they have found a multitude of contradictions, and then they reject honest answers to their literary problems. Underneath the surface of opposing Mosaic authorship, Wellhausen followers bask in a sea of alleged contradictions and confusion by misreading Scripture. They present contradictions in what they call doublets, triplicates, conflicts, style issues, gaps, anachronisms, and repetitions. The most unusual act is when Wellhausen followers continue to perform an “Astruc Cutting” to certain passages – in an attempt to claim two different authors wrote it. 

Two Sources?

A French physician and professor named Jean Astruc (1684-1766) is often called the father of the Documentary Hypothesis because he presented his speculation that the Pentateuch has two sources, neither of which is Moses. In this blog, I am pointing to Astruc as the person responsible for so many of the Wellhausen followers today who continue to cut passages apart verse by verse. Astruc worked with two divine names in the text, YHWH and Elohim, claiming the two divine names give evidence of two authors. By cutting up the Pentateuch verse by verse and placing certain YHWH verses in one document and certain Elohim verses into another document, Astruc claimed he found two authors. Immediately, Astruc’s two source speculation faces a problem because there are a multitude of passages that use both YHWH (Yahweh/Jehova/LORD) and Elohim, and there are a multitude of verses that contain neither. Finally, in 1941, Umberto Cassuto gave an excellent response to Astruc’s two source speculation in his book, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures by Umberto Cassuto. In his book, Cassuto gave a clear reason why Moses used both divine names, YHWH and Elohim. YHWH is used mainly to refer to the personal deity of Israel. Elohim is used in a general sense for the creator over all people. 

Four Sources?

Building onto Astruc’s teaching, Wellhausen came along and proposed two more authors, a priestly author and the mostly Deuteronomic author, introducing his four source speculation, the Documentary Hypothesis, which I will continue to refer to as the Wellhausen Hypothesis. To complicate the matter further, Wellhausen followers play the innocent joker card by claiming redactors (editors) could have changed any number of words at any place in the Pentateuch at any time up to about 400 BC. By leading students into a sea of confusion about origins, development, and editing, students of Wellhausen scholars might walk away confused instead of reading what is actually in the text, namely, that 1.) Moses wrote down the words of the Lord and 2.) No textual contradictions actually exist. Moses wrote down ceremonial laws, cultural laws, moral laws, and regulations for the festivals as he was instructed by the Lord. Wellhausen imagined four authors wrote an imaginary J-document (written by an alleged author who preferred using the term Jehova/YHWH/Yahweh), an imaginary E-document (written by an alleged author who preferred using the term Elohim), a P-document (written by an alleged priestly author/authors), and a D-document (written by an alleged Deuteronomy author). However, Wellhausen followers fail to give credit to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch who wrote it during his lifetime. In his book, Cassuto reduced the Wellhausen Hypothesis down to five main flimsy pillars that supposedly hold up the four source speculation.

1.) Divine Names

2.) Language and Style

3.) Contradictions

4.) Duplications and Repetitions

5.) Composite Structure

Cassuto did a very good job in his book explaining why all five pillars fail. He presented a case where the Wellhausen Hypothesis has no real basis to hold it up.

Wellhausen Followers Today (Neo-Wellhausen) 

The new Wellhausen follower’s method includes four main offenses that still need to be challenged by anyone who honors truth. By responding to the following four ways Wellhausen followers continue to uphold the failed Wellhausen hypothesis, we can be salt and light shining truth in dark places. Below are four ways Neo-Wellhausen followers continue to live in the dark. Just beyond that, you will find a list of four ways we can shine the light of truth in a kind and gentle way.

4 Ways Neo-Wellhausens Live In the Dark

  1. Neo-Wellhausens continue to look for contradictions. They continue to claim contradictions and errors in the Pentateuch. They continue to consider/assume a second author is at work in places where the Wellhausen follower struggles to understand a difficult passage.
  2. Neo-Wellhausens  continue to work on cutting/dividing up the text. They continue to mentally apply the “Astruc Cutting” to short stories within a chapter.
  3. Neo-Wellhausens  focus on each of the four sources having a history. They focus on the compilation also having a development after compilation. They continue to approach Scripture with far fetched speculations and presuppositions such as the story and certain phrases were changed by redactors (editors) who came along and changed words and terms.
  4. They continue to teach that the Pentateuch is incoherent without acknowledging a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding coming from the human being.

Here is how we can point Wellhausen followers to truth.

  1. Let us examine any alleged contradiction or duplicate or triplicate presentation and discover the real context. We cannot be too quick to conclude that there is a contradiction when in reality, the struggle always ends up with the reader’s lack of understanding. Take the time to pray for wisdom and revelation and consider asking other good theologians who may have already discovered good answers to seemingly difficult passages.
  2. Let us find out why we arrive at knowing the Pentateuch is one literary piece written by mainly Moses during Moses’s lifetime. Become familiar with an explanation of why two divine names are used; Cassuto’s book is a good place to start. Know why we arrive at understanding the Book of Moses is a historical document from about the 1440s BC, written during Moses’s lifetime. We need to give credit to Moses, but we also need to be able to tell Wellhausen followers why the five flimsy pillars of Wellhausen fail. Cassuto began paving a way for us to approach Wellhausen followers in a kind and gentle and truthful way. Instead of just claiming Moses wrote it, let us take time to understand Wellhausen problems and carefully address them.
  3. Let us present all the verses in the text that refer to the Book of Moses, the Law of Moses, and the Book of the Law of Moses; there are many. Chapter after chapter, book after book from Exodus to Deuteronomy, we read that the Lord told Moses to “write down the words of the Lord.” In addition, let us present other biblical and non biblical texts that also refer to the Book of Moses.
  4. Let us present the theme of redemption and read the literary piece in context as one coherent message of God calling his people, God redeeming his people, and God preparing his people to go into the promised land. In Genesis, we find a historical account of Adam to Joseph being kidnapped and sold in Egypt. In Exodus, God calls his people out of Egypt. In Leviticus, God gives moral, cultural, and ceremonial laws so that the Israelites can live good lives. God gives directions and regulations to celebrate festivals at certain times each year. Two years after leaving Egypt, the book of Numbers covers a span of 38 out of 40 years of wandering in the desert. God reminds the Israelites in the desert that there are consequences for rebelling against Him, complaining, and disbelieving Him. God taught them how to walk with Him, not against Him. In Deuteronomy, we read the final preparation before they entered the promised land. God prepared His people one last time before Joshua led them into the promised land when Moses was 120 years old.

Who Wrote the Pentateuch?

The first five books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch or the Torah which include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, typically dated to either 1440 BC or the 1200s BC. For about three thousand years from about 1440 BC to the 1700s AD, the author of the Pentateuch was commonly and widely accepted as Moses. Even though the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible refer to the Pentateuch as the Book of Moses, the Law of Moses, the Book of the Law of Moses, or the Book of the Law, Wellhausen followers reject a multitude of verses throughout the entire Bible. At the end of this blog, you will find a more comprehensive list of verses from the Bible that specifically refer to Moses as the author who wrote down the words of the Lord (Ex. 17:14, 24:4, 38:21, Nu. 33:2, Deut. 31:9, 24-26). Wellhausen followers blatantly reject Moses as the author. Wellhausen followers often point to the death of Moses (that is recorded at the end of Deuteronomy) and the verse that says, “Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3) as supporting evidence that Moses could not have been the author of the entire Pentateuch.

Even if a priest wrote Numbers 12:3 and Deuteronomy 34:5-12, it does not mean that Moses didn’t write the rest of the Pentateuch. Even if oral tradition and certain lists were carried down from Adam to Moses, it does not mean that Moses didn’t write Genesis. Even though some passages were written down by the direct command of Moses (Ex. 38:21), the main author who wrote most of the Pentateuch is Moses, a three thousand year traditional view which is also called Mosaic authorship. 

Is There an Error In the Text or In the Reader’s Understanding?

In the publishing field today, there is usually one main author of a book who wrote and compiled an entire manuscript. From what we know of publishing today, it is very much possible for one book to have more than one author, and it is very much possible for one book to have more than one editor as well as a compiler who formats and for example, a compiler who organizes the chapters of an anthology. When studying the origin and development of the Pentateuch, however, we need to keep in mind what kind of writing method was used back then, acknowledging the situation was completely different, and give credit to where credit is due.

At first glance, the Wellhausen problem seems to be lacking the ability to give Moses any credit at all as the main writer and author of the Pentateuch. Upon further investigation, Wellhausen and his followers carry a much deeper problem: they claim narrative and literary contradictions exist in the text when there really is no contradiction. Every time we closely examine a problem that Wellhausen, his predecessors, and his followers have or have had with a specific passage, we will discover the problem is not in any way a contradiction in the text. In every case, the problem always ends up being with the critic who was not understanding or does not understand the text in context. Next, let me review the nature of a real contradiction. 

What is the Law of Non Contradiction? 

The Law of Non Contradiction can also be called the Law of Contradiction. Either way, it is generally accepted as the same law, but more commonly referred to as the Law of Non Contradiction. Basically, it states that something cannot both “be” and “not be” at the same time in the same sense. In logic, we explain it this way:

“A” does not equal “non-A”

For example, a zebra either has fins or it does not have fins. A zebra either has black and white stripes or it does not have black and white stripes. A zebra either has wings or it does not have wings. When applying the Law of Non Contradiction to literature, a contradiction could also be something like saying Bob named his zebra “Ribbon” or Bob did not name his zebra “Ribbon.” Either Bob did name his zebra Ribbon or he didn’t, but it can’t be both in the same sense at the same time. It could be that Ribbon was the name at one time, and then Bob began to call Ribbon another name later on at a different time. It could also be that Bob regularly called his zebra Ribbon, but the kids regularly called that same zebra “Flash.” In that case, that particular zebra has two names. In addition, Bob could call his zebra Ribby as a nickname. Furthermore, we know Ribbon came from a certain zebra who came from a certain zebra who came from a certain zebra. That family line of Ribbon’s genealogy could go four or five generations back to a certain zebra named Band. Thus, Ribbon could also be called a Bandite zebra from the tribe of Band. Going even further back, the Bandite tribe could be from a tribe further back called the zebralite tribe. Thus, Ribbon could be both a Bandite and a Zebralite. This example serves to address more than one alleged contradiction from Wellhausen followers. Let us now begin examining a few alleged contradictions from two different Wellhausen followers. 

Responding To Wellhausen Problems

Below, I will closely examine a few problems from two Wellhausen followers. I will show why their literary problems are not contradictions.

  1. What is the name of Moses’s father-in-law?

In Exodus 2:16-20, the author says Reuel is the priest of Midian who had seven daughters. After Moses married one of Reuel’s daughters, Zipporah (2:21), the reader sees Moses’s father-in-law, the priest of Midian, is called Jethro (Exodus 3:1, 4:18, 18:1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12). Later, the author referred to Moses’s father-in-law’s name as Reuel (Numbers 10:29).  The text presents two names for Zipporah’s father, Reuel and Jethro. Naturally, the conclusion is that Zipporah’s father had at least two names. The conclusion is not that the text has a contradiction. The question should be, “Can Zipporah’s father have two names?” We would have to honestly answer yes, it is possible to have two names. The text tells us that he had at least two names as they were recorded. Furthermore, is it possible to be named after a deceased relative? Yes. We know that a few generations before, one of Esau’s sons was named Reuel (Gen. 36:4, 10, 13, 17). Oddly enough, Wellhausen followers typically apply their own rules. Here, their strange rule must be “a person can only have one name,” which is not what happens in reality. Thus, the Reuel/Jethro issue is not a contradiction. 

2. Was Adam created before the animals or after the animals? 

In Genesis 1, an order of creation is presented in six days from the view of someone on earth, ending with the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day. Genesis 1 clearly says the animals were made before Adam. In Genesis 2, the chapter begins with a short summary of creation before living things were on earth. It moves into details such as when Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:19). Wellhausen followers claim that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 because Genesis 1 has Adam being created after the animals whereas they think Genesis 2 has Adam being created before the animals. However, Genesis 2:19 NEVER claims that the animals were made after Adam. Thus, Wellhausen followers read Genesis 2 incorrectly. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 gives us the order of creation whereas Genesis 2 gives us details just after creation. 

3. Who sold Joseph to Potiphar? 

I was surprised to find out how a young Wellhausen scholar from Yale University made at least four mistakes when reading the very short story of Joseph being sold and taken to Egypt (Genesis 37:18-36). This Wellhausen scholar from Yale found what he called textual difficulties, but the problem remains with his lack of understanding, as we shall see below, not in the text.

The first mistake he made is only a slight misreading of verses 18 and 20. The text does not say that the brothers conspired to kill Joseph two different times. The text begins with a narrative where the brothers saw Joseph approaching. The brothers begin to conspire a plan to kill Joseph. The text moves next to providing a quote of the brothers speaking about the heinous plan to throw Joseph in a pit to die. Ultimately, they wanted to end Joseph’s talk of reigning over them. 

Second, Reuben’s plan (verses 21-22) to save his brother is not identical to the brothers’ evil plan to kill him (verses 18-20). The two plans differ. 

Third, Judah’s reason (verses 26-27) for not killing Joseph is different than Reuben’s reason (verse 22). Judah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites so that they would not be responsible for whatever happened to him in Egypt whereas Reuben did not want to hurt Joseph in order to keep him alive, and Reuben preferred to restore him to his father Jacob. Later, when the brothers reunited in Egypt, Joseph affirmed that his brothers indeed sold him to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 40:15, 45:5). 

Fourth, this young Wellhausen follower examined an alleged error at great length, an error that he called an “Ishmaelite/Medianite problem.” He claimed it is an irresolvable difference that occurs. He is confused where the text says the brothers sell Joseph to both the Midianites and Ishmaelites who sold Joseph to Potiphar (verse 25-36). As the text reads, the Midianites lifted Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. The main problem here is that the Wellhausen scholar wanted more details about the transaction than what the text actually gives. He isn’t satisfied with the information given in the story. He speculated as to what else may have happened. He speculated several different scenarios while rejecting what the text actually presents as sufficient for the purpose of the context. 

Another Wellhausen Follower Perfoms the “Astruc Cutting”

The most unusual act of all is when this young Wellhausen scholar from Yale performed an “Astruc cutting.” By an “Astruc cutting” I mean that the Wellhausen scholar took the passage of Genesis 37:18-36 and cut, verse by verse, one short Scriptural passage literally into two separate stories; a “Reuben story” and a “Judah story.” He assigned the Judah story to the J-document author and the Reuben story to the E-document author. He then went on to argue over whether the Judah story was the original or the Reuben story was the original. Like all other Wellhausen followers, he speculated on whether an editor possibly changed a few words here and there. He concluded that the Judah story must be the original, that the Reuben story must be the supplement. Like all other Wellhausen followers, he claimed that the E source conflicts with the J source. However, in reality, no such conflict exists. 

Evidence That Moses Is the Main Author of the Pentateuch

In Exodus, we learn that the LORD instructed Moses to “write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua…” (Exodus 17:14). We also learn that Moses wrote down the Book of the Covenant and read it to the assembly just after God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and a multitude of other laws (Ex. 20-23). Moses gave instructions to the Israelites for when they enter the promised land (without Moses). After they entered the promise land, the king of Israel must write for himself on a scroll a copy of “this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests” (Deut. 17:18). At the end of Moses’s life when he was one hundred and twenty years old, a conditional promise of prosperity from the Lord was given to the Israelites if they turn to the Lord with all their heart and soul, keeping the commands and decrees that are “written in this Book of the Law” (Deut. 30:9-10, 31:11). Moses instructed the Levitical priests to read the Book of the Law to Israel at the end of every seven years during the Festival of Tabernacles (Deut. 31:9-13). Just before he died, Moses commanded the Levites to keep the Book of the Law by the side of the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (Deut. 31:26). 

Many other books in the Bible affirm that Moses is the author of the Book of the Law; also called the Law of Moses or the Book of Moses or the Book of the Law of Moses (Josh. 1:7-8, 8:31, 1 Ki. 2:3, 2 Ki. 14:6, Ezra 6:18, Neh. 13:1, Dan. 9:11-13, Mal. 4:4, Luke 2:22, John 1:17, 1 Cor. 9:9, and Gal. 3:10). Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, the Book of Moses, teachers of the law, and experts of the law numerous times (Matt. 5:17, Mark 12:26, Luke 24:44, John 7:19, 23), saying that Moses even wrote about Jesus (John 5:46). The Quran also happens to affirm Moses as the author of the Torah. Other church Fathers throughout the centuries have affirmed Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. In 1265-1274 AD, Thomas Aquinas affirmed multiple times that Moses wrote Genesis and that Moses wrote Genesis chapter 1 in particular. 

In closing, we are long overdue in responding to the Wellhausen problem. Let us respond with truth and love. We are long overdue to encourage students to take a stand for truth in the college classroom by giving good reasons, in a kind and gentle way, why the Wellhausen Hypothesis fails.

 

SOURCES

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica: Part I Prima Pars From the Complete American Edition. New York: Benziger Brothers, 2012. Kindle.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1983.

Geisler, Norman L. The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2015.

Hill, Andrew E., and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991. 

MacRae, Allan A. DEDP Lectures on the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1994. 

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel.

5 Examples Why Agnostic Bart Ehrman Is Not a Gospel Expert

Is Bart Ehrman still claiming that the four New Testament gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) have contradictions? How can he still be saying that after many good explanations are available? How can he still be proclaiming his false teaching? Doesn’t he care to listen to the biblical experts who can explain how we can know that each one of his alleged contradictions is not a contradiction at all? Ehrman is an agnostic professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who presented at least three of his concerns in a video and went on to list about seven alleged contradictions. Unfortunately, the Christian he was talking to did not offer any significant explanation as to why Ehrman is wrong. The Christian went on to say, all that matters is that Jesus rose from the dead. What? Yes, the resurrection does matter, but so do false claims of contradictions. Working out every contradictory claim does not matter? Of course they matter. It takes time to present why the contradictory claim is not actually a contradiction. If a skeptic really wants to know if a contradictory claim is just an error on behalf of the reader or the critic, let the skeptic take the time to listen to several theologians and understand what the theologians are saying and why they are saying it. If a skeptic does not really want to find good reasons why particular contradictions do not exist in the biblical text, it might be because that skeptic has a difficult time admitting he is wrong. 

Ehrman, the agnostic professor and gospel skeptic, began with three concerns that he calls “problems with the gospels.” However, the problems remain with Ehrman’s lack of research and with his lack of understanding about the context, historical culture, and Mosaic law even though he is called a leading expert on textual criticism. If Ehrman continues to not accept the explanations for why his alleged contradictions are not really contradictions, then it might be because Ehrman just does not want to admit being in the wrong. Theologian Dr. Norm Geisler evaluated Bart Ehrman’s views and determined that Ehrman is not approaching the text as a neutral observer. 

“Bart Ehrman believes that people should approach the Bible without any presuppositions. They should not read the text through the eyes of faith but as neutral scientific observers. The difficulty with this claim is that even Ehrman does not approach the text as a neutral scientific observer but as one with presuppositions that are contrary to inerrancy. Thus it is no surprise that his conclusions oppose inerrancy.” – Dr. Norman Giesler, Defending Inerrancy, page 70. 

In this blog, I will give a short response to some of Ehrman’s claims, but a very much longer presentation can be made, perhaps in a book, showing how all of his contradictory claims are really not contradictions at all. 

  1. Gospel Dates – Ehrman claimed that the (publication) dates of the gospels are a problem. No, the publication dates and writing dates are not a problem. The early dating of the four gospels add credibility and reliability to the text so much so that we can be certain that God preserved the original texts. First, can Ehrman bring more value to the fact that the publication process and writing process was vastly different back then? He completely overlooks the entire writing process that took place from 30 AD-70 AD. While qualified writers at that time were able to use certain materials to write down specific texts, the serious nature of some Jewish priests hating Jesus, being jealous of Jesus, and calling for his death made the writing process even more protective. It is quite amazing that the four gospels survived at all under terrible authority figures. Ehrman cannot expect to apply a writing process and a publication process from 2018 to a time so long ago. I would expect that the original was significantly protected, and the task of reproducing the original was also significantly protected, both tasks which are completely ignored by Ehrman. Second, not only have the four gospels been dated to the lifetime of the author, biblical experts suggest that a fifth document most likely did exist, a document they often refer to as the Q document, which part of it may very well have been written during the life of Jesus, for example, soon after an event, sermon, or conversation occurred. Ehrman may be a leading expert in applying criticism to a text, but he is most definitely not a leading gospel expert by any means. He is not a biblical expert at all. Third, since there is no mention of the temple being destroyed in 70 AD, we have yet another clue as to the early dating of the gospels, placed before 70 AD, because at least one of the authors, if not all of the authors, would have included the major historical event in the New Testament texts. 
  2. Authors and Eyewitnesses – Ehrman claimed that there were no eye witnesses in the video? Did he misspeak? Of course the four gospels have eye witnesses directly to Jesus himself. Matthew was a tax collector who was a direct disciple of Jesus. Mark worked closely with Peter who was a direct disciple of Jesus. Luke traveled with Paul who had a remarkable encounter with the risen Lord Jesus Christ that forever changed his life. John was a direct disciple of Jesus. The authors of the four gospels were most certainly qualified to report the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For more information about early gospel dates and the reliability of the gospel writers, please read this short booklet, Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels by David Alan Black. 
  3. Oral Reports Passed OnFirst of all, while verbal storytelling most likely did occur in history, how can Ehrman be so sure that no one wrote down anything? He can’t. The Q document hypothesis shows that if the story was written down and reproduced, which it was, then it did not have any time to be changed. Once a story is written and reproduced, such as anything from Gilgamesh to any other historical document, it becomes a specific story. Once a written story is reproduced and begins to circulate, the original becomes obvious. Today, we have thousands of early dated copies of the same gospel story. The story did not change from year to year like Ehrman imagines. Second, The “telehone operator game” that second graders play does not apply to the publication process, and it does not apply to a monologue that is memorized and performed in front of an audience. Third, some people have remarkable memories and can recite word for word from scripts and monologues. I personally witnessed in my lifetime a speaker recite the entire book of Revelation from memory in front of a large audience. Even if sermons were given verbally in the past, when the same sermon is given over and over, it most certainly does not change at all. Rather, it becomes even more ingrained into the memory, in a very precise way, much like a stage performer where the speaker recites exact lines night after night without error. 
  4. Date When Jesus Died – Ehrman is confused about Mark’s testimony of the day when the Passover meal was eaten. Ehrman compares Mark’s testimony to John’s testimony of the day when the Passover meal was eaten. There are a few reasons why some people might have trouble identifying the day of the Passover meal that Jesus ate. Here is how we can be certain that Jesus ate the Passover meal on Thursday night. First of all, the Old Testament is very clear in several different books of the Pentateuch when the Israelites were supposed to eat the Passover meal (Lev. 23:4-8, Nu. 28:16-25). It says the Passover meal is supposed to be eaten on the first calendar Jewish month (Abib, also called Nisan), on the fourteenth day at twilight. The Passover dinner was supposed to be a one time dinner once a year. Second, the Jewish day would begin at twilight and extend into the night and throughout the next sunlight part of the day. Ehrman completely overlooks this important cultural difference between the culture back then to the culture today. So the fifteenth can also be called Passover day, but the Passover dinner was supposed to be eaten at twilight on the fourteenth day of Nisan (Abib). Jesus knew all these festival rules and regulations. He followed them by eating the Passover meal that we refer to as his Last Supper, but other corrupt priests might have planned on eating a Passover dinner on another night during the seven days that followed, which they were not supposed to do. In other words, corrupt priests may not have been following the rules for when to eat the Passover meal. Third, the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted seven days beginning with Passover (day) on the fourteenth/fifteenth. Some people may have referred to the seven day celebration by calling all seven days the Passover Week. In the gospels, we hear what the people were actually saying and doing, but the law of Moses describes what was actually supposed to happen (Ex. 23:14-15). Fourth, the “preparation day” most likely refers to Friday, the day before the Sabbath day. Every Friday was called the Jewish day of preparation in order to rest on the Sabbath (Saturday). On the fourteenth of the first month, however, the Israelites still had to prepare for the Passover meal. Thursday that year was also a kind of preparation day, preparing for the Passover dinner that night. According to the law of Moses, the Feast of Unleavened Bread required food preparations on all seven days of the celebration. If Ehrman would take the time to understand some of these things, he would not be concluding with contradictions. Further explained in this way: Thursday the fourteenth of Nisan is when Jesus had the Last Supper at its proper time when the Passover dinner was supposed to occur, according to the law of Moses. Jesus was arrested after dinner. The next day was Friday the fifteenth of Nisan when Jesus was crucified, but it was technically still called Passover Day. Friday happened to be the day of preparation for the Sabbath, but it was also the day of preparation for the first Day of Unleavened Bread when the sacred assembly celebrated. John 19:14 does not contradict any other gospel book. Some people began to call the seven day celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, “Passover Week.” Fifth, in the Pentateuch, some people asked if they could still participate in the Passover meal even if they had been around a dead person. According to the books of Moses (Nu. 9:7-16; 19:11-16), a person who touched or was around a dead person was considered to be unclean for seven days. After Moses asked the Lord about this, the Lord instructed those unclean people to celebrate the Passover dinner in the following month, the second month of the Jewish calendar, at twilight on the fourteenth. In other words, no… anyone who touched a dead person or anyone who was around the dead person cannot participate in the ceremony because they are unclean for seven days. This might be why some people backed away from Jesus when he was dying on the cross: they didn’t want to be counted as unclean for seven days. 
  5. Time Jesus Was Crucified – Ehrman is confused about Mark and John’s testimony of when Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:24-25 says Jesus was crucified in the third hour whereas John 19:14-16 says Jesus was crucified in about the sixth hour. First of all, it is important to understand how they told time back then. Ehrman completely overlooks this historical time telling system. The first hour was at sunrise. The third hour was mid-morning. The sixth hour was mid-day. The ninth hour was mid-afternoon. The twelfth hour was twilight/sunset. Second, try not using a modern clock for just one month and see if you can figure out when it is 10:30 AM and when it is 11 AM. The point is that it is difficult to distinguish between the end of the third hour and the beginning of the sixth hour. Third, the third hour might have included anything from 9 AM-11 AM, which is the accepted time frame of when Jesus was crucified. John was not wrong when he said it was “about” the sixth hour. He was estimating. Fourth, the two accounts actually give us more information that the time must have been closer to the beginning of the sixth hour, closer at the end of the third hour, and not during the beginning of the third hour. 

For the sake of respecting your time, I will stop here, but much more needs to be said in response to Ehrman’s false teaching. If you can respond to Ehrman’s false claims of contradictions, I would encourage you to blog about it or write a book. These false claims and many more from Ehrman can be shown how they are not contradictions. We need to show why these false claims are false so that Ehrman stops misleading college students and stops with his false teachings about the gospel accounts. I am convinced that Ehrman has not given his claims enough research nor has he been fair to listen to the reasons why we can know for sure that his claims are not true contradictions after all. We really can know the Bible is the Word of God, without error. 

Evangelism Before and After Apologetics

As a Christian, have you ever wondered what the differences are between an evangelist and an apologist? Have you ever wondered if all Christians are supposed to evangelize and explain what we believe and why we believe it? Have you ever wondered if the Holy Spirit is moving in apologetics? Below is a slide presentation on Evangelism Before and After Christian Apologetics. The purpose of this talk is to show the importance of Christian apologetics when sharing the Gospel message. Several people pointed out last night that they found this presentation very helpful. Please feel free to use these slides in your presentation and/or circulate certain slides that you find especially useful.

Evangelism & Apologtics Oct 16 Sibu PDF

Sibu Rajappan has responded to Richard Dawkins below. Here is Sibu’s response:

“How can Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, their cohorts and their children (Ganapati, Murukan, etc.) be incarnations? In the Puranas, these gods are interacting with each other, in some instances, fighting each other! This is not how a Hindu understands incarnations/avatars.”