By DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.
[Editor’s Note: This article is excerpted from AP’s book Baptism & the Greek Made Simple.]
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with
a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure
water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Hebrews 10:19-23).
In addition to the host of passages that explicitly affirm the essentiality of water baptism for salvation, the grammar of Hebrews
10:22 provides additional verification. “Let us draw near,” or as Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest renders it, “let us keep on drawing
near,”1 is a present middle/passive subjunctive verb used for exhortation—a “hortatory subjective.”2 This drawing nearer to God is
to be accompanied by “a true heart in full assurance of faith.” The term rendered “full assurance” refers to a “state of complete
certainty, full assurance, certainty.”3 The recipients of the book already possessed faith (when they became Christians), but they
now needed to mature their faith and bring it to a more complete state of assurance, conviction, and certainty (particularly since
they were tending to revert back to their Jewish conceptions).4 This admonition is followed by two Perfect passive participles.5
The Perfect tense in Greek connotes “completed action with a resulting state of being.” Perfect passive participles describe action
that is either coincident with or antecedent to the principal verb.6 Hence, the actions of “having been sprinkled” and “having been
washed” occurred before the admonition to “keep on drawing near to God.” As Marcus Dods explains: “These participles express
not conditions of approach to God which are yet to be achieved, but conditions already possessed.”7 Mounce conveys the thrust
of the perfect passive participle even more forcefully: “since our hearts have been….”8 The following two participles, therefore,
refer back to the point in time of their conversion—when they accessed the “blood of Jesus” (vs. 19). As Carl Moll noted in his
comments on verse 22: “We thus refer the language, not to sanctification, but to justification on the ground of a propitiation.”9
The first participle speaks of “having had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.”10 In keeping with the subject matter of
Hebrews, the notion of “sprinkled” undoubtedly harks back to and echoes the Law of Moses practice of sprinkling people and
objects with various liquids (including water as well as blood) for purification purposes. However, it is a physical impossibility for
one literally to sprinkle his heart, mind, and conscience. Hence, the writer is using figurative language. But how/when did they
“sprinkle their hearts”? The answer lies in the fact that before one can become a Christian, one must alter his heart and mind, i.e.,
repent (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; et al.). The Greek term for “repentance” literally means “a change of mind.”11 So the author
and recipients of the book of Hebrews came to faith in Christ, and then repented of their sins. If, instead, the “sprinkling” here
refers to the cleansing power of Christ’s blood, the design of baptism remains the same, since the two participles indicate
coincident (with each other) actions. The former possible meaning is inviting since Romans 6 distinguishes between the “death”
to sin that occurs in the mind of the prospective convert at the point of repentance which precedes the spiritual death or
termination of sin which occurs in the mind of God at the point of burial in water.
The next participle, which describes action that occurred coincident with the sprinkling, adds “having had our body washed with
pure water” (again, Wuest’s literal rendering). Observe that the use of the term “body” (singular-soma), not sarx (“flesh”) indicates
a literal washing of the physical body with H2O—unlike the figurative use of sprinkling in the previous participle.12 The only
activity associated with Christianity that involves water applied to the body is baptism. Lenski insisted that “the New Testament
knows of only one washing, namely baptism.”13 Writing in the 19th century, Robert Milligan noted: “Indeed, nearly all eminent
expositors are now agreed that there is here a manifest reference to the ordinance of Christian baptism.”14 To summarize, in
Hebrews 10:22, the inspired writer urges his Christian audience to continue to draw closer to God, even as they had commenced
that approach when they first believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized.
One other observation that merits consideration: in the very next verse, the writer admonishes his readers to “hold fast the
confession of our hope without wavering.” The term “confession” is the noun form (homologian) of the verb that means to confess.
The New Testament plainly declares that one of the prerequisites to initial salvation/forgiveness—in addition to faith, repentance,
and baptism—is oral confession with the mouth (Romans 10:9-10). Macknight rightly notes: “The apostle in this exhortation
referred to that confession of their hope of salvation through Christ, which the primitive Christians made at baptism.”15 If that is
the confession that the writer has in mind in verse 23, then the writer alludes to all four prerequisites to salvation in two verses:
faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.
Endnotes
1 Kenneth Wuest (2002 reprint), The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 529; Also R.C.H. Lenski (2001
reprint), The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 347.
2 William Davis (1923), Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Harper & Row), p. 76; H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey
(1955), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan), p. 171; Ray Summers (1950), Essentials of New Testament
Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), p. 108).
3 Frederick Danker, rev. and ed. (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press), p. 827.
4 See the meaning in Colossian 2:2 and Hebrews 6:11, as well as the verb form used in Romans 4:21, Colossians 4:12, and Romans 14:5.
5 Summers, p. 103; Davis, p. 156.
6 Davis, p. 157.
7 Marcus Dods (no date), “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans), 4:346-347, emp. added.
8 Robert Mounce and William Mounce (2011), The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), emp. added.
See also NCV and ISV.
9 Carl Moll (1870), The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Charles Scribner), p. 175, italics in orig.
10 Translated by Wuest, p. 529.
11 Danker, p. 640.
12 See Henry Alford (1874), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint), 4:196.
13 p. 350.
14 Robert Milligan (1950), The New Testament Commentary: Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), 9:282-283.
15 James MacKnight (no date), A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek of all the Apostolical Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p.
556, emp. added.
THE ABOVE ARTICLE WAS TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING URL:https://apologeticspress.org/hebrews-1022-and-the-necessity-of-baptism/
My family recently moved out of California, and one of the primary reasons for doing so related to the
desire to get our children out of a state that Kari and I didn’t believe offered them a bright future. There is no
perfect state in our country, we know that, but we did what we believed was best for our family.
With this in mind, I was thinking about Lot living in Sodom and wondering why he stayed there so
long? It took a very “strong arm” to get him out of there before the city was destroyed. He was living in a
city so evil that even thousands of years after its destruction, it still stands as an example of God’s
displeasure.
We know why Lot moved to Sodom. Genesis 13:10 tells us this area was “well-watered everywhere”
and it was “like the garden of the Lord.” Unfortunately, the physical beauty masked the depravity that
existed there. So, why did Lot stay? What kept Lot in Sodom? We know he had family members there, but
perhaps he also had a successful business he did not want to leave? We don’t know the exact reason, but
it’s likely the same reason his wife turned around to look at the city when the Lord explicitly warned against
it.
One thing we do know is that the Lord did not fault Lot for living there. 2 Peter 2:7 offers an important
piece of information as Peter says God “delivered righteous Lot.” The extreme wickedness in Sodom did not
impact Lot’s righteousness. In fact, the rest of the verse says Lot “was oppressed with the filthy conduct of
the wicked” in Sodom. Like Noah, Daniel, and many other faithful followers of God, Lot was able to live in
his world without being “of the world” (Romans 12:2) or “loving the world” (1 John 2:15).
One conclusion we can draw from this is God’s willingness to allow His people to live anywhere in
this world as long as our allegiance is to Him. God never calls us to go hide in a cave, or to only live where
other people are faithful. His desire is for us to shine as a bright light in a dark world (Matthew 5:13-16).
Jesus commanded us to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).
No matter how bad your workplace, your school, your neighborhood, your state, or even your country,
you and I can be pleasing to God. 2 Peter 2 offers us great consolation in giving Lot as an example of God’s
promise to deliver the godly. Keep on keeping on…..fight the good fight…..wherever you are.
By: DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.
In Matthew (26:26-27) and Mark’s (14:22-23) record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus blessed the
bread first and then the cup. However, Luke seems to give the opposite order with the cup mentioned first
(22:17-19). Is this difference a discrepancy in which the inspired writers contradict each other?
It is certainly the case that Jesus only instituted the Lord’s Supper one time. He either blessed the bread
first or He blessed the cup first. He did not do it both ways. So can we make sense of the text in such a way
that the Bible is not discredited, recognizing that Jesus did not do it both ways? On that lone night so long
ago, when He instituted the Lord’s Supper, which way did He do it? Bread then cup, or cup then bread?
It is clearly the case that Bible writers do not always claim to be representing a particular event in
chronological sequence. Luke could have easily been treating the Passover and Lord’s Supper incident
topically. In such a case, no contradiction would exist. However, in this particular instance, a different
explanation presents itself.
Read carefully Luke’s reporting of the event:
Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and
John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.” …When the hour had come, He
sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to
eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the
kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among
yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 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” (22:7-21, emp. added).
Observe carefully that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the tail end of the observance of the Jewish
Passover. One must be careful to distinguish between the two, particularly since the same emblems were
used for both, and since the former typifies the latter. The killing of the Passover lamb under Judaism
anticipated the death of Jesus Who, in turn, became “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Luke, more than
Matthew and Mark, demonstrates this close parallelism.1
Luke actually has two allusions to “cup”—one in verse 17 and the other in verse 20. The first “cup” was
taken during the Passover and the second “cup” was part of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.2 Hence,
Luke does not differ from Matthew and Mark in specifying the same order for partaking of the Lord’s Supper,
i.e., first the bread and then the cup. Luke’s use in verse 21 of “likewise” refers back to “He took bread,” and
“after supper” refers both to the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.
This fact is further supported by Paul in his recounting of the occasion in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Observe
the indications of sequence he portrays—
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 broken 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. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so
let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats
and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body (emp. added).
Observe that Paul goes out of his way to emphasize the order that Jesus instigated—bread/cup and eat/
drink. He even clarified that the cup that is part of the Lord’s Supper was done “after supper,” i.e., after the
Passover meal. So the “cup” of Luke 22:17-18 was the cup that was associated with the Passover meal—
not the Lord’s Supper cup which is noted in verse 20 after the Passover meal and after the bread of the
Lord’s Supper.
Another consideration pertains to the fact that Luke 22:17-20 constitutes a textual variant. However, the
Committee for the UBS Greek text concluded that the cup-bread-cup sequence is authentic based on “the
overwhelming preponderance of external evidence.”3 Further, Sir Frederick Kenyon and S.C.E. Legg offer
the only plausible explanation for the existence of variants by noting:
The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves should be taken in connection with the
previous verse (ver. 16) as referring to the eating of the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven.
This is followed by the institution of the Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of
Him. This gives an intelligible meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would
occasion difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revision that appear in
various forms of the shorter version.4
Hence, the first allusion to “cup” in verse 17 links back with the eating and drinking of the Passover meal in
verses 15-16, while the second allusion to “cup” refers to the Lord’s Supper. Luke agrees with Matthew and
Mark that, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He first took the bread and then took the cup. There is
no contradiction.
REFERENCES
1 See J.W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard
Publishing Foundation), p. 646.
2 Ibid, p. 658. See also J.W. McGarvey (1910),Short Essays in Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: The
Standard Publishing Company), pp. 342-343.
3 Bruce Metzger (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies), p. 176.
4 Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S.C.E. Legg (1937), “The Textual Data” in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. Roderic Dunkerley (London: SCM), pp. 285-286.
By Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Three times in the book of Acts, Luke the physician recorded non-Christians asking what they needed
to do to be saved, and three times a different answer was given. The heathen jailor from Philippi asked Paul
and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?,” and was told: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will
be saved” (16:30-31). The Jews on Pentecost asked the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?,”
and were instructed to “repent and be baptized” (2:37-38). A few years later, Saul (later called Paul—Acts
13:9) asked Jesus, Who appeared to Saul on his way to Damascus, “Lord, what do you want me to do?”
(9:6; 22:10). After being told to go into Damascus to find out what he “must do” to be saved, Ananias, the
Lord’s servant, commanded Saul to “[a]rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name
of the Lord” (22:16). The question that many ask is: “Why are three different answers given to the same
question?” Are these answers contradictory, or is there a logical explanation for their differences?
The reason that three different answers were given to the question of salvation is because on each
occasion the questioners were at different “locations” on the road to salvation. The rationality of such
answers can be illustrated by considering what a person is told in reference to his physical distance from a
certain city. If a friend calls me to ask how far it is from his house in Jackson, Tennessee to my parents’
house in Neosho, Missouri, I would inform him that he is 475 miles from Neosho. If he calls me back the
next day, notifying me that he is now in Little Rock, Arkansas, and asks about the distance to Neosho, I
would give him a different answer. He now would be 260 miles from Neosho. If, later that evening, he called
me one last time and asked how far Fort Smith is from Neosho, again I would give him a different answer—
130 miles. No rational person would accuse me of contradicting myself, since each question was asked
from a different reference point. Three different answers were given, but all three were correct. Likewise, the
New Testament records three different answers given to the question, “What must I do to be saved,”
because the sinners who asked these questions were at different places of understanding on the road to
salvation.
The Philippian jailor was commanded to believe in Christ, because he had not yet heard and believed
the saving message of Jesus (Acts 16:31-32; Romans 10:17). It would have been pointless for Paul and
Silas to command the jailor to repent and/or be baptized when he had not yet even heard the Gospel. If
today, a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, asked a Christian the same question the Philippian jailor asked Paul
and Silas, the same answer would need to be given. Before ever teaching a Muslim about the essentiality of
repentance and baptism, he first must express belief in Jesus as the Son of God. If this step (i.e., believing)
is never taken on the road to salvation, the other steps are meaningless. [NOTE: The Bible reveals that after
Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord” to the jailor and his household, they believed and “immediately”
were baptized (Acts 16:33). By implication, Paul and Silas must have taught the jailor and his family about
the essentiality of baptism after stressing the need to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Acts
8:35-36,38). Question: If water baptism has nothing to do with salvation, then why were the jailor and his
household immersed in water not long after midnight (cf. Acts 16:25,33)?]
The Jews on Pentecost had already heard Peter’s sermon when they asked their question about
salvation (Acts 2:37). Peter knew that they already believed, and that such belief came from hearing the
message he preached (cf. Romans 10:17). The Jews had passed the point of belief (being “pricked in their
heart”), and were told to “repent and be baptized” in order to obtain salvation (cf. Mark 16:16).
Still, someone might wonder why Ananias told Saul neither to believe nor repent when he informed him
about how to have his sins washed away. The reason: Saul already was a penitent believer in Christ by the
time he came in contact with Ananias. Saul did not need to be told to believe or repent, since he had already
done so. He knew the Lord existed, having spoken directly with Him on the road to Damascus, and he
expressed a penitent attitude by praying to God and fasting for three days (Acts 9:9,11). At this point, Saul
lacked only one thing: he needed to be baptized (Acts 22:16).
The reason these sinners were told three different things regarding salvation was because they were at
different starting points when given the various answers. It is as if the jailor were in Jackson, Tennessee, the
Jews on Pentecost in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Saul in Fort Smith. All wanted to go to the same place, but
were at different starting points when they asked the question, “What must I do to be saved?” The unbeliever
was told to believe. The believers were told to repent. And the penitent believer was told to be baptized. The
three statements may be different, but they are not contradictory. For a person to become a child of God, he
or she must do all three (see John 8:24; Luke 13:3,5; Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16).
By: WAYNE JACKSON, MA
Q.How does one respond to the charge that the New Testament endorses superstition by its
occasional references to demon possession?
A.Demon possession was a real, historical phenomenon of the first century. Spirit entities, known as
demons [the KJV “devils” is an incorrect translation], did inhabit and afflict human bodies during
that age.
The question of demon origin is not spelled out in the Scriptures, though several theories have been
proposed by Bible scholars—some of which may be dismissed out of hand. A few writers have suggested
that demons were the disembodied spirits of a pre-Adamic race of men who lived upon the Earth in an
alleged “gap period” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There is, however, no evidence of any such gap period.
Furthermore, Adam is clearly identified as the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Others speculate that
demons resulted from the cohabitation of angels with antediluvian women (based upon a misunderstanding
of Genesis 6:1-4), even though Christ plainly taught that angels are sexless beings incapable of such unions
(Matthew 22:30).
The two more plausible views surmise that: (a) demons may have been the spirits of wicked dead men
whom God, in harmony with His divine purpose, permitted to leave the Hadean realm to indwell some
people (see, for example, Alexander Campbell, “Demonology,” Popular Lectures and Addresses); or (b)
demons may have been fallen angels who were allowed to escape their confinement (Jude 6) for a similar
purpose (see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology). Regardless of their origin, the existence of demons is
recognized within the pages of the New Testament.
In regard to their nature, demons are portrayed as spirits (Matthew 8:16), and thus did not possess a
corporeal existence (Luke 24:39). In regard to their character, demons are portrayed as unclean spirits that
were evil, and under the immediate control of Satan (Matthew 12:24,43,45). Demons also were intelligent
beings (Mark 1:24), and could exercise both volition and locomotion whenever permitted (Matthew
12:44-45). Demon possession of human bodies frequently resulted in physical and/or mental illness
(although such ailments clearly were distinguished from the demon itself (see Matthew 4:24). Dumbness
(Matthew 9:32), blindness (Matthew 12:22), and supernatural strength (Mark 5:4; Acts 19:16) sometimes
were characteristic of demoniacs.
The New Testament supplies no reason as to exactly why demons entered particular individuals, but makes
clear that they inhabited men (Matthew 9:32), women (Luke 8:2), and children (Mark 7:30). Apparently,
demon possession was permitted temporarily by God in order that the authority of Christ might be made
manifest. As the Lord revealed control over nature (Mark 4:41), disease (Mark 2:12), material things (John
2:9), and even death (John 11:44), so also did He demonstrate power over the spirit realm (Luke 11:20). In
fact, the authority of Jesus over evil spirits amazed His contemporaries, who exclaimed: “What is this? a
new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him” (Mark 1:27).
Christ’s disciples, by His authority, also could expel demons (Luke 10:17), except on one occasion when
hindered by their weak faith (cf. Mark 9:28 and Matthew 17:20).
With the termination of the supernatural era of the early church, demon possession, and the corresponding
gift of expulsion ceased. Satan’s supernatural power was bound (Matthew 12:29). Certainly, the devil exerts
great influence today. However, just as God no longer works miraculously, but influences men through His
Word and providence, so also, Satan wields his power indirectly and non-miraculously through various
media. Modern cases of supposed demon possession are doubtless the results of psychosomatic problems,
hysteria, self-induced hypnosis, delusion, and such like. They have natural, though perhaps not always well-
understood, causes. When the Bible discusses demon possession, it is always from a specific, historical
vantage point. As such, it does not endorse myth or superstition.
The article above was taken from the following URL: https://apologeticspress.org/demon-possession-the-
bible-and-superstition-1154/
by ERIC LYONS, M.Min.
According to skeptics, the writers of Kings and Chronicles were contradictory in their recording of where
King Josiah died. Popular skeptic Steve Wells lists 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 as #253 in his
list of “contradictions” in the Bible,1 while the website 1001biblecontradictions.com cataloged these verses as
“contradiction” #250.2 The late skeptic Dennis McKinsey highlighted these verses in one of the early issues of
his journal Biblical Errancy, claiming they represented one of the “simple, straight-forward problems” of the
Bible.3 So what, exactly, do these verses say?
According to 2 Kings 23:29-30:
In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria, to the River
Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him. And Pharaoh Necho killed him at
Megiddo when he confronted him. Then his servants moved his body in a chariot from Megiddo,
brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took
Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place.
On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 reads:
And the archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, “Take me away, for I am
severely wounded.” His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second
chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one
of the tombs of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
Is there actually a contradiction between these passages, or is there merely an unfair desire for them to
contradict without real proof of such discrepancy? As is the case with most allegations of biblical
inconsistencies, once again skeptics assume (1) the worst, and (2) much more than they can ever prove.
The two accounts of the death of Josiah are not contradictory but supplementary. Just as reading
multiple reports of a current news event should give the reader a more robust view of things, reading both
accounts of Josiah’s death gives us a fuller picture, not a discrepant one. Though Pharaoh Necho had no
quarrels (at least on this occasion) with Josiah and his army (2 Chronicles 35:20-21), nevertheless Josiah
ignored “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” (2 Chronicles 35:22). The King of Judah foolishly
“disguised himself” and went “to fight in the Valley of Megiddo” (2 Chronicles 35:22), where Pharaoh Necho
“killed him” (2 Kings 23:29). The chronicler details that it was the archers (under Pharaoh’s authority) who shot
Josiah (35:23). This difference is not one generally highlighted by skeptics as a contradiction between the two
accounts. Most fair-minded people understand that a “king,” “president,” or some other ruler may be said to
“do something” when, in actuality, he gave the command for it to be done. That is, it was done under his
authority and thus (in one legitimate sense) “by him.” If skeptics can seemingly concede the sensibleness in this
difference between Kings and Chronicles, one wonders why they will not also consider possible, rational
explanations for other differences by two different, independent writers of two different historical accounts?
Could it be that the phrase in 2 Kings 23:29 that “Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo” means nothing
more than it was at Megiddo that King Josiah received his mortal blow, but that his heart actually stopped
beating somewhere else, sometime later? Suppose a man is shot on Main Street but is not pronounced dead
until he’s in an ambulance, halfway to the hospital. Can one not truthfully say (in one sense) that the man was
killed on Main Street—that he received his “dying blow” there, though his brain activity did not technically stop
until he was in the ambulance or perhaps at the hospital? Surely to ask is to answer. Admittedly, a few
translations word 2 Kings 23:30 as Josiah being “carried…in a chariot dead (meeth) from Megiddo” (KJV), but,
as John Haley noted many years ago, the Hebrew term meeth can mean “dying or in a dying state.”4
Furthermore, simply because the chronicler noted “[s]o he [Josiah] died” after he mentioned that
Josiah’s servants “brought him to Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 35:24) is not proof that Josiah actually died in
Jerusalem. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: “The statement and he died…is just a common
form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard
for their chronological order.”5 Indeed, the chronicler is merely stating the fact that Josiah died and not exactly
when he died. As we have noted in other articles,6 Bible writers often recorded their material topically or
climactically, and not necessarily chronologically. We should no more assume the chronicler was writing strictly
sequentially in 2 Chronicles 35:24 than we should when we ask our spouse to tell us how his or her day went.
(What reasonable person would criticize others for not telling various events in chronological order if that was
not their stated intention?)
The fact that Dennis McKinsey thought so much of the question regarding where Josiah died, even
contending it is one of the “simple, straight-forward problems” of the Bible, should be an indication of just how
weak his case (and others’) is against the Bible. Scripture reveals that Josiah died after receiving his “death
blow” in battle at Megiddo. Precisely when and where he took his final breath, we do not know, nor do we have
to know to exonerate the Bible writers of any proven error in their penning of Scripture.
Endnotes
1 Steve Wells (2013), The Skeptics Annotated Bible (SAB Books), p. 1614. See also pp. 548,642.
2 “1001 Contradictions & Discrepancies in the Christians Bible” (2014), #250, http://
www.1001biblecontradictions.com/I3d%20-%20HOJ%20%5B234-258%5D.html.
3 Dennis McKinsey (1983), “Issue No. 5,” Biblical Errancy, May, p. 29.
4 John Haley (1977 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 376.
5 E.M. Zerr (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications), pp. 279-278, emp. in
orig.
6 Eric Lyons (2005), “Alleged Chronological Contradictions,” https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?
category=6&article=1582. See also Eric Lyons (2004), “In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus?” https://
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=746.
The above article was taken from the following URL: https://apologeticspress.org/did-josiah-die-in-megiddo-or-
jerusalem-5984/
