by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
Q. The charge is made quite frequently that the
Bible contains numerous contradictions. Is this charge
correct?
A. “I cannot have confidence in the Bible, for it is a book
filled with contradictions.” I could not estimate how many
times I have heard this charge against the Holy Scriptures over
the past quarter of a century. One thing, however, has been
consistent about the allegation—the critic rarely can name
even one alleged contradiction that the Bible is supposed to
contain. He just “knows” that they are “in
there” somewhere.
Those who allege that the Bible contains contradictions basically
fall into two classes. First, there is the person who honestly
believes this to be the case because he has heard the hackneyed
charge repeated frequently; thus, he is sincerely misinformed
about the facts. Second, there is that type of person who, from
base motives, hates the Bible and so does not scruple to pervert
its testimony in order to embarrass the Sacred Volume. In either
case, the Word of God is not at fault!
Preliminary to a consideration of this important theme, it should
be noted that the principle of “innocent until proven
guilty” applies to the Bible as to any other book. Books,
like people, ought to be considered truthful and consistent until
it can be demonstrated that they are not. Great attempts have
been made to absolve the Greek and Latin classics of
contradictions under the presumption that the authors did not
contradict themselves. Surely the Bible deserves at least an
equally charitable approach.
WHAT IS A CONTRADICTION?
It is fairly safe to say that most people have only a superficial
understanding of what constitutes a genuine contradiction. An
important truth that must repeatedly be hammered home is this: a
mere difference does not a contradiction make!
What, then, is a contradiction? In logic, the Law of
Contradiction is stated succinctly as follows: “Nothing can
both be and not be” (Jevons, 1928, p. 117). That is a very
abbreviated form of the rule. Aristotle, in a more amplified
form, expressed it this way. “That the same thing should at
the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the
same respect is impossible.”
An analysis of the Law of Contradiction, therefore, would suggest
the following: when one is confronted with an alleged
contradiction, he must ask himself these questions: (1) Is the
same thing or person under consideration? (2) Is the same time
period in view? (3) Is the language that seems to be
self-contradictory employed in the same sense? It is vitally
important that these questions be answered correctly. For
instance, let us analyze the following two statements: Robert is
rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another?
The answer is—not necessarily! First, two different people
named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different
time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but,
due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms
“rich” and “poor” might have been used in
different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich but
economically poor. The point is this: it never is proper to
assume a contradiction exists until every possible means of
harmonizati on has been fully exhausted. Now, let this principle
be applied to the Bible.
Same Person or Thing
An infidel once announced that he had discovered a contradiction
in the Bible. When challenged to produce it, he suggested that
whereas Noah’s ark with all of its inmates must have
weighed several tons (Genesis 6), the priests were said to have
carried the ark across the Jordan River (Joshua 3). The poor
fellow, in his profound simplicity, did not even know the
difference between Noah’s ark and the Ark of the Covenant!
Slightly different arks—to say the least! Again, the
Scriptures affirm that faith saves apart from works; on the other
hand, the New Testament declares that faith apart form works
cannot save. “Surely,” some contend, “this is a
contradiction.” The fact is it is not, for different types
of works are addressed in the Scriptures. Salvation involves
works of obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ (James
2:14ff.; Philippians 2:12), but it cannot be obtained by works of
the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:28; 4:2ff.) or by boastful works of
human merit (Ephesians 2:9). There is no contradiction in the
Bible on this point.
Same Time Reference
The Bible records: “God saw everything that he had made,
and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). And then:
“And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on earth, and
it grieved him at his heart” (6:6). The infidel cites both
verses and claims that God simultaneously was satisfied and
dissatisfied with His creation—neglecting to mention, of
course, that the fall of man and hundreds of years of history
separated the two statements! Judas, one of the Lord’s
disciples, was empowered to perform miracles (cf. Matthew
10:1-18), yet he is called “the son of perdition”
(John 17:12). Is there a contradiction here? No, for it was a
couple of years after the time of the limited commission (Matthew
10) before Judas commenced to apostatize from the Lord (John
12:6; 13:2,27). The time element is vitally important in
understanding some passages.
Some have charged the Bible with a mistake in connection with the
time of Jesus’ trial and death. Mark writes that the Lord
was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), while John’s
account has the Savior being tried at the sixth hour (John
19:14)—seemingly three hours after His death. John’s
time reference, however, was based upon Roman civil days, while
Mark computed according to Jewish time (cf. Westcott, 1981,
8:282). Again, the “contradiction” dissolves.
Same Sense
If the Bible is to be understood, it is imperative that
recognition be given to the different senses in which words may
be employed. Normally, words are used literally, but they can be
employed figuratively as well.
In Matthew 11:14, John the Baptizer is identified as
“Elijah,” yet, the forerunner of Christ, in John
1:21, plainly denied that he was Elijah. These verses are
reconciled quite easily. Though John was not literally Elijah
physically reincarnated, nevertheless he was the spiritual
antitype of the great prophet; he prepared the way for the Lord
“in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke
1:17).
Did the apostle Paul contradict himself when he affirmed on one
occasion that he was “as touching the righteousness which
is in the law, found blameless” (Philippians 3:6), and yet,
at another time, he acknowledged that he was “chief ”
of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15)? Again, the answer must be
“No.” In the former passage, Paul was describing the
reputation he enjoyed among his Hebrew contemporaries as a
Pharisee, while in the latter verse, he expressed the anguish he
felt at having been a persecutor of the Christian Way. How sad
that some are almost totally ignorant of the principles that
resolve Bible difficulties.
LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
One of the implications of the Law of Contradiction is the
concept that “nothing can have at the same time and at the
same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities”
(Jevons, 1928, p. 118). A door may be open or shut, but the same
door may not be both open and shut at the same time. Open and
shut are opposites, yet they are not contradictory unless they
are affirmed of the same object at the same time. Here is the
principle: opposites are not necessarily contradictory. Let this
principle be applied to certain biblical matters.
Does the Bible contradict itself, as is often suggested, when it
asserts that God both loves and hates? No, for though these terms
are opposites, when used of God they do not express His
disposition toward the same objects. God loves every sinner in
the world (John 3:16), but He hates every false way (Psalm
119:104). He loves righteousness, but hates iniquity (Psalm
45:7), and hence responds toward such with either goodness or
severity (Romans 11:22). No contradiction here.
Was Paul both “perfect” and “imperfect”
at the same time? Some have charged that he so claimed. In
Philippians 3:12, the apostle declared that he had not been
“already made perfect,” while in the 15th verse he
wrote: “Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus
minded.” How is this problem resolved? A careful analysis
of the language employed will solve this alleged discrepancy.
When Paul claimed that he had not been “made
perfect,” he used a perfect tense form of the Greek term
which literally suggested that the apostle had not arrived at a
permanent state of perfection. On the other hand, in the latter
verse Paul used an adjective that actually means full-grown or
mature (note how the same term is used in contrast to infantilism
in 1 Corinthians 14:20 and Ephesians 4:13). And so, while Paul
denied that he was already in possession of permanent perfection,
he did claim to possess spiritual maturity. There is no conflict
between these passages.
Another important point to be emphasized is this: one must not
confuse supplementation with contradiction. In a contradiction,
two facts are mutually exclusive; in supplementation, two facts
merely complement one another. If one says, for example, that
John Doe is a husband, and then, of the same John Doe, that he is
not a husband—this is contradiction. On the other hand, if
one says that John Doe is a father—that is not a
contradiction. It merely is supplementing statement number two.
Many alleged Bible discrepancies can be answered by a recognition
of this principle.
The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho presents an
interesting study in supplementation (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark
10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43). Two prominent problems have been set
forth. First, while both Mark and Luke mention the healing of one
blind man, Matthew records the healing of two blind men. Second,
Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus
was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke seems to suggest that a blind
man was healed as the Lord “drew nigh” to the city.
As a discussion of these passages is begun, let this vital
consideration be remembered—if there is any reasonable way
of harmonizing these records, no legitimate contradiction can be
charged to the accounts!
How, then, shall these narratives be reconciled? Several
reasonable possibilities have been posed by scholarly
writers.
In the first place, the fact that two of the accounts mention
only one man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us.
Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with
Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, an error surely
would be apparent, but such is not the case. If one says,
“I have a son,” he does not contradict himself by
stating further, “I have a son and a daughter.” The
latter statement merely supplements the former. There is no
discrepancy, therefore, with reference to the number of men
involved.
But how shall the second problem be resolved? Several reasonable
possibilities have been advanced.
It is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity
of Jericho on this occasion, and that the incident mentioned by
Luke, as occurring when Jesus approached the city, might have
represented a different miracle than that recorded by Matthew and
Mark. This may not be the most likely explanation, but it cannot
be disproved.
Edward Robinson argued that the verb engizo, rendered “drew
near” (Luke 18:35) also can mean “to be near.”
He cited evidence from the Septuagint (1 Kings
21:2—“it is near unto my house” [cf.
Deuteronomy 21:3, Jeremiah 23:23, Ruth 2:20, and 2 Samuel 19:42])
and from the New Testament (Luke 19:29; cf. Matthew 21:1 and
Philippians 2:30). He thus translated Luke 18:35 as “while
he was yet nigh unto Jericho” (1855, p. 200). This view
implies that Luke simply locates the miracle near Jericho; hence
such can be harmonized with the other records.
But perhaps the most popular viewpoint among reputable writers is
the fact that at the time of Christ there actually were two
Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history
(Joshua 6:1ff.; 1 Kings 16:34) that was located at the sight of
Elijah’s spring. In the first century, however, that city
lay almost in ruins. About two miles south of that site was the
new Jericho, built by Herod the Great. The Lord—traveling
from the north toward Jerusalem—first would pass through
the old Jericho, then some two miles to the southwest, would go
through Herodian Jericho. The miracles under consideration,
therefore may have been performed between two towns. Accordingly,
the references in Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would
allude to the old city, whereas Luke’s observation to
drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer community (see
Robertson, 1930, 1:163).
CONCLUSION
In dealing with so-called “contradictions” in the
Bible, let these principles be carefully remembered.
No contradiction exists between verses that refer to different
persons or things.
No contradiction exists between passages that involve different
time elements.
No contradiction exists between verses that employ phraseology in
different senses.
Supplementation is not the same as contradiction.
One need show only the possibility of harmonization between two
passage that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of
an alleged discrepancy.
Finally, this point needs to be made: the differences in various
Bible accounts of the same events actually demonstrate the
independence of the divine writers and prove that they were not
in collusion! God, although using human writers in the
composition of the Bible, is nevertheless its ultimate Author.
And since the perfect God cannot be the source of confusion (1
Corinthians 14:33) or contradiction (Hebrews 6:18), it must be
acknowledged that the Bible is perfectly harmonious. This does
not mean that men will not struggle with difficult passages. If
seeming discrepancies are discovered, let us apply ourselves to a
diligent study to resolve them; but let us never foolishly charge
God with allowing His sacred writers to contradict one
another.
REFERENCES
Jevons, W. Stanley (1928), Elementary Lessons in Logic (London:
Macmillan).
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament
(Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robinson, Edward (1855), Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (New York: Harper Brothers).
Westcott, B.F. (1981 reprint), The Gospel of St. John, The Bible
Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Originally published in Reason and Revelation, June 1983,
3[6]:25-28. Copyright © 1983 Apologetics Press, Inc. All
Rights Reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the
“Frequently Asked Questions” section to be reproduced
in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are
observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the
original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site
URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain
attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or
endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any
written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind
are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics,
quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the
original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running
an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole
of the material is made available, without editing, in a
reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may
not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale;
and (8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic fo rm for
posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the
Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.ApologeticsPress.org