Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 5 + Some Other Stuff

Did Mark Misquote Malachi and Give Credit to Isaiah in Mark 1:2?

I didn't even realize I had this little gem in my blog! So if you missed it too, don't worry. Some people think that Mark misquotes Malachi 3:1 and wrongly attributes it to Isaiah in Mark 1:2, hence there is an "error" in the Bible. Once again, we shall see with a little insight, this is far from being and "error."

Mark 1:2
2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:


Malachi 3:1
"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 40:3
A voice is calling,
"Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."
Mark puts two verses together Malachi 3:1(v2) and than Isaiah 40:3(v3), and as the literary custom of the day, he attributes the entire quote to the higher ranking prophet.

BTW, notice that in original quotation Malachi, God/YHWH uses the pronoun "Me," while in Mark when refering to Jesus it is "You." Why is that? Because Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and so when God/YHWH says something, it is appropriate to quote Jesus as saying it.

Courtesy of Dr. Knox Chamblin Lectures on the Gospel and Acts

For more answered contradictions see the links here:

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 1

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 2

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 3

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 4

Extra Credit:

For a good explanation of why we need the Law go to the Role of the Law in Galatians 3:19-25

Here's a little quote from Doug Ward of CRI:

Likely anticipating the objections to his treatment of the law, Paul strives to find a positive role for the law in 3:19-25. Two questions introduce the potential problem that others would have with Paul’s explanation. "What then, was the purpose of the law" (19), and "Is the law opposed to the promises of God?" (21).

Paul answers his own question in verse 19 with one of the most troublesome phrases in his letters, "it was added because of transgressions" (NIV). This phrase could potentially have a variety of translations. 1) The law was added because of transgressions, with a restraining effect. 2) The law was added to create transgressions, acting as a lure. 3) The law was added to increase or intensify transgression, acting as an identifier. One clue within this phrase is the inclusion of the word parabaseon ("transgressions"). This word is used specifically within Paul’s letters to denote wrongdoing done in the presence of the law. Romans 4:15 functions almost like a dictionary entry when Paul writes "where there is no law there is no transgression."
Parabaseon is a specialized word. Before something can be called a transgression, there must be some standard to transgress, and that standard in Galatians is the Mosaic Law. One scholar has rightly noted that with the word transgression "Paul is not thinking of the general condition of sin that justifies the infliction of God’s wrath, but the more specific situation that obtains wherever people are confronted with clearly defined, verbally transmitted laws and commands. Parabaseon always refers to passing beyond the limits." [6] The use of "transgression" here does not imply that the law itself brings sin, but rather a qualitative difference to the sin. Instead of a vague imperfection or general wrongdoing, it now becomes outright disobedience to a known command of God. This is also how this word is used in Romans 5:14, where the first sin of Adam is described as a transgression since it involved Adam’s disobedience to a known command of God.

This consideration of the meaning of parabaseon gets to the heart of what Paul means in Galatians 3:19. If one considers that a transgression is not even possible unless there is a law to transgress, Paul cannot mean that the law was given to restrict transgression, for there was no transgressions to restrict until the law appeared. So the function must be different. The law is valuable here in that it was added to identify the character of sin, labeling it as explicitly contrary to God. So the law was added to label, identify, and condemn sin as something contrary to God.

1 comment:

Saint and Sinner said...

I'm commenting under this post since I know one blogger that doesn't look at the comments of previous posts, myself.

As to the ID post, I would suggest that you read the book, "Genetic Entropy" by John Sanford. Haldane's dilemma is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider all the other problems that population genetics poses for neo-Darwinism.

I have a lengthy review of the book at Amazon: