 Hello and welcome and in this video I'm going to be starting a series on how to rightly divide the word of truth and I'm just going to be working on a small handful of videos to go through this. And the first topic that I want to deal with is how to resolve contradictions in the Bible. So when it seems like the Bible's saying one thing and then it seems like the Bible's saying something else, it's how you wrestle those two things and bring those together. Now just to side note this video is generally intended for people that are already Christian. It's not intended to be an apologetic series for people that reject the Bible. That's not really the purpose of this series. So we're going to look at how to understand the Bible, what are different methods that you can use to help you resolve these contradictions so that the Bible starts to actually make sense. Now I apologise if you can hear a bit of background noise. I think the washing machine's going on in the background but you should be calming very soon. And to introduce this series we need to establish what is dividing the word of truth. What exactly does that mean? And this comes from 2 Timothy 2 15. It says study to show yourself approved on to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, which you can interpret as how you handle or manage your interpretation of the Bible. And why do we need to do this? Why do we need to divide the word of truth? Well let's look at an example. So in Galatians 2 16 it says knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. So Galatians is one of a few key verses in the Bible that say we're justified by faith, we're not justified by works, with salvation obviously being the context there. But then you have this passage in James chapter 2 and it says in verse 24 particularly it says you see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only. And when you read the entirety of the chapter that the general theme there is that man needs to put his faith and his works together and to justify. So these are seemingly diametric statements that have obviously caused much division amongst Christians about how works tie in or rather don't with our salvation. And this is why we need to be able to divide the word of truth so that we can understand what the truth really is because either it's by works and faith or it's not by works and faith. Obviously it can only be one of the two ones. So it's understanding why the Bible says both of those things, why James writes the way that he does in white Paul to the Galatians writes the way that he does. And so in other words what we need to understand is why is Paul saying this while James is saying that what's going on there. So that's obviously one very particular example. There's plenty of other examples in the Bible where we need to understand about dividing the word of truth. And so that's sort of what the series will look into. We'll focus on these seeming contradictions in the first video. So to make it as simple as I can, I'm going to divide each video into a series of rules. And so the first rule that I want to give you for how to resolve contradictions in the Bible is to go with the majority of scriptures and then reexamine what you believe about the minority. So I'm not saying to discard minority passages. I'm not suggesting that you you know pretend they don't exist. I'm saying that you should reinterpret those minority passages around what we understand from the majority. So going with the James and Galatians example. So in James we're reading in chapter 2 that by works are managed justified and not by faith only. So we are justified by works. But that's one little passage out of the multitude of other parts of the Bible where it's by faith not of works. So all of these writings like Romans 3 20 by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. And then we have Romans 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Deeds just being a synonym for works. The Galatians we read in the previous slide. And then Galatians 3 11 no man is justified by the law. And you have Galatians 5 4. Whosoever of you are justified by the law you are fallen from grace. And so we have all of these passages that say we're not justified by works. So let's reinterpret what we believe about James 2 saying that we are justified by works. And so James 2 is obviously a complicated passage to understand particularly if you don't know the Bible very well. We absolutely need to be able to explain and interpret it. We can't just pretend that it doesn't exist or dismiss it as less important. But if you read the entirety of the New Testament it's pretty overwhelmingly clear that we are justified by faith which is in opposition to works. And in addition to the verses quoted which mentioned justification specifically there are dozens of other verses that we could turn to about how works are not required for salvation. So you know the fact that Jesus frequently said whosoever believeth in me throughout John's Gospel which is intentionally written to tell you how to have eternal life. We see quotes from the Old Testament like how it said David is blessed is the man onto whom God imputes righteousness without works which is then quoted by Paul in Romans to re-emphasize it. You know Ephesians states that we're saved by grace through faith and not of works specifically because it is the gift of God and so being a gift it cannot be justified by working for it. And so go with the overwhelming indisputable evidence that works and not a part of this salvation onto eternal life and then let's re-examine what we believe about James 2 and this will become apparent as the video and the series progresses. And this leads me on to rule number two. Go with clear statements and passages rather than unclear ones particularly when it's in relation to the subject matter if possible. So I'll give you an example of this in practice. So for an example on this we have if you're familiar with Genesis 6 it talks about the sons of God. So I've just shown two of the verses on there and it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose. And again if you're familiar with Genesis 6 you'll remember that there was giants in the earth and all that kind of thing and then God had to bring the flood in. So there are two primary schools of thought that I'm aware of anyway on who the sons of God are in this passage. So the first school of thought which seems to be the more common one is that they were fallen angels or demons who somehow were able to breed with the daughters of men. So fallen angels were able to breed with mankind essentially and their offspring were giants and because of the wickedness of the earth that provoked God to flood the earth and to rid it of these abominations. The second school of thought is that they were the sons of Seth, a synonym for believers who married non-believers, daughters of men and this corrupted the morals of the sons of God leading up to the violence that that provoked God to flood the earth. And so given that these two schools of thought what are the clearest passages that can help us interpret this issue and which one of those is right. So given what the fallen angels school of thought believes these are their proof text or at least some of them anyway. So in Job 1.6 it says now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them and Job 2.1 it reads very similar also and Job 38 says where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth this is this is God speaking declare if you have understanding who laid the measures thereof if you know or who I stretch the line upon it where upon all the foundations there or fastened or who laid the cornerstone thereof when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy. And then the sons of Seth proof text proof text if you like that they're not fallen angels they're actually the sons of Seth or you might say believers these are their proof text. So in Hebrews 1 particularly in verse 5 it says for unto which of the angels said he which is God at any time you are my son this day have I begotten you and again I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son. And then it goes on to say in verse 14 are they the angels not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. And in John 1.12 it says but as many as received him to them gave he the power to become the sons of God even to them that believe and so either the sons of God refers to fallen angels or it refers to believers in that passage he can't refer to both that would that would be a contradiction in terms of what's happening in that story and obviously both sides of the argument would have their own proof texts to justify this and so we have a contradiction here which one is the Bible saying. So just as an initial comparison before we get to specifics neither neither of these two verses on this side specifically prove that the sons of God actually does refer to angels you can only really make that assumption here but you're making that without complete information because it doesn't absolutely prove that that's what they are whereas on this side for these verses we have proof text that specifically defines the sons of God as those who believe it's defined right there for you and we also have a passage that casts doubt on this entire notion that angels can be called a son of God and actually it says their ministers for those that are heirs of salvation which is actually those that believe because the Bible says that we are heirs according to the promise and sons of God because we believe and so I haven't obviously put all of the proof text on there but we have more clear passages to say that the sons of God are believers the angels can't be called sons of God or haven't ever been called sons of God we don't really have strong proof text the angels absolutely are the sons of God especially not in relation to Genesis 6 particularly. Now getting into the specifics in Job 1 6 when it says that the sons of God presented themselves before the Lord and Satan was among them just because Satan was among the sons of God does not mean that they were angels because there are other proof texts in the Bible that Satan can stand among or alongside believers so for example Zechariah 3 1 it says and he showed me Joshua the High Priest standing before the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right side to resist him so Satan can be standing amongst men there there's no particular reason that Satan can only stand among angels and we have other verses in the Bible that talk about him you know roaming the earth like a roaring lion he even says in Job that walking up and down in the earth so scripture seems to be more clear that Satan's actually on the earth rather than somewhere heavenly and then in Job 38 when it talks about where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth so what what the passage seems to be implying here is that God is saying to Job you weren't there when I created the earth and you can stretch that out to mean man kind generally and so that's why they'll interpret the sons of God shouted for joy at this point because human beings were not around yet so it must refer to angels because who else was there at the foundation of the earth but Job 38 is actually part of the poetry section of the book and we'll look a bit more about that in later videos in this series about different types of books in the Bible and although it does indeed make reference to the laying of the foundations of the earth when man was not around to see it we don't actually know for sure that angels were either and since this is poetry it shouldn't really be used as a proof text at the expense of more clear scriptures such as Hebrews 1 which is making more doctrinal clear statements and so go with the clear statements don't go with that that is less clear for our second example let's revisit James versus Romans the the contradiction that we brought up earlier so James appears to say that faith cannot save if it does not have works so for example James 214 what does it profit my brethren though a man says he has faith and have not works can faith save him Paul appears to say that faith will save even if there are no works so for example Romans 4 5 but to him that works not but believes on him that justifies the ungodly his faith is countered for righteousness so on the one hand we've got James saying you know faith cannot save if it does not have works on the other hand Paul says no faith will save even without work so which one do we go with well the first thing that I want to point out here is that James is asking a hypothetical yes no question it's a question whereas Paul is making an absolute declarative statement Paul's not asking a question in Romans 4 5 James is asking a question in 214 so it would make more sense to go with the clear statement rather than the question more over although James does ask a closed question he does use quite a drawn-out answer and while it does cast doubt on the faith of a man who has no works he does not explicitly say that a man if a man has no works he won't be righteous before God okay now yes he says faith without works is dead but he does not say faith without works can't save in the day of judgment so don't put words in James's mouth that James hasn't actually said more over if you actually look at the context of what James and Paul are talking about in those two passages and this will lead us on to the next rule James is talking about working out your faith for the benefit of your brethren so not to show not to exercise your faith with respect of persons for the rich over the poor if you see a brother destitute don't just say departing peace but do something useful to help whereas Romans is very specifically talking about righteousness being justified in right standing before God but that's not really the theme of what James is talking about so this is going to lead us on to the next rule so rule number three and this is absolutely crucial is look carefully at the context or the subject matter of the opposing passages and if you can look for what I would call a key and and that is a passage that can help you unlock the puzzle to resolve the contradiction so I'm going to show you how to check the context first of all and to look for this key what is what is the key and the key helps the whole thing to make much more sense in fact this is probably one of the most important rules throughout this entire series is check the context and look for a key so we were just checking James 2 and Romans 4 let's have a further look into this so obviously I've not listed all the verses because there would be too many to keep the video short and sweet as I can but I've just plucked out some important verses for the context so in James chapter 2 verse 1 said my brethren have not faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons so don't have faith with respect of persons and that's you know favoring rich over poor for example it then goes on to say in verse 14 what does it profit okay if a man says he has faith but not works confess even what does it profit and he gives an example of this verse 15 if a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food verse 16 and one of you say unto them depart in peace you are warmed and filled not withstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body and he asked that question again what does it profit okay that's what that's the context of what James is asking where is in Romans 4 so when it said in Romans 4 5 but to him that works not but believes on him that justifies the ungodly his faith is countered for righteousness he goes on to say even as David also describes the blessedness of the man on to whom God imputes righteousness without works so then in summary the justification by works described in James 2 is a reference in reference to how your faith can benefit your brethren okay so not having a faith which shows special respect to certain types of believers such as you know the rich as opposed to the poor and not leaving a brother or sister destitute just because you happen to have faith that God can intervene so you actually have to put your faith into practice for the profit of the brethren whereas the justification without works described in Romans 4 is in reference to your righteousness before God so as to not have your sins imputed on to you okay so more over so we've got the context of the context in James is helping your brethren with your faith and so that it profits the brethren whereas in Romans 4 it's righteousness before God so the justification that Paul and James are talking about is not the same kind of justification and we'll understand a bit more about justification later in the series when we we look at terminology more over then Romans 4 actually contains the key and this key is a key verse which will resolve this whole contradiction to help you bring these two passages together so that they are both consistent so let's have a look at what the key is so in James chapter 2 verse 21 it says was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac is done upon the altar Romans 4 2 says for if Abraham were justified by works he has wear of the glory but not before God so Romans 4 2 is the key this verse unlocks the solution to the whole puzzle for you if Abraham were justified by works Romans 4 2 says which according to James 2 21 he was he can glory which means to receive public praise or honor or fame so he can glory in those works but watch this not in front of God it says not before God so Abraham has glory in his works but not before God so I ask you then if he is justified by works who is he justified in front of because he can't glory before God in his works but James 2 quite clearly says he's justified by his works so who's he justified in front of well if it's not God then logically the only answer is before man Abraham if you read the Old Testament account of Abraham he is a good example of a faithful believer from the Bible that we the brethren can learn from to help us so where the brethren where the seed of Abraham what's James talking about your faith in your works profiting your brethren so we can learn from Abraham growing our own faith and confidence in God for the benefit of helping us do our works so then James 2 is then consistent with Romans 4 we are not justified by works before God for our righteousness on to salvation but our works justify our faith for the benefit of the brethren which is the very reason why James is telling us show our faith by our works so that it profits the brethren so Romans 4 2 as the key answers this whole conundrum it solves the whole puzzle another example that we'll look at is conditional versus eternal security so on the left side we have eternal security which is where we can't lose our eternal life versus conditional security which is where we can lose eternal life so both of these camps will have their own list of proof texts that they like to go to so on the eternal security side we have John 6 39 and this is the Father's will which has sent me that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day they'll also take you to John chapter 10 verses 28 and 29 and I give on to them eternal life and they shall never perish neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand my father which gave them me is greater than all and no man is able to pluck them from out of my father's hand so that's the eternal security go to passages on the other side we have the conditional security passages and obviously again I'm not gonna list them all but just a couple for you so the might take you to Hebrews 10 26 where it says for if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful looking for a judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries another passage the might take you to is John chapter 15 verse 6 where it says if a man abides not in me referred to Jesus he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned so again what is the context of these two opposing arguments what is the key for these passages so let's let's look at the eternal security go to us first so John 6 and John 10 in John 6 and 10 Jesus is very specifically talking about eternal life to groups of unsafe people the John 10 28 which is on the screen there even includes the words eternal life in the statement and in John 6 eternal life is mentioned in the very next verse in verse 40 more over the context is that it's Jesus's responsibility to not lose those who the father has given him that were given eternal life by Jesus so the key go to verses about eternal security here are in conversations where Jesus is very specifically talking about eternal life and salvation and Jesus takes on the responsibility to hold on to us he doesn't leave that with us we cannot allow a doctrine that enables Jesus to fail or not fulfill what he said he would achieve okay so now let's deal with the conditional security versus so I gave to one of the passages was Hebrews 10 so we'll look at that first so when it says the statement there remains no more sacrifice for sins the conditional security camp will automatically interpret that to mean that Jesus a sacrifice is no longer effective for the offending person so in other words they will say that they lose their salvation and this may be qualified by the very next verse that talks about them looking for a fearful judgment and a fiery indignation okay well if you actually read the beginning of Hebrews 10 the context of Hebrews 10 is that the Old Testament sacrifices that had to be continually offered for sins which included willful sins and sins of ignorance whereas Jesus a sacrifice is once and for all and that's why there remains no more sacrifices for sins this statement therefore has nothing to do with whether you can lose eternal life that you've already got that's not the subject matter okay the subject matter is that in the Old Testament every time they sin they would have to offer another sacrifice and then another and then another and another and it would just go on and on and on to keep dealing with the fact that they kept sinning so Jesus is the final sacrifice and we are sanctified according to that offering and there's some of the proof texts there such as you know 1 to 3 and verse 10 was sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all and because it's once and for all there remains no more sacrifice for sins that's the context of Hebrews 10 he's got nothing to do with whether eternal life can or cannot be lost now when it when it then says the fire in the Ignatian and the judgment they will automatically assume that that's hell fire but this is forcing a definition onto it that the writer of Hebrews could have just said if that's what he meant if that meant hell fire he could have just said but a certain fearful looking for hell but he didn't say that okay this is somewhat open to interpretation there but the comparison from verse 27 if you carry on reading Hebrews verse 28 gives you an example and so it says he that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses so the example that he gives in verse 28 to qualify the judgment in verse 27 is an earthly death that's why there had to be multiple witnesses it's not a spiritual death moreover if you read on further in verse 30 it will say that the Lord shall judge his people but logically conditional security asserts that the fallen will no longer be God's personal God's child so the context there is judging God's own people so you cannot just automatically assume that that means hell when he could have just said that if that's what you meant and he gave an example of an earthly punishment then let's look at the other conditional security go to verse that I mentioned John 15 6 that he's cast forth as a branch and cast into fire so although this conditional security go to verse is also in the same book John's Gospel where the eternal security go to verses are found the context has now changed considerably so John 13 to 16 is the full context of this conversation so it's too long for me to quote the entire context so I'll just summarise the points here so in John 15 Jesus is talking with his close disciples only he's not preaching about eternal life to the unsafe now having said that conditional security advocates would claim that this is precisely because obviously the issue of losing salvation is for somebody that's already saved it's not relevant to discuss that with people who are not yet safe it's only relevant to people who are already safe but more crucially though Jesus never mentions eternal life specifically as the context of this conversation the branch is also a metaphor so because he's using an a metaphor here there's a wider room for interpretation as to what exactly it means to be a branch what it means for a branch to be cut off and cast into the fire so for example a believer being chastised by being cut off from the earth dead but still technically saved or otherwise even suffering some ill fate so that there's obviously room for interpretation as to what it means for a branch to be cast into the fire because a branch is a metaphor you know you're not literally a tree branch right but although it's quite crucial that Jesus never mentions eternal life specifically as the context of this conversation you can understand why somebody would read it that way Jesus asserted that the disciples are branches in him but if they don't abide which is to continue or remain in him they can be cast into the fire essentially which if it doesn't mean held fire obviously that's quite strong language if it just means an earthly punishment as I might assert so while the context of John 15 is not eternal life specifically you can absolutely understand how this could be confusing or in contradiction to his statements earlier in John about losing nothing and not letting any be plucked from out of his hand so again this is why we need the key fortunately the key is contained in the aforementioned chapter 6 of John's Gospel John 6 contains the key here so in John 6 Jesus wraps up the conversation that he's having and in between verses 64 to 71 it says but there are some of you that believe not for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believe not and who should betray him and he said therefore said I unto you that no man can come to me except it were given unto him of my father from that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him then said Jesus onto the 12th will you also go away then Simon Peter answered him Lord to whom shall we go you have the words of eternal life and we believe and are sure that you are the Christ the Son of the Living God Jesus answered them have not I chosen new 12 and one of you is a devil he spoke of Judas Iscariot the Son of Simon for he it was that should betray him being one of the 12 so that this is the key here notice that many of Jesus's disciples this is not ordinary believers this is disciples and that's who he was talking to in chapter 15 right so the stakes are higher now they they walked no more with him in verse 66 apart from the 12 obviously so based on John 15 you might say that the disciples who walked no more with him they're those who didn't abide in him okay as the remaining instruct disciples were instructed to do notice how Jesus puts them in the category of believe not Jesus knew from the beginning whom they were that believe not and he says but there are some of you that believe not why Jesus knew from the beginning that they did did not believe so Jesus already knew here that Judas was false so we can conclude that Jesus already knows from the beginning those who do not abide and they fall in the category of believe not since they don't believe and Jesus already knew this about them they did not lose salvation because they never had it they believe not that's how Jesus categorizes them that's the only way you can make sense of those who don't abide in him and this is consistent with eternal security because no man can come to Jesus except the father gives him and under that same condition in John 6 and 10 Jesus will lose nothing and not let any be plucked from out his hand those who walk no more with him they were not given by the father because this that promise doesn't apply to them otherwise why didn't Jesus hold on to those it's because they believe not Jesus doesn't have to fulfill his obligations to them they don't come under the category of believing and being saved there's also a secondary key that you can also use in John that further qualifies this and this is just a bit quicker so John 3 18 he that believes on him is not condemned but he that believes not is condemned already why because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God so John 3 18 asserts that he that does not believe and is therefore condemned has not believed so the prospect of somebody who used to believe onto eternal life but no longer does believe it is not offered here okay conditional security would have to artificially inject such a person into this text so thanks to these keys we can now know that those who fell from grace or fell away or those who walk no more with him or the branches that did not abide and work us off or those who left or did not continue in their first faith are those who Jesus knew from the beginning believe not for they have not believed and because they have not believed you cannot say that they were ever saved now yes they were enlightened yes they were partakers as as Hebrews 6 says yes they were a branch but no they did not have salvation onto eternal life Jesus was not obligated to keep them firmly in his hand because they didn't meet the criteria for Jesus to fulfill his obligations that whosoever believeth in him Jesus doesn't owe them anything because they come under the category of believe not he doesn't have to do anything for them that's why he doesn't hold on to them you see how once you've got the key it all makes perfect sense the last rule that i want to cover in this video and this is not not as important as the other issues but there are some minor contradictory issues in the bible that may only be resolved by secular knowledge outside of the bible but but these are generally restricted to trivial matters or you know fairly unimportant things so i'll show you an example of this in practice so a really good example to show this is the hour that Jesus was crucified so if you follow the narrative in Mark's gospel it says they crucified him at the third hour whereas in John's gospel it's about the sixth hour so you know which one is it okay well there is a difference between Hebrew and Roman measurement of time so Hebrew time resets at sunset whereas Roman time resets at midnight which you know this would be a six hour difference if sunlight was exactly 12 hours having said that Hebrews would count the hour since sunrise rather than sunset as you would on a you know like a 12 hour clock so since time could only be measured by a sundial rather than a clock time was measured around the moving of the sun relative to sunrise rather than exact time in a 24 hour day they didn't have mechanical clocks so time couldn't be calculated that accurately moreover in John's narrative it is only about the hour and minutes were not counted which isn't really very exacting let's say that Jesus was crucified at sunrise well you might think of an exact sunrise at about six i meant to say am there sorry i don't know what i've done there but that meant to say six am but throughout the year it may be earlier or later than that as per the seasons so it wouldn't be unfeasible that his crucifixion was perhaps some time after six am you know not very exacting maybe seven or slightly nearer eight p.m but this was approximately three hours after the sun had risen that day so because time was fairly approximate and there were two different measures of time this is not necessary this is not really a huge problem but nevertheless the thing is we don't know from the bible itself that John was specifically using Roman time while Mark was using Hebrew time that there's nothing in the gospels that say hey i'm using this this time frame this relies on secular knowledge and questionable sources which may or may not be accurate but obviously questions perhaps need to be considered about how this would affect the bible's infallibility but that that would be too much of a topic for to cover in this video but overall the exact hour that Jesus was crucified is for the most part a minor detail it does not change the nature by which he died for us so as to take our sins away and our confidence in his accomplishment this this can be explained it's just that it can only be explained by secular knowledge and the fact that it's about the which again if you understand history and sundials you can understand why they wouldn't have a watch about their arm that they can accurately calculate an exact time in the day as you are i would okay so that concludes this first video i hope that that's helped you when i can get on to releasing the recording for the next video we'll look at understanding the definition of words and using the bible as its own dictionary so these rules have just been about dealing with contradictions in the bible and perhaps if you think there's something that i've missed or if you have any further questions by all means pop something in the comments and i can have a look