By The Chapl. Evang. Aremu
When we talk of contradiction, we refers to a situation where two or more statements or ideas conflict with one another and cannot simultaneously be true. That is to say both same stories have inconsistent elements in them.
The Bible is a complex collection of writings inspired by the Holy Spirit of God and composed by various authors over centuries. It covers a wide range of genres and addresses diverse subjects. As a result, certain passages may have conflicting or contradictory messages. However, it is critical to approach these perceived contradictions with careful study, considering the historical, cultural, and literary context of each passage.
Scholars and theologians have devoted significant effort to reconciling apparent contradictions in the Bible through various methods of interpretation and understanding. They emphasize the importance of considering the intended audience, literary styles, and the overarching Bible message.
While some may assert that the Bible contains contradictions, it is crucial to recognize that resolving apparent discrepancies requires a comprehensive understanding of the biblical text and its historical context. Belief in the Bible's divine inspiration by its followers often leads to acceptance that any perceived contradictions can be reconciled through diligent study and theological interpretation.
Let’s be clear, there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Lets examine some practical so called "contradictions" and their clearance as to why they are not contradictions.
CHALLENGE : 1.
According to Mark's Gospel, Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) (15:25). However, John's Gospel states that Jesus was still on trial around the sixth hour (12 noon Jewish time) (19:14). This raises a discrepancy in the timing of Jesus' crucifixion. Which Gospel account accurately depicts the correct hour of His crucifixion?
RESOLUTION:
The challenge is resolved when we recognize that each writer employed a distinct time system. John adheres to the Roman time system, whereas Mark adheres to the Jewish time system. In essence, Both Gospel writers are accurate in their statements.
A day spanned from 12 midnight to 12 midnight according to the Roman time system. On the other hand, the Jewish time system marked the start of a new day at 6 p.m., with the morning commencing at 6 a.m. Consequently, when Mark indicates that Christ was crucified at the third hour, it corresponds to around 9 a.m. John, however, mentions that Christ's trial occurred around the sixth hour, placing it before the crucifixion without conflicting with the Gospel writers' testimonies. This aligns with other instances in John's Gospel, such as Jesus' weariness from His journey to Samaria at the "sixth hour" coinciding with 6 p.m. by Roman time. Similarly, John's reference to the tenth hour in John 1:39 would indicate 10 a.m., a more plausible time for preaching than 4 a.m.
CHALLENGE: 2.
Based on the information provided, there appears to be a discrepancy regarding the age of Ahaziah when he assumed the throne in Judah. According to 2 Kings 8:26, he was 22 years old, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 states that he was 42 years old. This raises the question of which account is accurate.
RESOLUTION:
The narratives found in the books of Kings and Chronicles share a significant portion of the history of God's chosen people. While 1 and 2 Kings predominantly focus on the northern kingdom of Israel, 1 and 2 Chronicles center more on the southern kingdom of Judah. However, there is an overlap in the mention of the same kings in both accounts.
Multiple theories have been proposed to account for the disparity between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2. I will examine four of them:
- It is evident that a copyist error or scribal mistake has occurred, as there is substantial evidence to support the fact that Ahaziah was indeed 22 years old when he ascended to the throne in Judah. In 2 Kings 8:17, it states that Joram, Ahaziah's father and Ahab's son, became king at the age of 32. Joram passed away at the age of 40, eight years after assuming kingship. Therefore, it is logically impossible for Ahaziah to have been 42 years old at the time of his father's demise, as that would make him older than his own father.
- The account in 2 Kings 8:26 may refer to the time when Ahaziah began co-ruling alongside his father Jehoram, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 might indicate the point at which Ahaziah assumed sole rulership following Jehoram's death.
- It is suggested that the age of 42 mentioned in 2 Chronicles 22:2 pertains to Ahaziah's mother, Athaliah. This interpretation stems from the specific phrasing in Hebrew, which literally states that the king was "a son of forty-two years."
- Another theory suggests that the age mentioned in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is not related to Ahaziah's reign but rather reflects a chronological reference to another event or period within the narrative.
Let me explain this further;
The reference to 42 years in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is not indicative of Ahaziah's age but rather signifies his place within his family's dynasty. It is noteworthy that Ahaziah belonged to the lineage of King Ahab of Israel, as highlighted in 2 Chronicles 22:2-3. This dynasty originated with his grandfather, Omri, and the combined lengths of their reigns are as follows:
Omri - 6 years,
Ahab - 22 years,
Ahaziah (of Israel) - 2 years, and
Joram (or Jehoram) - 12 years,
amounting to a total of 42 years.
Considering that Ahaziah began his reign in Judah during the last year of Joram's rule in Israel (2 Kings 8:25), it follows that Ahaziah assumed the throne in the 42nd year of the Israelite dynasty, which accounts for his being referred to as "a son of forty-two years." In this context, Ahaziah is regarded as a symbolic descendant of the Omri dynasty, which had completed its 42nd year when he ascended to power. If this theory holds true, then 2 Kings 8:26 provides us with Ahaziah's actual age, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 sheds light on the duration of his family's rule.
Further bolstering the validity of this fourth theory is a significant observation made by the biblical historian. In 2 Kings 8:17, it is explicitly mentioned that Ahaziah's father, Joram, passed away at the age of 40. Consequently, it becomes evident that Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old at the time he assumed rulership. Since it is impossible for Joram to have fathered children before his own birth, Ahaziah's age upon ascending to the throne must have been 22. This aligns with the theory that Ahaziah's age was accurately recorded as 22 in 2 Kings 8:26.
Why is there a discrepancy between the recorded numbers of men in 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5-6?
When David made the decision to conduct a census of the people of Israel and Judah, he assigned Joab with the task. However, there is a discrepancy in the reported numbers between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5-6. According to 2 Samuel 24:9, the count of valiant men in Israel was 800,000, while the count in Judah was 500,000. Conversely, 1 Chronicles 21:5-6 states that the number of men who drew the sword in Israel was 1,100,000, and in Judah, it was 470,000. The question arises as to which set of calculations is correct.
RESOLUTION:
The discrepancy between the two reports can be attributed to the inclusion or exclusion of certain groups. In the report found in 2 Samuel, the count of 800,000 men of valor who drew the sword did not encompass the standing army of 288,000 mentioned in 1 Chronicles 27:1–15, nor the 12,000 specifically associated with Jerusalem as described in 2 Chronicles 1:14. By incorporating these additional figures, the grand total of men of valor in the entire army of Israel reaches 1,100,000.
On the other hand, the figure of 470,000 men in 1 Chronicles 21 does not take into account the 30,000 men from the standing army of Judah mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:1. This is evident from the Chronicler's statement that Joab did not complete the counting of the men of Judah (1 Chron. 21:6). Therefore, both calculations are accurate based on the groups that were either included or excluded in each report.
CHALLENGE: 4.
The passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 states that God moved David to conduct a census of Israel, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:1 claims that it was Satan who incited David to do so. These differing attributions raise the question of how to reconcile these accounts.
RESOLUTION:
This inconsistency can be clarified by recognizing that God, in His sovereignty, occasionally permits Satan to take action in order to fulfil His purposes. God has the ability to utilize Satan in different ways, ultimately leading to the refinement, discipline, and purification of disobedient believers (Luke 22:31–32; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5; 2 Corinthians 12:7–10). It is possible that a similar dynamic was at play in the situation with David. God allowed Satan to tempt David, and as a result, David succumbed to sin, exposing his pride. Consequently, God responded to David's transgression in accordance with His divine judgment.
Understand that both statements hold truth. While it was indeed Satan who directly incited David to conduct the census, it was ultimately God who allowed Satan to carry out this provocation. Satan's intention was to bring destruction upon David and the people of God, but God's purpose was to humble them and impart a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation bears resemblance to the opening chapters of Job, where both God and Satan play a role in Job's suffering. Similarly, in the crucifixion, both God and Satan were involved. Satan's aim was to destroy the Son of God, as mentioned in John 13:2 and 1 Corinthians 2:8, while God's purpose was to redeem humanity through the death of His Son, as conveyed in Acts 2:14-39.
The passage in 2 Chronicles 21:12 raises a question regarding how Elijah could have sent a letter long after his departure into heaven.
Upon Jehoram's ascension to the throne in Judah, he initiated the establishment of high places in the mountains of Judah, leading the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray and causing them to engage in immoral practices (2 Chron. 21:11). Surprisingly, in 2 Chronicles 21:12, it is mentioned that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram as a response to his sinful actions. However, considering that Elijah was translated or taken up to heaven before Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, began his reign, a question arises regarding how Elijah could have sent a letter to Jehoram.
RESOLUTION:
In the Bible, there are two kings commonly known as King Jehoram/Joram, which can lead to some confusion. The first Jehoram was the son of King Jehoshaphat, and he reigned over the southern kingdom of Judah from 853 to 841 BC. The second Jehoram was the son of the infamous King Ahab, and he ruled over the northern kingdom of Israel from 852 to 841 BC. The name "Joram" is a shortened form of "Jehoram." Adding to the complexity is the fact that both Jehorams were actually brothers-in-law to one another.
Several plausible explanations exist regarding how Elijah's letter was delivered to King Jehoram despite Elijah's translation to heaven:
One possibility is that the author of 2 Kings did not arrange the account of Elijah's translation in chronological order with the surrounding chapters. It is conceivable that Elijah continued to serve as a prophet until a later period in the reign of Jehoram.
Another explanation could be that Elijah wrote the letter to Jehoram prior to his departure to heaven, leaving it in the care of Elisha or someone else to deliver. As a prophet, Elijah could have received the words to write in advance through divine inspiration.
Alternatively, before his translation to heaven, Elijah might have informed Elisha about Jehoram's actions and God's impending judgment. When the appropriate time arrived, Elisha transcribed Elijah's prophecy and personally delivered it to King Jehoram.
Some have also suggested that Elijah was not translated to heaven but rather taken to another location, similar to Philip's experience in Acts 8:39-40. In this scenario, Elijah would have personally written the letter at the time of Jehoram's transgression and had it delivered through a courier. According to this theory, after the whirlwind incident described in 2 Kings 2, Elijah resided in seclusion in a hidden place until his passing.
Further enquires sees Elijah's translation or ascent into heaven occurred during the reign of Jehoram, the son of Ahab, who ruled over Israel from approximately 852 to 841 BC. Meanwhile, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, reigned in Judah from 848 to 841 BC. As a result, it is entirely plausible that Elijah could have sent the mentioned letter to Jehoram of Judah, considering that his translation happened during the reign of Jehoram of Israel.
Regardless of the specific means, the letter from Elijah held prophetic significance as it condemned Jehoram's sin and foretold the impending judgment before the king's illness befell him.
CHALLENGE: 6.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 states that there is nothing new under the sun. However, some may question the accuracy of this assertion.
In this passage, Solomon proclaims that "there is nothing new under the sun." However, this statement appears to contradict scientific knowledge and human history, as well as other verses in Scripture (such as Isaiah 43:19 and Jeremiah 31:22) where God declares His intention to bring forth "a new thing."
RESOLUTION:
Certainly, there are indeed new inventions and God continuously brings forth new things. Solomon's statement, however, pertains to the aspect of human satisfaction "under the sun" (verse 8). Solomon explores how all the conventional means, including wine, wealth, wisdom, and works (as outlined in Ecclesiastes 2), have been thoroughly tested and ultimately proven unsatisfying.
CHALLENGE: 7.
In Matthew 1:8, there is a question regarding whether Joram is the father of Uzziah or of Ahaziah.
In Matthew's account, it is stated that Joram fathered Uzziah. Conversely, 1 Chronicles 3:11 presents Joram followed by his son Ahaziah. This raises the question of which record is accurate regarding the lineage.
RESOLUTION:
It appears that Ahaziah is identified as the immediate son of Joram, while Uzziah is considered a more distant "son" or descendant. In the Bible, the term "son" can also refer to a grandson, just as the word "begot" can be used to denote a father or grandfather. Therefore, "begot" carries the meaning of becoming an ancestor, and the one "begotten" is understood as the descendant.
In Matthew's account, the genealogy of Christ's ancestry is presented in an abbreviated form rather than a comprehensive chronology. A comparison of Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:11–12 reveals the three generations between Joram and Uzziah (also known as Azariah).
In 1 Timothy 5:23, there is a question regarding whether Paul was recommending wine-drinking for Christians.
Throughout the Bible, there are numerous warnings against the misuse of strong drink and the consequences of drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1; 31:4–5; Isaiah 24:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Ephesians 5:18). However, in this particular verse, Paul advises Timothy to "no longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." This instruction might appear to endorse wine-drinking, but it requires careful examination to fully understand its meaning and context.
RESOLUTION:
When the complete context is comprehended, there is no foundation in this passage for Christians to partake in social drinking of wine or other alcoholic beverages. Firstly, Paul specifically advises the consumption of "a little" wine, indicating moderation. Additionally, elsewhere, Paul emphasizes the importance of Christian leaders being temperate i.e to showing moderation or self-restraint. (1 Tim. 3:3, 8).
Secondly, the recommendation to Timothy was for the sake of his frequent ailments, not for pleasure. In essence, it was suggested for medicinal reasons rather than social purposes.
In addition, the Bible frequently addresses the negative consequences of wine-drinking. It issues warnings and pronounces woes upon those who indulge in excessive consumption (Isaiah 5:11; Amos 6:6; Micah 2:11). The scriptures caution that excessive alcohol intake can result in disgrace and eventual judgment (Amos 6:6–7).
Lastly, it is important to note that the wine commonly consumed during biblical times was typically mixed with three parts water to one part wine, significantly diluting its alcohol content. In this diluted form and when consumed in moderation alongside a meal, the potential for personal or social harm was minimal within a non-alcoholic society. However, the same cannot be said for the wine, beer, and whiskey consumed today, as they are generally considered "strong drink" according to biblical standards. This becomes even more problematic within an alcoholic culture, where one out of ten individuals who begins drinking may develop alcohol-related issues. In this context, it is advisable to heed Paul's advice elsewhere, when he stated, "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak" (Romans 14:21).
CHALLENGE: 9.
There is a question about the manner of Judas' death, whether it was by hanging or falling down, as described in Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19. According to the accounts, Judas died by hanging and subsequently fell down.
RESOLUTION:
These accounts are not in conflict but rather complement each other. Matthew's account affirms that Judas hung himself, which aligns with the details provided. The narrative in Acts adds further information that Judas fell, resulting in his body opening up at the middle with his intestines gushing out. This description is consistent with the scenario of someone who hanged themselves from a tree positioned over a precipice and subsequently fell onto jagged rocks below.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Matthew 27:3-8 provides a specific account of Judas' death, stating that he died by hanging. On the other hand, Acts 1:16-19 mentions that Judas fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. The passage in Acts does not explicitly state that this fall was the cause of his death, whereas Matthew's account clearly identifies hanging as the means of Judas' demise.
CHALLENGE: 10.
In Genesis 4:17, the question arises as to where Cain found his wife. The challenge lies in the fact that the only individuals mentioned at that point in the narrative are Adam, Eve (mentioned in verse 4:1), and Cain's deceased brother, Abel (mentioned in verse 4:8). However, the Bible later states that Cain married and had children.
RESOLUTION:
Cain entered into marriage with his sister, or potentially a niece. The Bible reveals that Adam "begot sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4), indicating that Adam and Eve had multiple children. As Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5), there was ample time for the couple to have numerous offspring. Consequently, Cain could have married one of his sisters, or even a niece if he married later when his brothers or sisters had daughters of their own. In such a scenario, it is reasonable to assume that one of Cain's brothers would have married a sister as well.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the above ten "contradictions" are just but a few of many. While the Bible may present certain passages or accounts that initially appear contradictory or challenging to reconcile, a closer examination reveals that there is no inherent contradiction within its pages. These perceived discrepancies often arise from different perspectives, varying historical contexts, or the need to consider the full breadth of Scripture. By approaching the Bible with an open mind, seeking deeper understanding, and considering the broader narrative and message it conveys, one can find harmony and coherence in its teachings. Ultimately, the Bible's overarching themes of love, redemption, and God's plan for humanity remain consistent throughout its diverse passages, highlighting the unity and divine inspiration behind its compilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment