TWO ADDITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT CONTRADICTIONS

I am again on the lookout for some new objections to the Bible to surface on the internet and am never disappointed in my search, as far-fetched as some of these objections are. Here are two that I haven't run across before.

Was John the Baptist the Elijah to come? Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13 says yes while John 1:19-21 says no.

Here is how several commentators resolve this apparent problem:

Borchert says, “One problem...that troubles some readers of the Bible arises when they compare the Baptizer's rejection of being Elijah here with what seems to be the opposite in Mark and Matthew. But one has to understand the narrative purpose in each of the Gospels before one draws hasty conclusions. The concern of the other Gospels is to indicate that prophecy has been fulfilled and that the expected forerunner of the Messiah had come..Accordingly, God's timetable for Jesus was right on schedule, and readers could have complete confidence in God...In this Gospel [i.e. John's] the purpose is a little different. The political calculators were at work, and John the Baptist would have nothing to do with their ambitions. He would not be moved by the forces that controlled them...Instead, this witness had been sent...by God (1:6). The point should be obvious. To understand the focus of each Gospel is therefore crucial to understanding the use of statements in each Gospel.”

Morris: “His [John the Baptist's] denial puzzles many, for Jesus explicitly asserted that John was 'Elijah, that is to come' (Matt. 11:14). This is one of the passages which seem to show that this Gospel was written in independence of the Synoptics. It is not in contradiction of them, but had John had their statement before him he would scarcely have left his own account in just this form. The solution to the difficulty is probably that there was a sense in which John was Elijah and a sense in which he was not.”

For example, John was not the literal reincarnation of Elijah (or at least he was not aware that he was) in the sense his questioners meant. However, he certainly filled the expected role of the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah.

Moule: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The Synoptics represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should the two not both be correct?”

Raymond Brown: “John the Baptist's repudiation of the role of Elijah in John does present a different picture from that of Mark and Matthew...How do we solve such diverse views about the relationship of John the Baptist in the Elijah expectation?” Brown first rejects the early view of Gregory the Great, i.e. “in person John the Baptist was not Elijah (John), but he exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way (Mark, Matthew).” Instead he prefers J.A.T. Robinson's thesis that John's account is more historically accurate (John himself did not feel he was Elijah) while the later accounts of Matthew and Mark reflect the view of early Christian theology. Of course, all that depends on the rarely adopted and highly controversial view that John's Gospel was the first to be written.

I would personally go with the ideas of Moule, Morris, and Borchert on this issue.

The Book of Hebrews (9:27) says we die and face judgment while John in Revelation states that there is a gate that never closes. (Rev. 21:25)

The author of this objection doesn't really spell out the exact nature of the supposed contradiction here. But reading between the lines, it appears that his argument goes something like this: “Hebrews states that after we die it will be too late to repent and turn toward God since the judgment will immediately follow. However, Revelation says that the gate leading into heaven (or the heavenly Jerusalem) is always open to those who wish to enter.”

If that is indeed the gist of this “contradiction,” then there are several things we can say in regard to these two verses:

First, I agree the Hebrews passage strongly indicates that individual judgment will be based on our earthly life only and not any subsequent repentance on our part after death. And this holds whether that judgment occurs immediately after death or some time afterward.

As Ellingworth says, “Meta...touto leaves entirely open the question of whether or not the judgment immediately follows death.”

And, Stibbs writes, “For all men live and die once, and according to the deeds done in that one lifetime their eternal judgment is settled (v. 27; cf. Rev. 20:12,13).”

Similarly, Shogren states, “For after we depart from the world, we can no longer make confession nor any longer repent.”

If those points are agreed upon, then it only remains to look at Revelation 21:25 in its overall context to see if the same or different teaching appears there.

Although one certainly cannot always interpret the Book of Revelation as presenting events in a strictly chronological order, it is universally agreed that the last three chapters all occur as the culmination of earthly history as we know it and describe events of the very final eschatological days. And so we are presented with the following facts:

    Revelation 20:12 – First we have a picture of the last judgment talked about in Hebrews 9:27.

    Revelation 20:15 – As a result of that judgment, the unsaved are thrown into the lake of fire, where they will live out an eternity separated from God.

    Revelation 21:8 confirms that these damned will be kept in that lake of fire, also called the second death.

    Revelation 21:25 – This key verse in question next describes the gates into the heavenly city as always open. This is in stark contrast to the earthly cities of biblical times, whose gates were guarded during the daytime and closed shut at night to protect the city from enemies. Such precautions are obviously no longer needed at all since God's enemies have already been disposed of in the lake of fire.

    Revelation 21:27 – And in case anyone has missed the point made earlier, the author reiterates that those whose names were not in the Lamb's book of life will not be entering the city. That is obvious since they are firmly bound in the lake of fire. 

Thus, we have a perfectly consistent picture painted first briefly in Hebrews and then in more detail in Revelation.