Difficulties and apparent contradictions in the Bible
Bible difficulties Men regularly sound their protestations against
the reliability of Scripture simply because they do not grasp its
meaning or because of lack of light on the passage in question. They
point the finger to a host of events or personages in the Bible which,
they claim, are erroneous. But it always turns out that the Bible is
vindicated.
From the Old Testament
For instance, the critics of the Bible were in error when they
claimed that the Battle of the Kings in Genesis 14 could not have taken
place.
Higher critics claimed that the battle of the five kings against four
in Genesis 14 must be fictional; such an event was not possible.
But Wilson and other scholars have now proved that such skirmishes as
described in this chapter were quite common two millennia before the
birth of Christ, i.e., around the time of Abraham in Canaan. Here, the
biblical events are expressly co-coordinated with external history. The
whole chapter, like the rest of Genesis, has a character and the stamp
of great antiquity.
Critics used to regard it as a late document, an opinion now rarely
held in the light of growing archaeological knowledge. Some of its words
and topographical details "carry us directly back into the Middle
Bronze Age," (W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, Pelican,
1949, p.236).
Upon face value, the Bible can easily be criticised, and this happens
all the time by those who are adverse; but time, research in secular
documents and archaeology, and other factors generally give an adequate
answer to the opponents' criticisms. This is a case in point.
From the New Testament
Another bone of contention between Bible-believers and Bible-critics
is in respect of the decree of Caesar Augustus.
This case, as recorded in Luke 2, is a New Testament equivalent of
mud-throwing.
When we don't have enough information it is only wise and discreet to
wait until further light is brought to bear. If a Bible text seems
difficult for us and even contradictory to present data (which may be
calls "facts," whereas it would be false), then we are not to
assume that the Bible is wrong. The Bible claims to be inspired and
correct in all things; secular history and documentation does not. It is
only proper to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and wait upon
the Lord to show us more light in the future. Bible study is
continuously on the move; it's an ongoing process.
Now the main point of controversy in the above-mentioned case is the
argument that Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria, until nine years
after the death of Herod, whereas Luke places the governorship of
Cyrenius and the kingship of Herod together. We have a serious date
problem.
But it is not irresolvable. First of all everybody admits that our
calendar is mistaken by some 4-6 years or even more. In addition it must
be noted that an inscription in Antioch has been discovered showing
Cyrenius as being in that city and holding the office of chief
magistrate in the year 8 BC. It is not also known that the said census
us to take place every 14 years. Apparently Cyrenius was governor of
Syria twice: from 4 BC to AD 1, when this census was taken, and again in
AD 6.
In considering all this it is not unreasonable to accept Luke's
testimony, all the more knowing his introductory confession how he
researched from the source all things before committing them to writing.
Apparent contradictions
1. In Genesis 22:2 we are told that Abraham had only one son, Isaac,
whereas in Genesis 25:6 we are told that he fathered several sons,
including Ishmael.
The solution is both obvious and illuminating to the meaning of
Scripture and the divine promise. Isaac, whom God described as “your
only son,” was the only son Abraham had by his wife Sarah. More
significantly than that, he was the only one in the line of promise, the
theocratic line through which God perpetuated and re-affirmed his
covenant promise.
The Lord also designated Isaac as Abraham’s only son because the
latter loved him so much as he had hoped for him for twenty-five years
since the time God intimated to him the first time that he would be the
father of many nations.
In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is described as Abraham’s monogenes, the
only-begotten, that is Abraham’s unique son, like whom he had no
other. For although Keturah bore him more children later on, it was
through Isaac that the divine promise was kept. Isaac was born after the
Spirit whereas the others, particularly Ishmael, were born after the
flesh.
2. Did Absalom had three children or none?
The difficulty arises from a cursory reading of 2 Samuel 14:27
together with 18:18. The first passage reads: “And unto Absalom there
were born three sons, and one daughter...” Then later on Absalom
confesses: “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance...”
There is no contradiction at all. A factor that needs to be observed
is that several years had elapsed and evidently his sons had died. This
is similar to God’s pronouncement on all creation that it was good and
well-pleasing to Him (Genesis 1:31), while later on in the same book
(6:6) it is said that “it repented the Lord that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” If we keep in mind that
in the meantime the circumstances had changed, some 1,500 years had
passed; sin had entered the world, creation was ruined and subjected to
futility, and mankind had fallen, it is easily understandable why this
new situation grieved God. There is no change in God; He is forever
holy, and since He cannot look upon sin with approval, His displeasure
is to be expected.
3. Did Jacob’s family consist of seventy or seventy-five persons
when he went down to Egypt?
In Genesis 46:27 we read: “All the souls of the house of Jacob,
which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten,” while according to
Stephen’s testimony, “Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob
to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls” (Acts
7:14).
Which record is correct? Well, to ask such a question is naive.
Presupposing, as every Christian does, the infallibility of the
Scripture, we do not have to pick and choose; rather we need to realize
how both accounts complement each other.
A solution may be as follows. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If we add
Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we reach the number
seventy.
If, however, to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob’s sons
(remembering that Judah’s and Simeon’s wives were dead), Joseph
could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons into
Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen, we have a different
(though not contradictory) enumeration, that is, seventy-five, as
Stephen affirmed.
A similar case would be the different degrees given for boiling point
for water, according to the Celsius and Fahrenheit system. Both tell the
truth but the computation is different.
4. Did Christ accept a drink on the cross, or not?
Should we compare Matthew 27:34 with verse 48 of the same chapter, it
becomes evident that Christ was twice offered to drink while hanging on
the cross. “They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall; and
when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.” - “And straightway
one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put
it on a reed, and gave him to drink.”
The difficulty is resolved this way: the first time, the wine, being
drugged with bitter narcotics, the effect of which would be to stupefy
the crucified, was refused by Jesus. Afterward, some drink free from
drugs was given him, which he accepted, for he himself had cried out for
it: “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were new accomplished,
that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst...When Jesus
therefore had received the vinegar...” (John 19:28,31).
The word rendered “vinegar” means simply a cheap brand of wine,
such as was used by the poorer classes.
What one author mentions does not necessarily cover the whole series
of events. He might legitimately mention one thing and disregard another
(which might be mentioned by another author). Such are not
contradictions: they give the fuller picture, taken together.
5. How did Judas Iscariot die? Two seemingly conflicting reports
exist:
A. “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and
departed, and went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5).
B. “And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).
This is another instance of one statement finding place alongside
another, not denying it or excluding it, but taken together.
It goes without saying that Matthew does not deny that Judas, after
hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; on the other hand, Peter, who
affirmed that Judas burst asunder, does not assert that Judas did not
hang himself previous to his fall.
Putting the two accounts into perspective, it is natural and logical
to conclude that Judas had suspended himself from a tree on the brink of
a precipice overhanging a valley, and the limb or the rope gave way, he
fell, and was mangled to death.
As it stands, Matthew gives one aspect of the affair (which was
sufficient for his purpose), while Peter, to show the inglorious end of
the traitor, gives another. And yet there is no contradiction between
them.
6. Did Christ preach His sermon on a mountain or on a plain?
The evangelist Matthew reports: “And seeing the multitude, he went
up into a mountain, and when he was set, his disciples came unto him”
(5:1). What follows is a sermon the bulk of which is also given by Luke,
who introduces the occasion thus: “And he came down with them, and
stood in the plain....” (6:17,20).
A viable solution would be that Christ was simply repeating his
instruction on a different date to a different audience in a different
place. This is commonplace with all teachers, with pastors and
catechists who often (when occasion arises) repeat substantially, though
not verbatim, what they had spoken earlier.
Another feasible harmonization would be that the level place or the
plain that Luke mentions refers to a hill with a flattened top, suitable
for the collection of a multitude. Such hills, to be found in Palestine,
could also have two peaks. The Horns of Hattin, which could be seen even
today, are such. From the higher peak Christ could have come down, and
stood upon the level place to address the people, but it would still be
on the mountain.
All in all, though, the first solution is to be preferred; it is more
probable, more natural and devoid of all difficulty.
7. Will this earth be destroyed, or is it indestructible?
Several passages indicate the indestructibleness of the world. For
instance: “The earth which he hath established for ever” (Psalms
78:69). Again: “Who laid the foundation of the earth, that it should
not be removed for ever” (Psalms 104:5).
On the other hand we are reminded of its transitoriness and its
future end: “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and
the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt
endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment” (Psalms
102:25,26). And Christ Himself speaks unequivocally: “Heaven and earth
shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away” (Luke 21:33).
It will be noted that the word olam, rendered “for ever,” does
not necessarily imply the idea of absolute endlessness. In many
instances it simply denotes a period of indefinite length, the end of
which is hidden from man. So such texts do not inevitably teach the
absolute perpetuity of the earth.
That the present world order will come to an end is more than
apparent in Scripture. A comparison between the absolute eternity of God
and the dependent existence of material objects brings this fact to
light.
This great globe will be subjected to the action of fire, as Peter
and the Apocalypse both describe in vivid language.
The biblical position is then as follows: the present form of the
world will be radically changed at the last day, but the earth is spoken
of as durable, implying the permanence of its constituent elements.
8. Did Elijah go to heaven, or not?
Our Lord’s testimony is such: “And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven” (John 3:13).
But formerly a biblical penman had recorded: “Elijah went up by a
whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).
In the first quotation the Lord Jesus, who is superior to all human
teachers because of his divinity, is setting forth his own supreme
authority. He is substantially saying, No human being can speak from
personal knowledge, as I do, who came down from heaven. He had
first-hand knowledge of all truth, being Truth Himself. His point to
Nicodemus is that nobody had ascended up to heaven to bring back
tidings. No teacher before or after is able to do this: but He is
unique. He came from heaven as the great and ultimate Prophet.
In the same way, when we speak of the secrets of the future world, we
quite naturally say: “No man has been there to tell us about them.”
Making such an affirmation does not imply, though, that nobody has yet
entered the future world. We would be merely asserting that nobody had
gone there and returned to unfold the mysteries yet hidden from our
sight.
As soon as we understand Christ to mean such things, as explained,
the apparent contradiction is immediately resolved.
9. Will future punishment of the wicked consist in continued misery
or in the eventual end of consciousness?
There are passages that imply the extinction and end of lost souls.
For instance: “They that forsake the Lord shall be consumed” (Isaiah
1:28). “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). And in
the New Testament: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction”
(2 Thessalonians 1:9). “The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly
men” (2 Peter 3:7).
The everlasting misery and punishment of ungodly souls is referred to
in other passages: “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of
God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the
smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no
rest day nor night” (Revelation 14:10-11). And the equally explicit
Matthew 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
but the righteous into life eternal.” The same adjective, ‘everlasting,’
describes the inheritance of the saints and the woe of the wicked.
The seeming difficulty is resolved once we realize that the first set
of texts, while certainly teaching ruin, irremediable overthrow, do not
necessarily imply annihilation or the cessation of existence. If a
light-bulb is broken, it is lost forever, but it is still a (broken)
light-bulb. Its perdition consists in not being able to function with
the purpose for which it was produced.
Annihilationists interpret such texts rigidly by affirming that
destruction and perdition and such terms necessarily picture the
annihilation of the wicked. They say that death is extinction of being,
soul and body. Their idea is imported into Scripture.
But, manifestly, death in Scripture is not equivalent to extinction.
Its root idea is that of separation, and in the case of the wicked, that
they are separated from the blessed God forever and ever.
Thus Scripture is consistent in teaching the non-ending misery of the
lost.
10. Is man passive or active in regeneration?
Those who advocate synergism (God and man co-operating together in
the new birth) point to such passages as these: “Circumcise therefore
the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked” (Deuteronomy
10:16). “Make you a clean heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die,
O house of Israel” (Ezekiel 18:31) Other passages of similar import
are Isaiah 1:16; Jeremiah 4:14; Zechariah 1:3; and Ephesians 5:14.
Those who teach monergism (God the Holy Spirit alone operative in
regenerating man who is dead in trespasses and sins) point to another
set of Scriptures, such as: “And the Lord will circumcise your heart,
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart”
(Deuteronomy 30:6). And similarly in Ezekiel: “Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness,
and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you” (36:25,26). The sole
agency of God is manifest, as it appears also from Lamentations 5:21:
“Turn thou us unto thee, and we shall be turned.” More passages may
be adduced: Psalms 51:2; Ephesians 2:5,6,10.
As the Scripture clearly teaches the total depravity of man in all
his faculties, including the will, which is inclined wholly to evil (in
his unregenerate state), so that man cannot and is not willing to turn
to God, the solution is found in studying the nature of the first set of
quotations. God, in commanding “Make you a clean heart....” is not
implying the ability and the free will of man; rather such passages
teach us what is man’s duty (which he cannot perform, because of his
inability and defilement inherited from Adam). God shows us our utter
inability, and how impossible it is for us to circumcise the foreskin of
our heart. What man can do is, at best, to circumcise the foreskin of
his flesh. Being himself flesh, there his ability stops.
Augustine expressed it thus: “Give us what Thou commandest, and we
will give it thee.” The prayer is similar to Jeremiah’s, when he
confessed: “Convert us and we shall be converted.” Unless God, in
His mercy and sovereignty turn us, we cannot turn, though we remain
responsible to turn and accountable for all our actions.
If you still suspect that there are real contradictions in the Bible,
why don’t you contact us and share your doubts with us?
|