doubtingthomas

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matt. 10:23

vs.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matt. 24:14


My thinking here is that if the gospel had been preached to all the world, then it also would have been preached to all the cities of Israel. I can think of a possible problem with this, but what are your thoughts?

GakuseiDon

Ignoring the sense of the passages, and going with the strict literal meaning, as is usual in literalist-fundy-contradictionist vs literalist-fundy-apologist debates of this sort:

I suppose there are several ways to resolve this 'contradiction'. The most obvious one is that Jesus is talking about the 12 disciples ("you") actually physically going to each city in Israel in Matt 10, while He is talking about the gospel message being preached to all the world.

doubtingthomas

Well the context of Matt 10:23 certainly suggests preaching the gospel.

One could suggest, though, that the gospel would be preached in the remaining cities by other christians. I think there might be a rebuttal to this apologetic as well.

Chili

Yes it does and Jn.20:21 tells us how we should go. While showings his hands and his side to the disciples Jesus said: "As the father has send me, so I am sending you." We call this the stigmata and that would our 'licence' to preach the gospel to others. Until then, we must shut up and see to it that we get our own.

astral7

there are a few matters to think about in dt's question and quotes;

Firstly there are thousands of xtian sects who may never feel the gospel has reached the whole world. [their claim to this is that the world hasn't ended yet - Or jesus hasn't returned yet - not that any would ever recognize Him if He did return.]
Even that expression is an idiomatic one of His times [such as when they said,"look the whole world is going after Him."]
Even His chosen apostles were just hanging around Judea till Paul came along and got the cult really moving.
Also - "till the end come"........ the end of what - ???
If he meant the mediteranean world being the whole world, they had probably gone over only part of that when Jerusalem ended in a blood bath by the Romans.
There may not be any contradiction invoved in these two quotes.
Now if the coming of the Son of man means the flowering to true Self-realization in each believer - or some of them, this second coming of "the Christ (Christos or Logos) has occured numerous times in spiritual history globally.
It is difficult to know when Jesus spoke of Himself or the father [reality] was speaking of itself through Him.
See John ch14 vs 10&24......
regards, astral7

ichabod crane

The parallels and similarities between Matthew 10:5-42 and the Olivet Discourse are such that, in addition to the explicit reference to the coming of the Son of Man, I personally think the whole passage is eschatological in character. It seems to me clear that Jesus thought that the end of the world would happen some time in the immediate future, and that the events in the Olivet Discourse were near in time. Obviously, he was wrong, but that seems to be what he believed. This is one of many passages that suggests to me the view that he was an apocalyptic prophet.

With regards to the contradiction, though, there isn't one really. Jesus is saying that each of the disciples will not have time to flee and move through all the cities of Israel before the end comes. That indicates the end is near. But in the quote from the Olivet Discourse referring to the gospel being preached throughout all the world, he doesn't specify how that is to occur, and who is to do the preaching. If Jesus thought that only his disciples were to preach the gospel, then there would appear to be a contradiction. But Jesus might have anticipated hordes of people, future converts, going out into the world preaching the gospel (keep in mind that Jesus' idea of the "whole world" was a lot smaller than ours). He might have thought of some kind of divine revelation of the gospel to the whole world. For example, it may relate to the "sign of the Son of Man" (24:30) that was to appear in heaven. Anything is possible. But the two passages are not necessarily contradictory.

myndreach

no matter how many contradictions you show to a christian, they will be able to rationalise it.

I see things as a contradiction, and they don't.

That just shows that the bible is largely open to intepretation. This in turn shows how ridiculous it is that a book written by fallible men would be the infallible god's method of communicating to us the way to avoid the torments of the hell he has prepared for us.

Chili

Good point but it is a bit late now to see that. I think the Reformation was fought to prevent this error and ever since then hell has been the hot spot for bible enthusiast.

myndreach

could you expound upon this in a bit more detail please? im not too informed as far as the points of the reformation