CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT

The following pairs of conflicting Scripture passages were proposed by Aaron Wilson as a starting point for discussion. The first thing to note is that in comparing verses from the two testaments, one must always keep in mind that the early Jews were only given partial and veiled revelations from God. One must always look for the ways in which the veil is lifted during the New Testament dispensation. Nevertheless, there are some specific comments one can make concerning these paired passages.

“Everything is futile.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

Everything is meaningful – “Whatever you do, do all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31)

Understanding the book of Ecclesiastes presents its own special challenges. The most confusing aspect is that there appear to be two completely different voices talking to us. Some therefore feel that the bulk of the book gives us the cynical voice of Qoheleth (“the Teacher”) who is disillusioned concerning the whole meaning of existence. And then periodically, the editor steps in to give a more godly perspective on things.

But one does not have to hold to a two-voice theory in order to say that the Teacher first describes what life “under the sun” amounts to if the only thing that exists is what we can actually see. However, he then reminds us that there is much more to reality than that. In the case of Ecclesiastes 1:2, one needs to go all the way down to 2:24-26 to get this proper perspective. This passage contains the advice: “There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their God. This also is from God's hand, for without Him who can eat or have enjoyment.”

One can easily imagine how perfectly I Corinthians 10:31 would fit in directly after this verse as an apt conclusion since the whole passage reads, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God.”

“Test me in this way.” (Malachi 3:10)

“Do not test the Lord your God.” (Luke 4:12)

In its context, Malachi 3:10 follows a rebuke not as much directed to individuals as to the nation of Israel as a whole. And it refers to one of the ways in which the people had been robbing God of what was his due. But he will bless the nation if they repent.

Luke 4:12 is part of Jesus' temptation by Satan in the wilderness. And the situation, at least superficially, seems the same in that both passages concern holding God to his promise. In the Malachi passage it is God himself who challenges Israel to return to him in their behavior and see if he won't bless them. In the NT case, Satan takes the passage Psalm 91:11-12 in which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that those who are close to God will suffer no earthly disasters for he will protect them.

Kidner says, “What it does assure us is that nothing can touch God's servant but by God's leave.” However, “Most of these dangers are of a kind which strike unseen...” Thus, they do not include those we purposely bring about ourselves,” such as Satan proposed.

We can also consider the Hebrew word translated “test” in this passage. It is bachan and it can mean either “prove” or “tempt.” Interestingly, this same word appears twice in Malachi 3. In v. 10, God tells the people to test him while in v. 15, those who tempt God are condemned.

Brensinger says, “Testing Yahweh, apart from those rare instances where he invites such testing as a means of demonstrating his faithfulness to a disbelieving audience (Mal 3:10), has no place in the covenant community.”

Moving to the NT, the key Greek word is (ek)peirazo, which can mean either tempt or test, just as its Hebrew equivalent. One main difference between tempting and testing lies in the sort of result one is hoping for. In temptation, the intent is usually to cause one to fail, while testing is a bit more neutral activity in which one just wants to see what will happen. But even if that is the meaning in Luke 4:12, to test God or Jesus (see Luke 10:25; I Corinthians 10:9; Matthew 22:18,35; Acts 15:10, and James 1:13) is highly inappropriate since it means that we expect there is a chance that he will fail.

“He will be called Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

“Don't assume that I come to bring peace.” (Matthew 10:34)

There is certainly no disputing the fact that the Messiah of the OT and Jesus in the NT were firmly associated with the concept of a peace-bringer. Hendricksen cites sixteen Bible passages that make that point. But the whole idea of peace is a complex one, and I don't have time or space to write a book on the subject, even if I could. So I will just confine myself with the few pertinent citations and ideas below.

Concerning the messianic title in Isaiah 9:6, Kidner says, “Peace in Hebrew implies prosperity as well as tranquility.”Wolf explains, “'Prince of Peace' means that Christ will be a 'peaceful prince,' not a tyrant. His rule will bring a cessation of wars and a wholeness, or health, to society.” Blenkinsopp agrees with this assessment and goes a little further: “The term salom signifies more than the absence of hostilities, though that is its essential precondition, for it is also associated with public order founded on justice and righteousness.” But it is Oswalt who strikes at the heart of the matter when he states, “Somehow through him [the Messiah] will come the reconciliation between God and man that will then make possible reconciliation between man and man.”

Turning next to Matthew 10:34, Hendricksen says, “the natural reaction to the surprising statement would be: 'How can this saying be true?'” His answer is “Here 'on earth,' that is during the present dispensation, the followers of Christ must expect 'the sword.' This word is here used to symbolize the very opposite of peace; hence, 'division' (Luke 12:51), resulting in persecution.”

But how can one have peace on earth in the midst of persecution? The best solution to the quandary is to consider a third passage, John 14:27a, where Jesus states, “Peace I leave you, and give you my peace. I do not give you as the world gives.”

Morris comments on this statement that “the peace of which He speaks is not dependent on any outward circumstances, as any peace the world can give must necessarily be...It is worth noting that in the Bible 'peace' is given a wider and deeper meaning than in other Greek writings. For the Greek (and us) peace was essentially negative, the absence of war. But for the Hebrews it meant positive blessing, especially a right relationship with God...The word here has its fullest content.”