The New Testament contains passages that require careful study, but a difficult passage is not the same as an error or contradiction. A genuine contradiction exists only when two statements affirm mutually exclusive claims about the same person, event, time, place, and circumstance. Many accusations against the New Testament fail because they compare selective details, ignore the author’s purpose, or demand that separate witnesses use identical wording. The Gospel writers recorded the same central history while selecting different details for different audiences and theological purposes. Luke explicitly stated that he investigated the events carefully and arranged an orderly account, as recorded in Luke 1:1-4. John explained that Jesus performed many other signs that were not included in his Gospel, as recorded in John 20:30-31. These statements establish that selectivity was an intentional feature of the Gospel records rather than evidence of carelessness. A responsible examination therefore begins with confidence in the inspired text while carefully considering grammar, context, historical circumstances, and the distinct purpose of each writer.

Why New Testament Difficulties Arise

New Testament difficulties often arise because modern readers stand nearly two thousand years removed from the language, customs, geography, legal practices, and social assumptions of the first-century world. Koine Greek words frequently carry a range of meanings, and the immediate context determines which meaning the writer intended. Ancient writers also arranged material according to subject, emphasis, or rhetorical purpose rather than following the strict chronological style expected in many modern biographies. Another source of confusion is the failure to distinguish between what the Bible reports and what it approves, since Scripture accurately records lies, sinful conduct, mistaken opinions, and hostile accusations without endorsing them. The words of Satan in Matthew 4:3-9 are accurately reported, but they remain deceptive words spoken by God’s adversary. The false witnesses in Mark 14:55-59 are also faithfully recorded, although their testimony was inconsistent and malicious. Readers create unnecessary problems when they treat every human statement within Scripture as though Jehovah Himself affirmed it. Careful interpretation asks who spoke, to whom the words were spoken, what circumstances prompted them, and whether the inspired writer approves, condemns, or merely records the statement.

The Historical-Grammatical Method and Difficult Passages

The historical-grammatical method seeks the meaning intended by the inspired author through attention to vocabulary, grammar, literary form, immediate context, historical setting, and the broader teaching of Scripture. This approach refuses to impose hidden meanings, philosophical systems, or imaginative theories upon the text. Jesus demonstrated careful attention to the precise wording of Scripture when He answered His opponents from the written Word in Matthew 22:31-32. Paul likewise reasoned from the Scriptures, explaining and proving his case concerning the Messiah in Acts 17:2-3. The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to determine whether Paul’s teaching agreed with the inspired record, as stated in Acts 17:11. Their example shows that sincere faith does not fear close examination but welcomes accurate reasoning based on the text. The interpreter must therefore begin with what the passage actually says before asking how it applies to Christian belief and conduct. This disciplined method protects the reader from both skeptical distortion and careless harmonization because it requires every proposed explanation to fit the words and circumstances of the passage.

Differences Among the Gospel Accounts

The four Gospels provide complementary testimony rather than four mechanically identical reports. Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the promised Messiah and frequently draws attention to the fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. Mark presents a vivid and action-oriented account that repeatedly highlights what Jesus did. Luke carefully situates events within identifiable historical and social settings while giving attention to individuals whose experiences illustrate the reach of the good news. John concentrates on selected signs and extended conversations that establish Jesus’ identity and the necessity of faith in Him. When two writers mention different details, each writer can be accurate because one witness does not have to report everything known by another witness. Matthew 8:28 mentions two demon-possessed men in the region of the Gadarenes, while Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 concentrate on the one man who spoke with Jesus and became central to the account. Mark and Luke do not say that only one man was present, so their focus on the prominent participant does not contradict Matthew’s fuller numerical detail. The accounts fit together naturally once the reader distinguishes selective reporting from explicit denial.

The Genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

The genealogies in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 differ because the writers trace Jesus’ legal and family standing from different perspectives. Matthew begins with Abraham and moves forward through David and Solomon to Joseph, presenting Jesus’ legal right within the royal line. Luke begins with Jesus and moves backward through David’s son Nathan, Abraham, and finally Adam, emphasizing Jesus’ connection with all humanity. Matthew 1:16 carefully avoids saying that Joseph fathered Jesus and instead identifies him as the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. Luke 3:23 describes Jesus as being regarded as Joseph’s son and then associates Joseph with Heli, a statement understood through Joseph’s marital relationship to Mary’s family line. In Jewish genealogical practice, a son-in-law could be listed in the place of a son when the line was being traced through a daughter whose husband served as the legal representative of her household. Matthew also arranges the genealogy in structured groups, as stated in Matthew 1:17, and therefore omits some intermediate names in keeping with the accepted genealogical use of “father” for an ancestor. Neither genealogy attempts to provide a modern civil registry containing every generation, because each writer presents an accurate line suited to his inspired purpose. Together they establish that Jesus was legally connected to David’s royal succession and physically descended from David’s family, fulfilling the messianic expectation expressed in Second Samuel 7:12-16.

The Death of Judas Iscariot

Matthew 27:5 states that Judas threw the silver pieces into the temple, departed, and hanged himself, while Acts 1:18 describes his body falling and bursting open. These statements describe different aspects of the same death rather than competing causes of death. Matthew identifies Judas’ deliberate act, whereas Acts describes what happened to his body in connection with the location later associated with his betrayal. A body suspended by a rope can fall when the rope, branch, or supporting point breaks, especially after exposure and decomposition. The terrain around Jerusalem included steep and rocky areas where a falling body could suffer the result described in Acts 1:18. Acts 1:18 also says that Judas acquired a field with the reward of wrongdoing, while Matthew 27:6-8 explains that the priests used the returned money to purchase the potter’s field. Judas was the moral and financial source of the purchase because the money belonged to him and came from his betrayal, even though the priests completed the transaction. Scripture commonly attributes an action to the person whose money, authority, or conduct caused it, just as John 4:1-2 associates baptizing disciples with Jesus while clarifying that His disciples performed the immersions. Matthew and Acts therefore present complementary facts concerning Judas’ act, the consequences of his death, and the field purchased with his blood money.

The Resurrection Narratives

The resurrection accounts agree on the essential facts that Jesus truly died, His tomb was found empty, angels announced His resurrection, and He appeared alive to His followers. Matthew 28:1 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, Mark 16:1 adds Salome, and Luke 24:10 names Joanna while also referring to other women. John 20:1 concentrates on Mary Magdalene because she became the principal participant in the conversation that followed. John does not claim that Mary went alone, and her words in John 20:2 use the plural “we,” showing that other women were involved. The Gospel writers also differ in the number of angels they mention, since Matthew 28:2-5 emphasizes the angel who spoke while Luke 24:4 records two angels present at the scene. Mentioning one speaking angel does not deny the presence of another, just as naming one representative does not mean that no one else accompanied him. The differences bear the natural marks of independent testimony because each writer selects the persons and actions most relevant to his account. The central proclamation remains unchanged throughout Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20–21, Acts 1:1-11, and First Corinthians 15:3-8: Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to multiple witnesses.

The Timing of the Temple Cleansing

John places Jesus’ cleansing of the temple near the beginning of His ministry in John 2:13-22, while Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, and Luke 19:45-46 record a cleansing during His final week in Jerusalem. Some readers assume that every Gospel must be describing the same occurrence, but the texts contain no statement requiring that conclusion. Jesus’ public ministry extended over several Passover seasons, and the commercial abuses He condemned could readily have returned after an earlier correction. The words and actions are similar because the offense was similar, not because the writers necessarily moved one event to contradictory chronological positions. John’s account includes a discussion about raising the temple of His body, while the later accounts emphasize Jesus’ charge that the temple had been turned into a den of robbers. The later cleansing also contributes directly to the intensified hostility of the chief priests during the final days before Jesus’ execution. A repeated act is entirely consistent with Jesus’ unwavering defense of pure worship and His opposition to commercial exploitation within the temple courts. The historical-grammatical reading therefore recognizes two cleansings unless compelling textual evidence requires the events to be collapsed into one.

Abiathar and the Consecrated Bread

Mark 2:26 records Jesus referring to the occasion when David ate the consecrated bread “in the account about Abiathar the high priest,” while First Samuel 21:1-6 names Ahimelech as the priest who gave David the bread. The Greek expression in Mark does not require the meaning that Abiathar was already serving as high priest at the exact moment David entered Nob. It can identify the broader scriptural section or well-known narrative associated with Abiathar, who soon became a prominent priest connected with David. Ancient Scripture divisions did not use the modern system of numbered chapters and verses, so sections were often identified by an important person or event within the surrounding account. Mark 12:26 similarly refers to the passage “about the bush,” identifying a section by its memorable subject rather than by a chapter number. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, survived Saul’s slaughter of the priests, and joined David, as recorded in First Samuel 22:20-23. He later exercised priestly service during David’s reign and became better known in the continuing history than his father. Jesus’ wording therefore directs His hearers to the recognized account associated with Abiathar rather than making an erroneous claim about the precise day on which Abiathar formally assumed priestly authority.

Luke, Quirinius, and the Registration

Luke 2:1-2 connects the registration surrounding Jesus’ birth with Caesar Augustus and Quirinius, creating a difficulty because Quirinius is widely associated with a later governorship of Syria. The difficulty requires close attention to Luke’s wording rather than the immediate assumption that Luke confused two events. The Greek expression translated “first registration” distinguishes this registration from the later census connected with Judas the Galilean in Acts 5:37. Luke knew about that later registration and referred to it separately, which demonstrates that he was not carelessly combining the two occasions. Quirinius exercised significant administrative and military responsibilities in the eastern Roman territories, and Luke’s wording can associate the registration with his authority without requiring the narrow modern assumption that only one formal title or term of service was involved. Roman registrations were complex administrative undertakings that could be ordered, initiated, organized, and implemented over an extended period. Luke’s repeated accuracy in naming rulers, regions, offices, and local titles throughout Luke and Acts weighs against the claim that he invented or ignorantly misplaced the registration. The responsible position acknowledges the limits of surviving secular records while refusing to treat incomplete external evidence as proof that Luke’s explicit historical statement is false.

Paul and James on Faith and Works

Paul states in Romans 3:28 that a person is justified by faith apart from works of law, while James 2:24 says that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. The statements address different errors and use the terms “faith,” “works,” and “justify” within different argumentative settings. Paul opposes the belief that sinful humans can earn a righteous standing before God through works of the Mosaic Law. James opposes an empty verbal claim that lacks obedient conduct and therefore proves lifeless. Paul discusses the basis on which a believer receives an approved standing through faith in Christ’s sacrifice, while James discusses the evidence by which genuine faith is demonstrated. Romans 4:1-5 appeals to Abraham before his circumcision, whereas James 2:21-23 appeals to Abraham’s later obedience when he offered Isaac and thereby brought his faith to mature expression. Paul himself teaches that genuine faith produces obedience, as shown by the expression “obedience of faith” in Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. James therefore rejects counterfeit faith, not saving faith, while Paul rejects meritorious law-keeping, not the obedient works that flow from a living relationship with God.

Law, Grace, and Christian Obedience

Some readers view the New Testament as contradictory because it teaches freedom from the Mosaic Law while also commanding Christians to obey moral requirements. Romans 6:14 states that Christians are not under law but under grace, yet Romans 6:15 immediately rejects the conclusion that grace permits continued sin. The Mosaic Law covenant, including its sacrifices, priesthood, dietary regulations, and Sabbath legislation, reached its intended completion through Christ’s sacrifice. Colossians 2:13-17 warns Christians not to permit others to judge them concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths. Hebrews 10:1-10 explains that the repeated animal sacrifices could not remove sin and that Christ’s sacrifice replaced that former arrangement. Freedom from the Mosaic Law does not mean freedom from Jehovah’s moral authority, because First Corinthians 9:21 describes Christians as being under law to Christ. Jesus commanded His disciples to teach baptized believers to observe all that He had commanded, as stated in Matthew 28:19-20. The New Testament therefore presents a coherent movement from the temporary Mosaic covenant to the authoritative instruction of Christ and His apostles.

Jesus’ Knowledge of the Day and Hour

Mark 13:32 states that no one knew the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father. This verse creates a theological difficulty for readers who assume that Jesus’ human life required Him to exercise every capacity associated with His prehuman existence at every moment. The New Testament teaches that Jesus genuinely became human and accepted the limitations connected with His earthly mission. Philippians 2:6-8 explains that He humbled Himself, took the form of a slave, and became obedient to the point of death. Luke 2:52 also states that Jesus progressed in wisdom and physical growth, language that describes genuine human development. During His earthly ministry, Jesus received information and authority from the Father, as stated in John 5:19-20 and John 12:49-50. Mark 13:32 therefore identifies a matter that the Father had not authorized the Son to disclose or possess within the conditions of His earthly commission at that time. The verse does not portray Jesus as deceptive or deficient but as faithfully occupying the subordinate role assigned to Him by the Father.

New Testament Quotations From the Hebrew Scriptures

New Testament quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures sometimes differ in wording from familiar English translations of the Old Testament. The inspired writers frequently quoted the Greek Septuagint, translated the Hebrew directly, summarized a passage, or combined related texts under the name of the principal prophet. Matthew 3:3 applies Isaiah 40:3 to John the Baptist, and the wording communicates the same message even though Greek and Hebrew forms differ in expression. Hebrews 10:5 cites Psalm 40:6 with the wording “a body you prepared for me,” while the Hebrew text underlying many Old Testament translations reads “ears you have opened for me.” The Greek rendering expresses the larger implication that the Messiah received a prepared human body for obedient service, while the Hebrew expression emphasizes ears opened for obedience. The inspired use of a translation or interpretive rendering does not corrupt the passage because the New Testament writer, guided by the Holy Spirit, communicates the intended truth accurately. Matthew 27:9-10 attributes a combined prophetic theme to Jeremiah even though wording concerning thirty pieces of silver also recalls Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah supplies the dominant setting of the potter and purchased field in Jeremiah 18:1-11, Jeremiah 19:1-13, and Jeremiah 32:6-15, while Zechariah supplies the specific payment imagery, so Matthew legitimately presents a composite prophetic fulfillment under the major prophet’s name.

Textual Variants and the Original New Testament

The original New Testament writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the copyists who reproduced them during later centuries were not inspired. Copying by hand introduced spelling differences, changes in word order, accidental omissions, repeated words, explanatory additions, and harmonizations between parallel passages. The large number of surviving manuscripts exposes these differences rather than concealing them, because scholars can compare witnesses from different centuries and geographical regions. Most textual variants are minor and have no effect on translation, doctrine, or Christian conduct. More substantial variants are openly identified in responsible modern translations, allowing readers to distinguish the secure text from later additions. Mark 16:9-20 is absent from the earliest and strongest Greek witnesses, and the account in John 7:53–8:11 is also missing from the earliest manuscripts and appears in varying locations in later copies. Removing such secondary additions does not weaken Christian teaching because the resurrection is firmly established throughout Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20–21, Acts 2, Acts 13, and First Corinthians 15. Textual criticism therefore serves the authority of Scripture by recovering the wording of the inspired documents rather than allowing later scribal expansions to acquire false authority.

The Similarities Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke

Matthew, Mark, and Luke frequently report the same sayings and events with closely related wording, leading some critics to accuse the Gospel writers of unoriginal copying. Similarity is expected because the writers describe the same Teacher, the same works, the same disciples, and the same central events. Jesus taught publicly on repeated occasions, and His memorable sayings were preserved and repeated among those who heard Him. Luke 1:1-4 openly acknowledges earlier written accounts and eyewitness testimony, showing that careful research was a legitimate part of producing an inspired historical record. Inspiration did not require the Holy Spirit to erase the writers’ knowledge, sources, vocabulary, memory, or investigative work. Instead, the Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors so that what they wrote communicated the truth Jehovah intended without error in the original writings, as established in Second Peter 1:20-21. Verbal similarities therefore reflect common history, reliable preservation, and appropriate use of available testimony rather than plagiarism or collusion. Differences in arrangement and emphasis further demonstrate that each evangelist exercised purposeful authorship while remaining faithful to the same historical reality.

Apparent Chronological Differences

The Gospels do not always arrange every event in the same order because ancient biographical writing allowed events to be grouped topically as well as chronologically. Matthew often groups Jesus’ teachings into extended collections, as seen in Matthew 5–7, Matthew 10, Matthew 13, Matthew 18, and Matthew 24–25. Mark more frequently uses rapid narrative movement, while Luke states that he produced an orderly account without claiming that every paragraph follows uninterrupted chronological sequence. An orderly account can be arranged logically, geographically, thematically, or chronologically according to the writer’s declared purpose. Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 present the temptations of Jesus in a different order, but neither writer states that his sequence must be read as a numbered chronological list. Matthew ends with the temptation concerning the kingdoms because it climaxes his emphasis on authority and worship. Luke ends at Jerusalem because Jerusalem occupies a central geographical and theological position in his Gospel and continues as the starting point of Acts. The difference concerns literary arrangement rather than the reality of the temptations, the identity of the tempter, or Jesus’ faithful use of Scripture.

Difficult Sayings About Hatred and Family Loyalty

Luke 14:26 records Jesus saying that a disciple must “hate” his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own life. The statement cannot mean sinful hostility because Jesus condemned hatred and commanded love for others in Matthew 5:43-48. The Semitic use of “hate” can express loving someone less or placing one loyalty below another. Matthew 10:37 gives the explanatory parallel by stating that whoever loves father or mother more than Jesus is not worthy of Him. Jesus therefore required supreme loyalty rather than emotional cruelty, family neglect, or violation of one’s responsibilities. First Timothy 5:8 later states that a Christian who refuses to provide for members of his household has denied the faith. Luke’s forceful wording communicates that no family pressure, social bond, or concern for personal safety can outrank obedience to Christ. The difficulty disappears when the expression is read according to its linguistic background and its parallel explanation rather than through the narrowest modern sense of the English word “hate.”

Jesus’ Words About Carrying a Sword

Luke 22:36 records Jesus telling His disciples that one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one, while Matthew 26:52 records Him commanding that the sword be returned to its place. The first statement did not authorize an armed religious campaign or violent defense of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus had already taught His disciples to love their enemies, avoid retaliation, and pursue peace in Matthew 5:38-48. When the disciples produced two swords, Jesus ended the discussion in Luke 22:38 rather than organizing them for combat. Shortly afterward, Peter used a sword against the high priest’s slave, and Jesus immediately stopped him, healed the injured man, and rejected violent resistance, as recorded in Luke 22:49-51 and John 18:10-11. The presence of the swords contributed to the circumstances in which Jesus was counted among lawless men, fulfilling the statement quoted from Isaiah in Luke 22:37. His arrest nevertheless demonstrated that His followers were not to advance His cause through weapons. The passages agree that Jesus knowingly entered the conditions of arrest while refusing to permit His disciples to establish or defend His kingdom through human violence.

The Responsibility of the Christian Reader

A Christian should approach every New Testament difficulty honestly, humbly, fearlessly, and with determination to understand what the inspired writer meant. Honest study refuses to hide manuscript evidence, force artificial explanations, or dismiss a question simply because it is uncomfortable. Humility recognizes that incomplete knowledge of ancient history does not establish an error in the biblical text. Fearlessness remembers that truth does not collapse under examination, since Jesus Himself appealed repeatedly to evidence, fulfilled Scripture, and eyewitness testimony. Determination requires comparing parallel accounts, examining the immediate context, identifying the speaker, considering the original language, and distinguishing explicit statements from assumptions supplied by the reader. Proverbs 18:13 condemns answering before hearing the matter, and that principle applies directly to accusations against Scripture. Second Timothy 2:15 commands the Christian worker to handle the word of truth accurately, while First Peter 3:15 requires a reasoned defense presented with mildness and respect. Difficult passages therefore become opportunities to strengthen biblical knowledge, refine interpretive discipline, and demonstrate that careful examination supports confidence in the inspired New Testament.

You May Also Enjoy

How We Got Our Bible

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS