It is commonplace to hear experts of some kind or another inform their grateful hearers that the Bible is a collection of errors and contradictions. When asked to give some examples of these contradictions, such experts are usually not so forthcoming. Only once have I been trapped in seemingly endless conversation on this topic, and that was at a dinner party with a liberal-thinking theologian armed with a Bachelor of Divinity degree. I am not sure who was sorrier at the finish. It is worthwhile, nevertheless, to be forearmed about some of these alleged contradictions.
Most of them are quite minor in importance and easily explained. The first one is almost embarrassing, but it has been raised in debate, especially with Muslims. It concerns the transfiguration of Jesus in Mark and in Luke. Mark says this took place six days after the confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 9:2) while Luke says it was ‘about eight days after’ (Luke 9:28). There is no error here, but a more inexact way of speaking on the part of Luke. Next we might consider that Matthew records Jesus’ temptations in the desert in a different order to how Luke records the same event (Matt. 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13). At least one of the authors was only interested in telling us what happened, not the strict chronology. There is nothing particularly startling about this. One might also mention Matthew 10:5-6 (where Jesus says He only came for the lost sheep of Israel) and Matthew 28:19-20 (where the Great Commission has the whole world in view). This simply reflects the biblical order whereby salvation was offered to the Jew first, then the Greek (Rom.1:16).
More substantial is the accusation that Paul and James contradict each other on justification. In Romans 3:28 Paul speaks clearly of justification by faith, not works, but in James 2:24 James writes of justification by works. The explanation seems to be that James is writing about a dead faith, like that of the devils who believe that God is one, but that does not save them (James 2:19). Also, James appears to be using ‘justified’ in the sense ‘being vindicated’ at the Last Day. J. Gresham Machen explains that ‘The difference, then, between Paul and James is a difference of terminology, not of meaning.’ Calvin himself explains that ‘Faith alone justifies, but the faith which justifies is not alone.’
Regarding the genealogies of Jesus, there are two records in Scripture – in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. There are two obvious problems – first, the names are not always identical, and, secondly, they do not always fit in with an obvious reading of the Old Testament. It is often thought that Luke reflects Jesus’ natural and literal genealogy from Mary, and Matthew the royal and legal lineage from Joseph. R. A. Torrey, for example, in his book Difficulties in the Bible, points out that Luke 3:31 mentions Nathan, not Solomon, as David’s son. He sees Heli as Joseph’s father-in-law, not his actual father (Luke 3:23). However, it may possibly be the other way around. We also need to remember that, in a culture without surnames, it was common to have two names e.g. Simon in Luke 22:31 is Peter in Luke 22:54.
To give an example of the second problem, Zerubbabel is mentioned in Luke 3:27 and Matt.1:12. His father is Shealtiel, but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 it is Pedaiah. However, Shealtiel and Pedaiah were brothers (1 Chron.3:17), so levirate marriage may be the explanation. Pedaiah may have married Shealtiel’s childless widow.
So far as discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles are concerned, these are dealt with by Edwin Thiele in his The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Thiele claimed that Israel and Judah used different methods of counting the reigns of the kings; they used different calendars; and there were nine co-regencies. For example, Amaziah of Judah is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kings 14:2) and Azariah 52 years (2 Kings 15:2), giving, so it would appear, 81 years. However, 24 of these overlapped, giving the true figure of 57 years.
Perhaps the best-known case of supposed contradictions can be found in the record of all four Gospels which tell us that it was the women who first made their way to Jesus’ tomb on resurrection Sunday. Luke seems to mention at least five women (Luke 24:10), Mark three (Mark 16:1), Matthew two (Matt. 28:1), while John only mentions Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). This could use an explanation, but is hardly a contradiction. John, for instance, does not say that there was only one woman. In fact, the ‘we’ in John 20:2 indicates that Mary was not alone.
F. F. Bruce used to mock the ‘Maginot-line mentality’, but it is far better to acknowledge that where we do not have the explanation for a difficulty the problem is with our understanding, not God’s revelation. As Lord Bacon warned: ‘Let not the things you are uncertain of rob you of that of which you are certain.’
– Peter Barnes