http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2151
The Unity of the Bible
Most people who read the Bible in the 21st century rarely stop to think
about the 66 different books that compose the sacred Scriptures.
Because the 66 books fit together so perfectly, it is easy to consider
them to be one organic unit. The major themes and stories from Genesis,
the first book of the Bible, flow through the remaining books, and their
meanings and implications are developed throughout the entire biblical
library. Because of its seamless unity, few take the time to consider
that the 66 books of the Bible were written over a vast period of time
by a host of writers. The first five books of the Old Testament were
composed by Moses in about 1,450 B.C. (see
Lyons and Staff,
2003). Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, was written by
John, the apostle of Jesus and brother of James, between the years
60-100 A.D. (see Guthrie, 1970, pp. 949-961). Thus, the composition of the entire library of 66 books spanned some 1,600 years.
During those years, the books of the Bible were penned by approximately
40 men of varying backgrounds, cultures, and educational status. The
book of Amos was written by a herdsman from Tekoa (1:1). Many of the
Psalms were written by David, the shepherd-boy-turned-king. Ezra,
“skilled scribe in the Law of Moses,” penned the book that bears his
name (7:6). Nehemiah, the butler to King Artaxerxes, wrote the Old
Testament book named for him. King Solomon, renowned in the ancient
world for his immense wisdom, penned the majority of the Proverbs and
the entire books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. The apostle Paul, a
man highly educated at the feet of the Jewish teacher Gamaliel, wrote
13 of the 27 New Testament books. Luke, the first-century physician,
penned the gospel account that bears his name as well as the book of
Acts. Other New Testament writers included John, Peter, and Matthew, who
were fishermen with little formal education.
To say that the writers of the Bible were diverse would be an
understatement. Yet, though their educational and cultural backgrounds
varied extensively, and though many of them were separated by several
centuries, the 66 books that compose the Bible fit together perfectly.
To achieve such a feat by employing mere human ingenuity and wisdom
would be impossible. In fact, it would be impossible from a human
standpoint to gather the writings of 40 men from the
same culture, with the
same educational background, during the
same
time period, and get any thing close to the unity that is evident in
the Bible. The Bible’s unity is a piece of remarkable evidence that
proves its divine origin. The remainder of this article will be devoted
to showing several different aspects of the Bible’s unity. [NOTE:
One of the primary examples of the Bible’s unity revolves around the
Messianic prophecies contained in the Old Testament and their
fulfillment in the New Testament. The Messianic theme underlies the
entire text of the 66 books of the Bible, and has been explored
previously in
Reason & Revelation (cf.
Butt, 2006a).]
UNITY OF NARRATIVE MATERIAL
Many of the Bible writers used historic narrative to record the events
that were pertinent to their particular writings. Stories such as Noah’s
ark and the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, and Daniel being thrown to
the lions are recognized even among those with little Bible knowledge. A
systematic study of the 66 books of the Bible quickly reveals an
amazing unity between these books when they deal with such narratives.
Noah’s Flood
The historic narrative detailing the events of the global Flood of Noah
provides an excellent example of the Bible’s unity. In Genesis 6-9,
Moses recorded the events surrounding the greatest physical catastrophic
event in Earth history. In this story, God chose a man named Noah to
build a huge ark designed to carry at least two of every kind of animal,
eight humans (Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives—Genesis
7:13), and all necessary supplies. When Noah completed the construction
of this amazing vessel, Genesis records that God sent a flood to cover
the entire globe. The text says: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly
on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were
covered.... And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle
and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every
man” (Genesis 7:19-21). The worldwide Flood destroyed every creature
that had the breath of life except those saved in the ark. These events
were recorded by Moses in about 1,450 B.C.
As we scan the remaining books of the Bible, we find perfect harmony in
regard to the events surrounding Noah, his descendants, and the global
Flood. In 1 Chronicles, the text suggests that Noah’s three sons were
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, exactly as Genesis 7:13 records (1:1). The
prophet Isaiah also referred to Noah (chapter 54). In that text, the
prophet recorded the words God spoke to the Israelites of Isaiah’s day:
“For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the
waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I
would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you” (54:9). The oath to which
Isaiah referred is found in Genesis 9:11, where God said to Noah: “Thus I
establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off
by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to
destroy the earth.” Remarkably, Isaiah’s comment exhibits a perfect
understanding and awareness of God’s statement to Noah, yet the
prophet’s writings were separated from Moses’ writing of the Pentateuch
by more than 600 years. In addition, the prophet Ezekiel acknowledged
the story of Noah when he recorded God’s Word to the Israelites of his
day: “‘Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out My fury on
it in blood, and cut off from it man and beast, even though Noah,
Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘they would
deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by
their righteousness’” (14:19-20).
The books of the New Testament exhibit the same unity in regard to the
story of Noah as those of the Old. Matthew records the words of Jesus
regarding Noah: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming
of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that
Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took
them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (24:36-39).
Notice the points of agreement between Jesus’ statement and the Genesis
record. Jesus said that Noah was the man who built the ark. He also
said that a great flood destroyed “them all,” referring to everyone
outside the ark, exactly as the Genesis account described. In fact, even
though Jesus did not go into great detail, every aspect of His
statement agrees perfectly with the information recorded in the Old
Testament regarding the Flood. Luke recorded a similar statement by
Jesus in Luke 17:26-27, which is the parallel passage to Matthew
24:36-39. He exhibited additional unity with Genesis in that he recorded
that Noah’s son was Shem (Luke 3:36).
In Hebrews 11, the Bible writer stated: “By faith, Noah, being divinely
warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark
for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and
became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (11:7)
This passage in Hebrews concurs with various other passages that show
that Noah built an ark by which his family was saved. Additionally, the
apostle Peter twice mentioned Noah and the global Flood. He stated:
“...when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while
the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were
saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20). He also said: “[I]f God did not
spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered
them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not
spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher
of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly” (2
Peter 2:5). Notice several things about Peter’s comments regarding
Noah. First, he records that Noah was the man who built the ark. Then he
gives the exact number of people who were saved in that ark—eight. This
number corresponds perfectly with the statement in Genesis 7:13 in
which Moses said that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives
were saved. Furthermore, Peter states that the Flood destroyed the
“ungodly.” His description of the lifestyle of those destroyed in the
Flood perfectly matches the Genesis account which states: “Then the Lord
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis
6:5). Thus, from the first book of the Old Testament through 2 Peter,
one of the last books written in the New Testament, the Bible exhibits
complete and perfect unity in its dealing with Noah and the Flood. [NOTE:
It is not the purpose of this discussion to verify the veracity and
truth of the global Flood of Noah. That has been done successfully
elsewhere (see
Thompson,
1999). The sole purpose of this discussion is to show that the various
Bible writers agree with each other in their individual assessments and
statements regarding Noah and the Flood.]
Sodom and Gomorrah
The names of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are synonymous with
wickedness throughout the books of the Bible. Genesis explains that
Abraham and Lot had been traveling together after leaving the city of
Haran. Due to the multitude of cattle possessed by both men, their
respective herdsmen began to quarrel. Not wanting any root of strife to
spring up between them, Abraham asked Lot to choose what land he would
take, and Abraham suggested that he would separate from Lot by moving to
a different area. Lot looked to the plain of Jordan and saw that it was
well-watered, so he “pitched his tent even as far as Sodom” (Genesis
13:12). In the text immediately following Lot’s decision, the Bible
says: “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against
the Lord” (Genesis 13:13).
Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah were so sinful that the Lord decided
to destroy the cities by sending fire and brimstone down from heaven to
consume them. In Genesis 19, the text explains that Lot showed
hospitality to angels sent from God. Lot attempted to protect the angels
from being abused by the men of Sodom. In turn, the angels helped Lot
escape the city before God destroyed it. The text also records that
Lot’s wife disobeyed the commandment of God delivered by the angels when
she looked back at the city. As punishment for her disobedience, she
was turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).
Throughout the 66 books of the Bible, the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah is referenced as an example of God’s hatred of sin and His
righteous judgment. The city of Sodom is mentioned over 40 times. The
large majority of these instances have to do with the destruction
brought on the city due to the wickedness of its inhabitants. The
prophet Isaiah, in prophesying about the destruction of Babylon, noted
that the wicked city would “be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah”
(13:19). In Jeremiah’s prophecy against the nation of Edom, the prophet
said: “‘As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbors,’
says the Lord, ‘No one shall remain there, nor shall a son of man dwell
in it’” (Jeremiah 49:18). Jeremiah also stated: “The punishment of the
iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of
the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment, with no hand to help
her!” (Lamentations 4:6). Ezekiel mentioned that Sodom was proud and
committed abominations in the sight of the Lord, therefore the Lord took
the city away as He saw fit (16:50). Amos also referenced the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and associated it with fire and
burning (4:11).
New Testament books present the same gruesome picture of wickedness and
destruction as their Old Testament predecessors. In his gospel account,
Luke recorded the words of Jesus, saying: “Likewise as it was also in
the days of
Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that
Lot went out of
Sodom it rained
fire and
brimstone
from heaven and destroyed them all” (17:28-29, emp. added). Notice the
similarities between the statement made by Jesus and the Old Testament
narrative. First, Lot was associated with the city of Sodom. Second, the
city was destroyed on “the day” that Lot left, as the Genesis accounts
asserts. Third, the destruction was caused by fire and brimstone sent
from heaven (cf. Genesis 19:24). Additionally, in Luke 17:31-32, when
Jesus admonished His listeners not to look back when they fled
Jerusalem, He said: “Remember Lot’s wife.” He was obviously referring to
the fact that she was turned to a pillar of salt when she looked back
at Sodom.
The apostle Peter noted that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, turning
them to ashes, but saved righteous Lot who was oppressed by the filthy
conduct of the Sodomites (2 Peter 2:6-8; cf. Jude 7). Lot’s
righteousness is referenced by Peter and seen in the Genesis account
when he confronted the wicked men of Sodom who were bent on abusing the
visiting angels. Lot went out to the Sodomites and said: “Please, my
brethren, do not do so wickedly” (Genesis 19:7). Also, the apostle John
makes a passing reference to the wickedness of Sodom in Revelation 11:8.
Thus, from the first book of the Old Testament to the last book of the
New Testament, we have a completely unified picture of the destruction
of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah based on their wickedness.
In truth, the narratives of Noah’s Flood and the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah are only two of literally hundreds of examples that could
be produced to prove the Bible’s unity. Stories about Moses, Abraham,
Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Daniel, and Jonah
provide equally impressive illustrations of the Bible’s perfect
cohesion.
MORAL UNITY OF THE BIBLE
The books of the Bible contain various moral themes that are treated
consistently throughout the entire 66-book canon. A list of all such
themes would exhaust the reader’s patience, and would require a document
comparable in length to the Bible itself. A brief sample, however, of
these moral issues proves interesting and valuable to the overall
discussion of the Bible’s unity.
Lying
Throughout the Bible, the writers consistently present lying in a
negative light, describing it as sin. In John 8:44, Jesus is quoted as
saying that the devil “does not stand in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources,
for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Jesus’ statement about the
devil is corroborated by the book of Genesis, in which the devil
deceived Eve into thinking that she would escape death even if she
disobeyed God and ate from the forbidden tree (Genesis 3:1-5,13). The
apostle Paul also attested to Eve’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:14—“And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into
transgression.”
From the first chapters of Genesis, in which the devil’s first lie is
recorded, to the last book of Revelation, lying is condemned wholesale.
Moses scaled Mount Sinai and received the Ten Commandments from God, the
ninth of which was, “You shall not bear false witness against your
neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:20), or in other words, “you shall not lie
about your neighbor.” The psalmist wrote: “I hate and abhor lying, but I
love your law” (Psalm 119:163). Solomon, the wisest man alive during
his time, wrote: “These six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue...a
false witness who speaks lies” (Proverbs 6:16-19). The Old Testament
prophets wrote similar statements about lying: “Now go, write it before
them on a tablet...that this is a rebellious people, lying children,
children who will not hear the law of the Lord” (Isaiah 30:8-9).
The New Testament continues the thought of the Old Testament in its
denunciation of lying. On one occasion, a rich young man came to Jesus,
asking Him what was necessary to inherit eternal life. Jesus responded
by telling him to keep the commandments. The young man then asked Jesus
which commandments he needed to keep. Jesus said: “Do not commit
adultery, do not murder, do not steal,
do not bear false witness,
do not defraud, honor your father and mother” (Mark 10:19, emp. added).
In speaking of lying, it has already been noted that Jesus attributed
such activity to the devil, and condemned it as a practice that is
totally foreign to the character of God (John 8:44).
Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, recorded the story of Ananias and
Sapphira, in which God struck dead a man and his wife for lying (Acts
5:1-11). The apostle Paul, in his letter to the young preacher Titus,
noted that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Paul also wrote to the Christians
in Ephesus: “Therefore, putting away lying, each one speak truth with
his neighbor, for we are members of one another” (Ephesians 4:25). In
Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, John wrote: “But the
cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral,
sorcerers, idolaters, and
all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).
Without fail, every Bible writer who comments on the moral value of
lying condemns the practice. This fact, at first, may not seem
remarkable, since many assume that lying has been condemned by every
culture throughout history. But such is not the case. Under certain
circumstances, a host of philosophers and teachers of morality have
proposed that lying could be morally acceptable under certain
circumstances. The atheistic writer Dan Barker is on record as saying:
“We all know that it is sometimes necessary to tell a lie in order to
protect someone from harm” (1992, p. 345, emp. added). Barker then
illustrates with a scenario about a woman who is being hunted by her
abusive husband, and he concluded: “I would consider it a
moral act
to lie to the man.” Yet, it is not only atheistic thinkers like Barker
who have suggested that lying could be moral. The esteemed early church
writers Origen and John Chrysostom both believed and wrote that under
certain conditions, lying could be morally acceptable. And the Greek
philosopher Plato took a similar stance (see Slater, 2007).
But the Bible states that lying is always morally wrong, never morally
permissible. Throughout the 1,600 years of its production, the books of
the Bible consistently maintain the idea that lying is immoral. The
practice is never justified by any of the 40 different writers. Although
skeptics have alleged that the Bible condones lying under certain
circumstances, such allegations have been proven to be baseless and
false (see Thompson and Estabrook, 2004). Not a single Bible writer
swayed even a fraction in the unanimous condemnation of lying as a moral
evil.
Additional examples of the moral unity of the Bible could easily be
cited, including the Bible’s condemnation of adultery, the command to
honor one’s parents, the prohibition on stealing and a host of others. [NOTE:
The skeptic sometimes argues that since the Old Testament Law is no
longer in force and the New Testament regulations differ from the Old,
then God’s moral code changed as well. However, this allegation is
false. By altering the system of animal sacrifices and physical
ordinances in the Old Testament, God’s morality did not alter. For
example, if the rules of baseball changed so that a person gets four
strikes instead of three, that would not mean that the person could
cheat by using a weighted bat. Changes in regulations are not equivalent
to changes in moral judgments.]
DOCTRINAL UNITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Elder Qualifications
Literally thousands of instances of internal agreement between the New
Testament books could be listed. One such example involves the subtle
mention of Peter as an elder. In 1 Peter 5:1, the text says: “The elders
who are among you I exhort,
I who am a fellow elder
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the
glory that will be revealed” (emp. added). Of interest is the fact that,
to be an elder, a man must be the “husband of one wife,” as stated by
Paul in his letter to Titus (1:6). From reading Luke’s account of Jesus’
life, we discover that on one occasion Jesus visited Simon Peter’s
house, at which time He healed Peter’s “wife’s mother” of a high fever
(4:38). Thus, we know that Peter was married and would meet the
requirement to become an elder by being the husband of one wife. Of
further interest is the fact that the apostle Paul, although he provided
immense teaching and edification to the church, is never described as
holding the office of elder in the church. The context of 1 Corinthians
11 indicates that Paul remained unmarried so that he could focus his
attention on his ministry. Thus, Paul would not have been the husband of
one wife, and would not have been qualified to be an elder. When these
facts are synthesized, then, we can understand that subtle statements in
the books of 1 Peter, Titus, Luke, and 1 Corinthians intertwine
perfectly to give a consistent picture of the qualifications of an elder
as they related to the lives of Peter and Paul.
The Lord’s Supper
The examples and instructions pertaining to the Lord’s Supper provide
another clear instance of New Testament unity. Near the end of all four
gospel accounts, Jesus and the 12 apostles gathered in an upper room to
eat the Passover. During that feast, Jesus instituted what is commonly
known today as the Lord’s Supper. Luke’s account of the event states:
“And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them,
saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance
of Me.’ Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is
the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you’” (22:19-20). The
Lord’s Supper, also known as communion (1 Corinthians 10:16), has been
eaten in the assemblies of the church since its establishment.
Interestingly, the apostle Paul was not present with the Lord and the
other apostles that night. In fact, during that time, his name was still
Saul, and he was an unconverted Jewish leader. Yet, several years after
his conversion, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.
This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often
as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death
till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:23-26, emp. added).
Notice how similar Paul’s wording is to Jesus’ statements in Luke. Both
Luke and Paul acknowledge that this took place the night of Christ’s
betrayal. Paul then quotes Jesus verbatim in several lines, in complete
accord with the accounts recorded in the Gospel.
Where does Paul claim to have gotten the information regarding the
Lord’s Supper? He explained to the Corinthians that he had received it
“from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23). But if Paul was not in the upper
room the night of the betrayal, how would he have received such
information “from the Lord”? In the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to
the Galatians, he is forced to defend his apostleship. In that context,
he wrote to the Galatians: “But I make known to you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither
received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the
revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). Thus, Paul’s statement
that he had received the information concerning the Lord’s Supper from
Jesus would be consistent with the direct communication with Christ he
claims to have had when writing to the Galatians. [NOTE:
I am not, here, trying to defend Paul’s claim of inspiration and direct
revelation from Christ. The external evidences for the Bible’s
inspiration have been discussed previously in
Reason & Revelation (cf.
Butt, 2004a;
Butt, 2004b;
Butt, 2006b;
Butt,
2006c). Paul’s statements in this connection are being used solely to
show the unity and internal consistency in the New Testament writings.]
In addition to the remarkable consistency and similarity of Paul’s
statements in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the Lord’s Supper and those in
the gospel accounts, other information regarding the communion confirms
the unity of the New Testament documents. The gospel accounts make it
clear that Jesus rose “on the first day of the week” (cf. John 20:1;
Luke 24:1; Mark 16:2; Matthew 28:1). In 1 Corinthians 11, in the context
of the Lord’s Supper, Paul explains that the Corinthians were “coming
together” to take the Lord’s Supper. His statements indicate that the
church at Corinth was eating the Lord’s Supper during their worship
assembly. Five chapters later, when Paul gave instructions for the
monetary collection of the church, he wrote: “On the first day of the
week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may
prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:2).
This verse indicates that the Corinthian church met on the first day of
the week, at which time they would have eaten the Lord’s Supper and
taken up their monetary contribution.
In Acts 20:7, the text states: “Now on the first day of the week, when
the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the
next day, spoke to them....” The phrase “to break bread” is used here to
refer to the Lord’s Supper (see Lyons,
2005b).
Thus, the Bible provides an example of the church taking the Lord’s
Supper on the first day of the week and the Corinthian church meeting on
the first day of the week to take up their collection and eat the
Lord’s Supper. The first day of the week was the New Testament day of
meeting based on the historical fact that Jesus rose on that day. Such
internal consistency between Luke, Acts, and 1 Corinthians testifies to
the New Testament’s inspiration.
Baptism
Throughout the New Testament, various Bible writers address the theme
of baptism with remarkable consistency. Such consistency is even more
impressive in light of the varied and contradictory opinions held by
many today in the religious world about the subject.
After Jesus’ resurrection, just before His ascension, He called His
disciples together and issued to them what is often called the Great
Commission. He said: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and
on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew
28:18-20). From His instructions, it is clear that baptism plays a key
role in the conversion of the lost. In fact, in Mark’s account of the
Gospel, he quotes Jesus as saying: “Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be
saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).
Mark’s account of Jesus’ statement clarifies the role of baptism,
showing that it is an essential step in the salvation process.
The book of Acts records the history of the disciples fulfilling the
Great Commission given to them by Christ. In Acts 2, we have the first
recorded gospel sermon preached by Peter to the Jews in Jerusalem. In
his powerful sermon, Peter explained to the Jews that they had crucified
Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Many of the hearers believed Peter
and asked what they needed to do. Peter responded by saying: “Repent,
and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Notice that Peter connected baptism
with the remission of sins, completely consistent with Jesus’ statement
in Mark requiring baptism for salvation. Throughout the book of Acts,
water baptism is presented as a necessary step in the conversion of the
lost to Christ (Acts 8:37-38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15,31-33; 19:5). In fact,
when the apostle Paul recounted his conversion, he quoted Ananias’
statement to him as follows: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be
baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”
(Acts 22:16). Here, again, baptism is connected with the washing away or
forgiveness of sins.
In the epistles, baptism is consistently presented in a way that
conforms perfectly to the gospel accounts and Acts. In his letter to the
Romans, Paul stated:
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him
through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection (Romans
6:3-5).
In these verses, Paul states that a person is baptized into Christ (cf.
Galatians 3:27). In 2 Timothy 2:10, Paul says that salvation is in
Christ. Thus, to obtain the salvation that is in Christ one must be
baptized into Christ. Also note that Paul says that a person is baptized
into the death of Christ (cf. Colossians 2:12). In Ephesians 1:7, Paul
stated that the blood of Christ is the spiritual force that forgives a
person’s sins. That blood was shed at His death. Thus, when a person is
baptized into Christ’s death, he or she contacts the blood of Christ,
linking baptism with the forgiveness of sins exactly as is presented in
Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and as is implied in Mark 16:15-16. The apostle
Peter also spoke on baptism in a way that coincides flawlessly with
Paul, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. Peter said: “There is also an antitype
which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Notice that Peter connects
baptism to salvation as the other writers, dependent upon the
resurrection of Christ, exactly as Paul did. The New Testament’s
presentation of baptism provides an outstanding illustration of the
unity of the New Testament books. [NOTE: Skeptics
often have accused the Bible of being contradictory on certain points
regarding the doctrine of baptism. For a refutation of such an idea see
Lyons, 2005a, pp. 193-198.]
OBJECTIONS
The Writers Copied Each Other
The skeptic may attempt to suggest that much of the agreement and unity
found in the Bible is unremarkable because the writers could have
copied the information from books that were written prior to their own
writings. Let us critically consider such an objection. First, the mere
objection assumes the perfect unity of the 66 books of the Bible. Why
would a skeptic be forced to suggest that the various writers copied
each other if their unity and agreement could be disputed? The fact that
the skeptic must resort to this charge is evidence of the reality of
the Bible’s unity.
Second, this allegation assumes that the various Old Testament prophets
and New Testament writers had access to perfectly preserved texts of
the various books they were “copying.” Interestingly, skeptics often
deny the accurate and complete transmission of the text. If a skeptic
demands that the unity is a result of copying, he will be forced to
admit the astonishing preservation of the text of the Bible. And, while
the Christian gladly acknowledges that such preservation did occur, and
that some material would naturally be based on previous texts, it is not
the case that the various writers would have had ready access to all
the texts before they wrote.
Furthermore, non-canonical writers who had many of the same texts
preserved for them wrote material that contradicted the canonical
Scriptures. How is it that not a single book in the 66-book canon
contains a single legitimate contradiction? Even if every writer had a
copy of every other book in front of him before he wrote, such unity
would be impossible from a human standpoint. In truth, individuals often
contradict their own writings due to a slip of the mind or a change in
their previous thinking. Yet no such slips, changes, or other aberrant
occurrences can be found in the 66-book library of the Bible.
The Bible Contains Contradictions
Skeptics often suggest that the unity of the Bible is only superficial.
They say that even though it might look like it is unified in its
themes, on closer inspection it contains hundreds of discrepancies and
contradictions. Dennis McKinsey, the author of
The Skeptics Annotated Bible, stated:
Every analyst of the Bible should realize that the Book is a veritable
miasma of contradictions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, poor science,
bad math, inaccurate geography, immoralities, degenerate heroes, false
prophecies, boring repetitions, childish superstitions, silly miracles,
and dry-as-dust discourse. But contradictions remain the most
obvious, the most potent, the most easily proven, and the most common
problem to plague the Book (1995, p. 71, emp. added).
Yet, McKinsey and others have no legitimate basis to support the
accusation that the Bible contradicts itself. Christian apologist Eric
Lyons has done extensive work on the subject of alleged Bible
contradictions, in which he has successfully refuted the idea that the
various books of the Bible contradict each other. He has written two
volumes of
The Anvil Rings that provide over 500 pages of material refuting specific accusations made by the skeptic (2003;
2005a).
In fact, for the last 2,000 years, a long line of competent Christian
apologists have thoroughly and effectively refuted the charges of
alleged biblical discrepancies (e.g., Gaussen, 1850; Haley, 1876; et
al.). Even a cursory look at such research forces the honest student to
conclude that
if the Bible does, in fact, contain a genuine contradiction of some kind, it
has not yet been found.
When all the facts are considered, each alleged biblical contradiction
has been shown to be something other than a legitimate contradiction.
That is a powerful statement, considering the fact that no book in the
world has been examined more closely or scrutinized more carefully.
After the Bible has been put under the high-powered microscope of
hostile criticism, and dissected by the razor-sharp scalpel of supposed
contradictions, it rises from the surgery with no scratches or scars,
none the worse for wear.
CONCLUSION
No series of books in human history has maintained the supernatural
internal consistency that is present within the pages of the Bible. From
the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelation, approximately
40 men penned individual treatises that combine to form the
best-selling, most widely distributed, perfectly unified, flawlessly
written book ever produced. Mere human genius could never have
accomplished such an extraordinary feat. As the psalmist aptly spoke of
God’s Word 3,000 years ago: “The entirety of Your word is truth, and
every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever” (Psalm 119:160).
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992),
Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Butt, Kyle (2004a),
“Archaeology and the Old Testament,” Reason & Revelation, 24[3]:17-23.
Butt, Kyle (2004b),
“Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, 24[10]:89-95.
Butt, Kyle (2006a),
“The Predicted Messiah,” Reason & Revelation, 26[1]:1-7.
Butt, Kyle (2006b),
“Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible,” Reason & Revelation, 26[12]:89-95.
Butt, Kyle (2006c),
“Tyre in Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 24[10]:73-79.
Gaussen, L. (1850),
Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (London: Johnstone & Hunter).
Guthrie, Donald (1970),
New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press), third edition.
Haley, John (1876),
An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Lyons, Eric (2003),
The Anvil Rings: Volume 1 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2005a),
The Anvil Rings: Volume 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2005b), “‘Breaking Bread’ on the ‘First Day’ of the Week” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/343.
Lyons, Eric and A.P. Staff (2003),
“Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch,” Reason & Revelation, 23[1]:1-7.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995),
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Slater, T. (2007), “Lying,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm.
Thompson, Bert (1999),
The Global Flood of Noah (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Thompson, Bert and Sam Estabrook (2004), “Does the Story of Rahab Mean that God Condones Lying?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/535.
As
Moses’ life drew to a close, God issued to the nation of Israel the
keys to national health, i.e., the specific principles necessary to
sustaining national existence. The book of Deuteronomy records these
great admonitions that serve as extremely relevant advice for America.
One insight pertains to the level of wealth and prosperity that
characterizes the lifestyle of the average American. Indeed, this
country has achieved a greater level of prosperity for a greater number
of its citizens than any nation in human history. America’s standard of
living is the envy of the civilized world. Even the poorest American
lives far better than much of the world’s population.