This post is part of an ongoing series analyzing Mark Clark’s book The Problem of God, which claims to present a case for Christianity in a skeptical age. Each entry evaluates a chapter or section of the book through a critical, secular lens—applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy: evidence over assertion, logic over tradition, and intellectual honesty over inherited belief. If you’re exploring or questioning Christian faith, this series is for you.
The Preacher’s Excuse
In this section of Chapter 3, Mark Clark tries to explain away contradictions in the Bible by telling a story from his days in Bible college. He recalls noticing discrepancies between the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 and the parable of the minas in Luke 19—stories that seem nearly identical but differ in key details. Alarmed, he approached his professor, who handed him recordings of Clark’s own sermons. Each sermon, the professor pointed out, used the same illustrations in slightly different ways.
The implication? Jesus did the same thing. Like any preacher, he reused parables and adjusted details for different audiences. So the Gospel contradictions aren’t real contradictions—they’re just variations of the same teaching moment.
It’s a clever move. But it’s also a dodge.
The Gospel writers never indicate that they’re recording multiple tellings of the same parable. They present these as historical, eyewitness events. And they differ not just in nuance—but in content, sequencing, and meaning. That’s not literary flexibility. That’s inconsistency.
This section continues with two of the most famous examples.
1. Judas’s Death: A Bloody Contradiction
Clark tackles the conflict between Matthew 27 and Acts 1 regarding how Judas Iscariot died.
- Matthew: Judas returned the silver and hanged himself.
- Acts: Judas bought a field, fell headlong, and burst open.
Clark’s defense? These are “complementary” accounts. He suggests Judas hanged himself, the rope eventually snapped, and his body fell and burst open.
But this isn’t explanation—it’s imagination.
The texts themselves say nothing about a fall in Matthew, or a hanging in Acts. In fact, Acts directly says Judas bought the field, whereas Matthew says the priests did, using the returned silver. These are not two versions of the same story. They are two conflicting stories.
Apologists often attempt to harmonize by inventing plausible scenarios—but these scenarios don’t exist in the text. If two court transcripts offered accounts this contradictory, no one would claim they “complement” each other. We’d question whether either could be trusted.
2. The Angels at the Tomb: Silent Subtraction
Next, Clark addresses the inconsistency between resurrection accounts:
- Matthew says there was one angel.
- John says there were two.
Clark insists there’s no contradiction—Matthew simply chose to focus on one angel, while John mentioned both.
But this isn’t how precision works.
Matthew doesn’t write, “one of the angels said…” He writes, “the angel said…”—as though there was only one. If two angels had been there and Matthew had simply chosen to omit one, it would raise the question: why omit half of the divine messengers at the most important event in human history?
This isn’t a minor discrepancy—it’s a detail that calls into question the accuracy of either (or both) accounts.
The Larger Problem
Clark closes by accusing skeptics of applying “a level of precision and perfection” to the Bible that we wouldn’t apply to any other ancient text.
But that’s the point.
Apologists claim the Bible is inerrant, God-breathed, and perfect—not just another ancient text. If the Bible is to serve as the foundation of divine authority, it must meet the higher standard that Christians themselves claim for it.
If it’s just human literature, then Clark’s excuse works.
But if it’s God’s Word, it doesn’t.
God or Delusion? 