WHAT ABOUT

ALL THOSE

CONTRADICTIONS?
Chapter 11

Back to previous page

 

How can you believe a Bible that is full of contradictions?

 

eople ask this question so often it amazes me. The question assumes that the Bible is filled with so many obvious discrepancies it would be impossible to believe it has a divine origin. It is a popular idea to maintain that the Bible disagrees with itself, and so, unfortunately, casts considerable doubt on its own trustworthiness.

 

If, indeed, the Bible does contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not have come from a perfect, all-knowing God. We do not argue with this conclusion, but we do disagree with the initial premise that the Scriptures are full of mistakes. It is easy to accuse the Bible of inaccuracies, but it is quite another matter to prove it.

 

Certain passages at first glance can appear to be contradictory, but further investigation will show this is not the case.

One of the things for which we appeal with regard to possible contradictions is fairness. We should not minimize or exaggerate the problem, and we must always begin by giving the author the benefit of the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and we ask that it also be the rule here. So often people want to employ a different set of rules in examining the Bible, and to this we immediately object.

 

What constitutes a contradiction? The law of non-contradiction, which is the basis of all logical thinking, states that a thing cannot be both a and non-a at the same time, in the same place, and in the same manner. It cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time in the same location.

 

If one can demonstrate a violation of this principle from Scripture, then and only then can he prove a contradiction. For example, if the Bible said - which it does not - that Jesus died by crucifixion both at Jerusalem and at Nazareth at the same time, this would be a provable error.

 

When facing possible contradictions, it is important to remember that two statements can differ from each other without being contradictory. Some people fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference.

 

Take, for example, the case of the blind men at Jericho. Matthew relates how two blind men met Jesus, while both Mark and Luke mention only one. However, neither of these statements denies the other. Rather they are complementary.

 

Suppose you talk to the mayor of your city and the chief of police at city hall. Later, you see your friend, Jim, and tell him you talked to the mayor today. An hour after that, you see another friend, John, and tell him you talked to both the mayor and the chief of police.

 

Your friends compare notes, and there seems to be a contradiction but there is not. Since you had not told Jim you talked only to the mayor, you did not contradict what you told John.

 

The statements you made to Jim and John were different, not contradictory. Many biblical statements fall into this category, and people sometimes think they find errors in passages when actually they simply do not read the passages correctly.

 

In the Book of Judges we have the account of the death of Sisera. Judges 5:25-27 is supposed to represent Jael as having slain him with her hammer and tent peg while he was drinking milk. Judges 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. However, a closer reading of the Judges 5 passage reveals that it does not state he was drinking milk at the moment of impact -and the discrepancy disappears.

 

Sometimes two passages appear contradictory because the translation is not as accurate as it could be. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible can immediately solve these difficulties, for both Greek and Hebrew - as all languages - have peculiarities that are difficult to render into English or any other language.

 

A classic example concerns the accounts of Paul's conversion recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 9:7 (KJV) states: "The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts 22:9 (KJV) reads: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me."

 

These statements seem contradictory, with one saying Paul's companions heard a voice and the other saying no voice was heard. However, a knowledge of Greek solves this difficulty. As the Greek scholar, W. F. Arndt, explains:

 

The construction of the verb "to hear" (akouo) is not the same in both accounts. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genitive, in Acts 22:9 with the accusative. The construction with the genitive simply expresses that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is indicated as to whether a person understands what he hears or not.

 

The construction with the accusative, however, describes a hearing which includes mental apprehension of the message spoken. From this it becomes evident that the two passages are not contradictory.

 

Acts 22:9 does not deny that the associates of Paul heard certain sounds; it simply declares that they did not hear in such a way as to understand what was being said. Our English idiom in this case simply is not so expressive as the Greek. 15/13-14

 

It also must be stressed that when a possible explanation is given to a Bible difficulty, it is unreasonable to state that the passage contains a demonstrable error. Some difficulties in Scripture result from our inadequate knowledge about the circumstances, and only prove that we are ignorant of the background. As historical and archaeological studies proceed, new light is being shed on difficult portions of Scripture and many 66 errors" have disappeared with the new understanding. We need a wait and-see attitude on the problems.

 

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES ON THIS SUBJECT

 

Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).

 

W. F. Arndt, Bible Difficulties (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1971).

 

W. F. Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? 5th ed. revised (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1955).

 

John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968).

 

John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint).

 

Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978). See pages 313-19 for four different explanations of the alleged contradiction between the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke.

 

 

Doesn't Matthew make a mistake by attributing a prophecy to Jeremiah when it actually was given by Zechariah?

 

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Judas Iscariot, after betraying Jesus, feels remorse because of his evil deeds, throws the betrayal money into the sanctuary, and commits suicide. Matthew goes on to relate how this money was taken by the priests and used to buy a potter's field.

 

Matthew concludes:

 

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me (27:9,10, KJV).

 

The problem is that verse 9 attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, when it appears that it was Zechariah who gave this prediction. When Matthew 27:9 is examined closely in light of Zechariah 11:12,13, it is clear that this prophecy is the one fulfilled. Why then does Matthew assign it to Jeremiah?

 

A possible solution is Jeremiah's priority in the Talmud. 43/362 Jeremiah was placed first in the ancient rabbinic order of the prophetic books. Matthew was then quoting from the collection of the books of the prophets, and cited Jeremiah since it was the first and therefore the identifier. The same thing is done in Luke 24:44, where Psalms is used when the entire third division of the Hebrew canon is in mind.

 

Perhaps the best solution would be to understand that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with a mention of only one author in the composite reference, namely Jeremiah, the major prophet.

 

Zechariah says nothing concerning the buying of a field, but Jeremiah states that the Lord appointed him to buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-8) as a solemn guarantee by the Lord Himself that fields and vineyards would be bought and sold in the land in a future day (Jeremiah 32:15,43ff).

 

One of the fields which God had in mind was the potter's field. Zechariah adds the details of the thirty pieces of silver and the money thrown down on the floor of the Temple. So we see that Matthew takes the details of both prophets, but stresses Jeremiah as the one who foretold these events.

 

Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view consistent with the above. In classroom lectures he pointed out:

 

Matthew felt that two passages were fulfilled, one typical (Jeremiah 19:1-13) and one explicit (Zechariah 11:13), and mentions only one author in the composite reference, a practice that sometimes occurred, according to Robert Gundry. 32/124-25

 

John N. Cool also concludes that Matthew used Zechariah chiefly, but had Jeremiah 19 prominently in mind as well, especially due to its theme of judgment on Israel.

Cool says,

 

Both (valley, Jeremiah 19; field, Matthew 27) become burial grounds and both their names are changed to remind the people of God's judgment. [This is] confirmed by the traditional location of the potter's field ... within the valley of Hinnom where Jeremiah pronounced his judgment by changing its name to 'valley of slaughter.'

Second, Matthew's consistent use of Isaiah and Jeremiah in his formula quotations reminds his readers of God's salvation and judgment for His people. Isaiah was associated with salvation, Jeremiah ... with judgment.

The use of tote in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9 instead of the purposeful Hina or Houtos found in other formula introductions also underscores the judgment motif by referring to Christ's enemies as fulfilling prophecy.

 

Gundry says that Matthew's reference to Jeremiah in the introduction formula makes certain that readers will take note of the connection with Jeremiah 19, which might be overlooked.

 

 

How would you explain the inaccuracy between Judas "went away and hanged himself' in Matthew 27:5 and "falling headlong, he burst open" in Acts 1:18?

 

This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error.

 

Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at all.

 

Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do they necessarily contradict each other?

 

Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be true and supplementary.

 

A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for a time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.

 

The fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of Hinnom is examined. From the bottom of the valley, you can see rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.

 

There are still trees that grow around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on his way down, tearing his body open.

 

 

Three days and three nights in the tomb?

 

Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jesus' statement that "just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).

 

They ask, "How could Jesus have remained in the tomb three days and three nights if He was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday?"

 

The accounts of His death and resurrection as given in the Gospels of

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John indicate that Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, before sundown, which is the beginning of the next day for the Jews, and resurrected on the first day of the week, which is our Sunday, before sunrise.

 

This puts Jesus in the grave for part of Friday, the entire Sabbath, and part of Sunday. In other words, He was in the tomb two full nights, one full day and part of two days. Since this is clearly not three full, 24-hour days, do we have a problem of conflict with the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 12:40?

 

Jesus is recorded as saying, "The Son of man will rise again after three days" (Mark 8:31); and, "He will be raised again on the third day" (Matthew 16:21) -expressions that are used interchangeably. Also, Jesus spoke of His resurrection in John 2:19-22, stating that He would be raised up in three days (not the fourth day).

 

Matthew 27:63 gives weight to this idiomatic usage. After the Pharisees tell Pilate of the prediction of Jesus ("After three days I will rise again"), they ask for a guard to secure the tomb until the third day.

 

If the phrase, "after three days," had not been interchangeable with the "third day," the Pharisees certainly would have asked for a guard for the fourth day.

 

That the expression "one day and one night" was an idiom employed by the Jews for indicating a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated, can be seen also in the Old Testament.

 

For example, 1 Samuel says, "For he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights," and in the next verse, "My master left me behind ... three days ago" (1 Samuel 30:12,13).

 

Just as clearly, Genesis 42:17 shows this idiomatic usage. Joseph imprisoned his brothers for three days; in verse 18, he speaks to them and releases them, all on the third day.

 

The phrases, "after three days" and "on the third day," are not contradictory, either to each other or to Matthew 12:40, but simply idiomatic, interchangeable terms, a common mode of Jewish expression.

 

Another way to look at "three days and three nights" is to take into consideration the Jewish method of reckoning time. The Jewish writers have recorded in the commentaries on the Scriptures the principle governing the reckoning of time. Any part of a period was considered a full period. Any part of a day was reckoned as a complete day. The Babylonian Talmud (Jewish commentaries) relates that, "The portion of a day is as the whole of it." 54

 

The Jerusalem Talmud (so designated because it was written in Jerusalem) says, "We have a teaching, 'A day and a night are an Onah and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.'" 53 An Onah simply means, "a period of time."

 

Even today we often use the same principle in reference to time. For example: Many couples hope their child will be born before midnight December 31. If born at 11:59 P.M., the child will be treated by the IRS as being born 365 days and 365 nights of that year. This is true even if 99.9 percent of the year has elapsed.

 

 

Don't the resurrection accounts repeatedly contradict themselves?

 

Although Pinchas Lapide argues for the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus, he nevertheless follows the lead of other critical scholars when he says of the resurrection in the Gospels:

 

In no other area of the New Testament narrative are the contradictions so glaring. Nowhere else are the opposites so obvious and the contrasting descriptions so questionable as in the realm of the resurrection of Jesus. 41/34-35

 

Ian Wilson accuses, "The various accounts of the scene at the empty tomb on the first Easter morning are so full of inconsistencies that it is easy to deride them."

 

In actuality, those who see contradictions in the resurrection accounts often betray the fact that they have studied the accounts only superficially. Wilson, for example, charges, "The writer of the John gospel describes Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb alone.... The Matthew author relates that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by 'Mary the mother of James and Joseph.' "

 

There is in fact no contradiction here. One could resolve the problem just by saying that John focused on Mary Magdalene alone, while Matthew focused on the group. In actuality, the apparent contradiction is one of a series of clues which help answer such questions as where the different women stayed on the Sabbath and what routes they took to the tomb on Sunday morning.

 

The whole scenario is impressively revealed by the outstanding British New Testament scholar, John Wenham, in his book, Baster Enigma. 77 In it he pieces together the available evidence to demonstrate that the crucifixion and resurrection reports contain, not contradictions, but clues to the many individual and group activities of the key witnesses to those events.

 

Any attorney who has faced the task of piecing together apparently conflicting courtroom testimony can understand how difficult it is to reconcile an apparent contradiction between two witnesses. For many years, until his retirement, Sir Norman Anderson was the Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. As one thoroughly acquainted with apparent conflicts in the testimony of different witnesses, he states:

 

I must confess that I am appalled by the way in which some people biblical scholars among them -are prepared to make the most categorical statements that this story cannot possibly be reconciled with that, or that such and such statements are wholly irreconcilable, when a little gentle questioning of the witnesses, were this possible, might well have cleared up the whole problem. Sometimes, indeed, a tentative solution may not be very far to seek even without such questioning, although the suggested reconciliation cannot, of course, be proved; and in others there may well be a perfectly satisfactory solution, which evades us.

 

Solutions to apparent Bible contradictions provide confidence that other alleged conflicts also have solutions. Often the solutions reveal just how precisely God has communicated to us in the Bible. Apparent contradictions become assuring confirmations of the Bible's minute accuracy and trustworthiness.

 

Top of page   Print this
A Ready Defense Index