Here's a classic alleged Bible contradiction and a solution.
The Gospel of Mark say no sign will be given.
Mark 8:11-12 ESV
[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. [12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
While the Gospel of Matthew and Luke say there will be a sign.
Matthew 12:39-40 ESV
[39] But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. [40] For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matthew 16:4 ESV
[4] An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.
Luke 11:29-30 ESV
[29] When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. [30] For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.
Which is it? Notice that Matthew has Jesus addressing the issue of a sign on two different occasions in two different chapters. So apparently Jesus addressed the issue on multiple occasions and in different contexts. Often prompted by His hearers who specifically asked for a sign.
But what kind of sign were they looking for? If Jesus really did miracles by healing the sick and doing things like multiplying bread, then wouldn't those things be considered signs? I would say "yes," and sufficient so that those who saw it ought to have eventually recognized Jesus as the Messiah [cf. Matt. 11:2-6, passim]. But they were not the kind of signs the people meant or wanted. They were asking for an undeniable public national miracle sign in the vein or manner of Moses with the Ten Plagues or the parting the Red/Reed Sea or delivering Israel from Egypt [or in the case of Jesus' audience, deliverance from the oppression of Rome]. One that would satisfy their sinful desire and craving for sensationalistic entertainment rather than what ought to lead them into a serious consideration of God's requirements and demands on their lives for true repentance, faith and righteous.
The answer to the apparent contradiction is that there would be no undeniable public national sign like they wanted would be given [the kind like parting the Red/Reed Sea or the Ten Plagues]. But rather a private sign would be given which only those whose hearts were open would be able to recognize and believe [Acts 10:41]. Namely, the resurrection of Jesus. So, both would be true. A sign both would and would not be given. Because they are of different kinds and purposes.
In one sense the resurrection of Jesus was the greatest miracle of all. Yet, not openly seen [Act 10:41], so not apparently great to human eyes that don't believe or understand its cosmic significance. While the parting of the Red/Reed Sea seems [is apparently] greater than the alleged resurrection of an itinerant Jewish rabbi from an insignificancant and looked down upon town of Nazareth. Yet in reality the parting of the waters pales into insignificance compared to the greater spiritual deliverance purchased by the sufferings, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God. A deliverance that would redeem all of creation, and would eventually bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Also, the two types of signs had different purposes. The parting of the Sea was intended to be rationally coercive so that the state of one's heart had nothing to do with recognizing it. Whereas the sign of Jesus' resurrection is one that requires an "open heart" to see and recognize it ["open heart" understood either in an Arminian, Molinist, Calvinist (et al.) way. I'm a Calvinist, BTW].
Think of how in the film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial only the kids could see E.T. The obvious intended allegory is that only the pure [or purer] in heart could see E.T. (at least for a while). While the adults, with less purer hearts, couldn't. Though eventually the adults were forced to acknowledge E.T.'s existence. Something similar is going on with Jesus Christ in Redemptive History. This is why Jesus often said things like "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Or "to him who has more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away." [paraphrase].
I asked Facebook's Meta AI this question: Was the story of the film ET inspired by the story of Jesus?
Meta AI's answer:
While the story of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) is not a direct retelling of the story of Jesus, there are some interesting parallels and similarities that have been noted by film analysts and scholars:
# Parallels between E.T. and Jesus:
1. *The Outsider*: Both E.T. and Jesus are outsiders who come to Earth (or a specific community) with a message of love and redemption.
2. *The Miracle Worker*: E.T. performs miraculous feats, such as healing Elliott's injured finger and reviving dead plants. Similarly, Jesus performs miracles, like healing the sick and raising the dead.
3. *The Pursuit and Persecution*: Both E.T. and Jesus are pursued by authorities who seek to harm or capture them. In E.T.'s case, it's the government scientists, while Jesus is pursued by the Roman authorities and Jewish leaders.
4. *The Sacrificial Love*: E.T. sacrifices himself to save Elliott, demonstrating a selfless love. Jesus, of course, sacrifices himself on the cross to redeem humanity.
5. *The Resurrection*: E.T. is revived and returns to life, much like Jesus' resurrection.
# Director Steven Spielberg's intentions:
While Spielberg hasn't explicitly stated that E.T. is a Jesus allegory, he has mentioned that he drew inspiration from his own childhood experiences and emotions, as well as classic fairy tales and myths.
Spielberg has also said that he aimed to create a story that would evoke a sense of wonder, magic, and redemption, which are all themes that are present in the story of Jesus.
# Conclusion:
While the story of E.T. is not a direct retelling of the story of Jesus, there are certainly some interesting parallels and similarities between the two. These parallels might be seen as a nod to the universal themes of love, sacrifice, and redemption that are present in many stories, including the story of Jesus.
Here's what Meta AI's answer to the apparentcontradiction:
This apparent contradiction has been debated by scholars and theologians. Here's a possible reconciliation:
*Understanding the context*:
- Mark 8:11-13: Jesus is responding to the Pharisees' request for a sign from heaven. Jesus refuses, saying no sign will be given to that generation.
- Matthew 12:38-42, 16:1-4, and Luke 11:29-32: Jesus is also responding to the Pharisees' request for a sign. However, in these accounts, Jesus mentions the "sign of Jonah" as the only sign that will be given.
*Reconciling the accounts*:
1. *Different emphases*: Mark focuses on Jesus' refusal to provide a sign, emphasizing the Pharisees' unbelief. Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, highlight the significance of the "sign of Jonah," which points to Jesus' resurrection.
2. *The "sign of Jonah" as an exception*: Jesus might be implying that the "sign of Jonah" is not a sign in the classical sense, but rather a prophetic foreshadowing of His resurrection. In this sense, the "sign of Jonah" is not a contradiction to Mark's account, but rather an additional clarification.
3. *Audience and purpose*: The accounts might be addressing different audiences or serving distinct purposes. Mark's Gospel tends to focus on Jesus' actions and teachings, while Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
*Conclusion*:
While the accounts may seem contradictory at first glance, they can be reconciled by considering the different contexts, emphases, and purposes of each Gospel. The "sign of Jonah" is not necessarily a contradiction to Mark's account, but rather a complementary aspect of Jesus' teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment