OVERVIEW
II. History of Harmonizing Alleged Contradictions in the Bible
III. Approaching Contradictions
The Bible Contains Alleged, Not Authentic, Contradictions
Unexpected Benefits of Examining Alleged Contradictions
Common Mistakes Critics Commit When Alleging Contradictions
IV. Scholarly Diagnoses of Ten Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament
In this chapter, we explore the claim that the Old Testament contradicts itself. We define what is meant by a contradiction, consider some common mistakes made by critics, offer responses to ten alleged contradictions, and provide concluding remarks.
Since we believe that the Bible is God’s Word and are therefore committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, we believe that alleged contradictions are not real, and that the Bible truly does harmonize when properly understood. There are times, however, when we do not have all the facts to harmonize seemingly contradictory passages. What then? We recognize there are a few difficult passages of this nature and yet believe that there are good, overriding reasons to hold that if all the facts were to come to light, the alleged contradictions would disappear. As shown below, this approach has served inerrantists well. There are many examples of alleged contradictions being overturned when relevant discoveries come to light.
II. History of Harmonizing Alleged Contradictions in the Bible
Augustine of Hippo advises, “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.” (Augustine, RFM, 180) History bears witness to Augustine’s advice as a great many harmonization attempts span the last two millennia. The following sample of historical documentation demonstrates not only the church’s awareness and transparent ownership of alleged discrepancies, but also its unceasing quest for accurate interpretations.
It should be noted, however, that few, if any, extant medieval works concerning this subject have been discovered, and that the methods invoked by the early church fathers and medieval scholars to resolve apparent discrepancies generally differ from the methods employed by modern evangelicals. (Kaiser et al., HSB, 32) For example, Michael Graves, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, observes:
Many ancient interpreters [such as Philo, Origen, and Augustine] believed that Scripture conveys symbolic meanings through texts that are not factually correct. . . . In some instances, [others, such as Tertullian and John Chrysostom,] were willing to concede minor discrepancies in Scripture without feeling the need to harmonize them. . . . Interpreters who made much of allegorical interpretation were sometimes willing to acknowledge certain kinds of flaws at the literal level while affirming the truth of the text’s spiritual meaning. There were also Church Fathers who tried to resolve problems in Scripture working with the literal sense. (Graves, IIS, 88–92)
We, on the other hand, believe that Scripture certainly conveys propositional truths, and symbolic truths at times, through texts that are factually correct. It is true that not every statement in the Bible is presented to us in propositional form. Apologists Norman Geisler and William Roach explain this more fully: “Certainly, there are questions, commands, prayers, exclamations, and confessions that are not propositional in form. . . . Though not all truth claims in the Bible are in propositional form (many are in stories and parables), nonetheless all truth in the Bible is propositionalizable.” (Geisler and Roach, DI, 141–142) Therefore, we affirm the literal, historical-grammatical approach to interpretation and reject the allegorical approach to interpretation. (Geisler, ST, 415–428)
The following are some of the dates, authors, and works of those dealing with difficulties and alleged contradictions in the Bible.
If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.
Augustine of Hippo
| When | Who | What |
| 4th century | Eusebius of Caesarea | Ecclesiastical History |
| 5th century | Augustine of Hippo | Harmony of the Gospels |
| 1527–1st ed. 1582–16th ed. | Andreas Althamer | Conciliationes Locorum Scripturae, qui specie tenus inter se pugnare videntur, Centuriae duae |
| 1662 | Joannes Thaddaeus, Thomas Man | The Reconciler of the Bible Inlarged [sic] |
| 1791 | Oliver St. John Cooper | Four Hundred Texts of Holy Scripture with their corresponding passages explained |
| 1843 | Samuel Davidson | Sacred Hermeneutics, Developed and Applied |
| 1874 | John W. Haley | An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible* |
| 1950 | George W. DeHoff | Alleged Bible Contradictions |
| 1952 | Martin Ralph De Haan | 508 Answers to Bible Questions |
| 1965 | J. Carter Swaim | Answers to Your Questions About the Bible |
| 1972 | F. F. Bruce | Answers to Questions |
| 1979 | Robert H. Mounce | Answers to Questions About the Bible |
| 1980 | Paul R. Van Gorder | Since You Asked |
| 1982 | Gleason L. Archer | Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties |
| 1987 | David C. Downing | What You Know Might Not Be So: 220 Misinterpretations of Bible Texts Explained |
| 1992 | Norman L. Geisler, Thomas Howe | The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation |
| 1996 | Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch | Hard Sayings of the Bible |
| 2001 | Gleason L. Archer | Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (updated) |
| 2013 | Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell | The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to Answering Tough Questions |
| 2016 | Michael R. Licona | Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? |
* Haley’s treatise cites forty-two works from the Reformation or post-Reformation era that are not listed here. (Kaiser et al., HSB, 32)
III. Approaching Contradictions
Logically speaking, a contradiction arises when two or more statements affirm and deny a truth-claim at the same time and in the same way. For example, the statement, “The Old Testament does contain contradictions,” and its negation, “The Old Testament does not contain contradictions,” are logically contradictory because one affirms and the other denies the claim that the Old Testament contains contradictions. Clearly both statements cannot be true. But the key question is not necessarily what the Bible says, but what it means.
The Old Testament is composed of thirty-nine smaller books that are written by a variety of authors, at different times, with different styles, and in different genres. The poetry of Psalms, for instance, should be read differently than the historical narrative of Joshua, the laws in Leviticus, or individual proverbs. When we consider alleged contradictions, then, we ought to remember that inerrantists claim the Bible is authoritative and without error in what it actually teaches and all that it intends to affirm. So we recognize the rich diversity of genres in which God has chosen to reveal himself. The Bible is much more than a series of propositions. And yet, Scripture does contain propositions (both implicit and explicit) that need to be examined for their consistency.
Example #1: Did God Create Plants or Humans First?
Genesis 1:12, 26 says that man was created after the plants. But Genesis 2:5, 7 says, “When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up. . . . then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (ESV). Which is it? OT scholars offer several resolutions to this apparent contradiction. Here is a common one: although there appears to be a contradiction, the context reveals that the tension is only surface deep. The first chapter of Genesis is giving a macro view of the seven days of creation, while Genesis 2 focuses specifically on the creation of man on day six. So, the mention of plants in Genesis 1 is a reference to the plants over the face of the earth. But in Genesis 2, the “bush of the field” refers to the plants specifically in the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve were to cultivate. There were no cultivated plants because there were not yet people to cultivate them.
While there is a surface difference between how Genesis 1 and 2 report the creation chronology of humans and plants, there is not a genuine contradiction. It is important to remember that a difference is not identical to a contradiction. A difference arises when things are not recorded in the same way and so only seem to be at odds. But in a contradiction, there is no possible way to reconcile competing claims. Let us consider one more example.
Example #2: Did Saul Commit Suicide or Was He Murdered?
First Samuel 31:1–4 reports King Saul asking his armor-bearer to kill him, but the armor-bearer refused, and so Saul fell on his own sword and committed suicide. However, in 2 Samuel 1:10, a young man reports to King David that he personally killed King Saul upon his request. Both cannot be true, right? There is certainly a difference in how the books report the death of Saul, but there is not a genuine contradiction. Again, Old Testament scholars offer various solutions. Here is one common one (which is even accepted by many critical scholars): the author of 1 Samuel reported the death of Saul by suicide. However, the author of 2 Samuel recorded the words of a young man who claimed to have killed King Saul. It is very likely that this young man thought that David would be thrilled at his actions, and so he invented a story that was not true. As with the example in Genesis, the accounts in 1 and 2 Samuel can be harmonized when properly understood.
B. The Bible Contains Alleged, Not Authentic, Contradictions
As mentioned in the introduction, we believe the Bible is without error. Certainly, some passages appear contradictory, but we have compelling, independent reasons to believe that in light of all the information, the Bible reveals itself to be inerrant. We do not aim in this chapter to resolve all contradictions, but to give a few examples and show in principle how they can be resolved. In the introduction to the book Hard Sayings of the Bible, Walter Kaiser provides a healthy and helpful perspective for approaching this task:
Any observant Bible reader who compares statements of the Old Testament with those of the New Testament, statements of different writers within either Testament, or even at times different passages within the same book will notice that there are apparent discrepancies. These statements, taken at face value, seem to contradict one another.
The Christian church has held over the centuries that there is an essential unity of the Holy Scriptures, that they form a divine library that is consistent and unified in its approach and teaching. Alas, however, as the scope of lay readership and the depth of scholarship have increased, an ever-increasing supply of alleged discrepancies and hard sayings has demanded attention.
Why are there so many discrepancies and difficulties? There are a great number of sources to which we can trace them: errors of copyists in the manuscripts that have been handed down to us; the practice of using multiple names for the same person or place; the practice of using different methods for calculating official years, lengths of regencies and events; the special scope and purpose of individual authors, which sometimes led them to arrange their material topically rather than chronologically; and differences in the position from which an event or object was described and employed by the various writers.
All of these factors, and more, have had a profound influence on the material. Of course, to those who participated in the events and times these factors were less of a barrier than they are to us. Our distance from the time and culture exacerbates the difficulty. (Kaiser et al., HSB, 17–18)
C. Unexpected Benefits of Examining Alleged Contradictions
Given that the Bible is such a large and diverse book, inevitably many apparent contradictions arise. Examining these claims can be unsettling for Christians. Kaiser adds to the analysis presented above by providing a valuable perspective as to how Christians can thoughtfully assess alleged contradictions and examine these claims carefully and patiently:
Why should we contemplate hard sayings at all? The obvious answer is that scores of serious readers want to understand the difficult issues in Scripture. Besides this, by wrestling with Scripture, we can sharpen our attention to the details in all of our Lord’s Word. Thus the more intently and patiently we examine the text, the more handsome the dividends to our spiritual growth. . . .
Disagreements within Scripture also supply strong incidental proof that there was no collusion among the sacred writers. The variations, instead, go a long way toward establishing the credibility of both the writers and their texts.
These hard sayings also may be viewed as a test of our commitment to Christ. Difficult passages can be handy excuses for begging off and following the Savior no longer. Our Lord spoke in parables for just this reason: so that some who thought they saw, perceived and heard would actually miss seeing, perceiving and hearing (Mk 4:12). Indeed, the apparent harshness and obscurity of some of our Lord’s sayings rid him of followers who were unwilling to be taught or were halfhearted in their search (Jn 6:66). They were not willing to look beyond the surface of the issues. . . . For those [presently] who seek an occasion to cavil at difficulties, the opportunity is hereby offered in these hard sayings.
There is nothing wrong or unspiritual, of course, about doubting—so long as one continues to search for a resolution. But there are some who, as John W. Haley put it so well, “cherish a cavilling spirit, who are bent upon misapprehending the truth, and urging captious and frivolous objections [and who] find in the inspired volume difficulties and disagreements which would seem to have been designed as stumbling-stones for those which “stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” [1 Pet 2:8]. Upon the wilful votaries of error God sends “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” [2 Thess 2:11], that they might work out their own condemnation and ruin.”
That is strong medicine for our more urbane and tame ways of disagreeing with objectors today; nevertheless, the matters Haley’s quote raises are highly relevant to the discussion of hard sayings. (Kaiser et al., HSB, 16–17)
Why should we contemplate hard sayings at all? . . . [B]y wrestling with Scripture, we can sharpen our attention to the details in all of our Lord’s Word. Thus the more intently and patiently we examine the text, the more handsome the dividends to our spiritual growth.
Walter Kaiser
D. Common Mistakes Critics Commit When Alleging Contradictions
Alleged contradictions come in various kinds and forms, so we must get below the surface to see what assumptions guide the critique. In The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, philosophers Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe identify seventeen prevalent mistakes Bible critics commit when alleging biblical contradictions. We are presenting them below for the benefit of those who may not have access to the book. While many of the examples they provide are from the New Testament, the principles apply to the Old Testament as well.
1. Assuming That the Unexplained Is Not Explainable: No informed person would claim to be able to fully explain all Bible difficulties. However, it is a mistake for the critic to assume, therefore, that what has not yet been explained never will be explained. When a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, he does not give up further scientific exploration. Rather, he uses the unexplained as a motivation to find an explanation. . . . Likewise, the Christian scholar approaches the Bible with the same presumption that what is thus far unexplained is not therefore unexplainable. He or she does not assume that discrepancies are contradictions. And, when he encounters something for which he has no explanation, he simply continues to do research, believing that one will eventually be found.
2. Presuming the Bible Guilty until Proven Innocent: Many critics assume the Bible is wrong until something proves it right. However, like an American citizen charged with an offense, the Bible should be presumed “innocent” until it is proven guilty. This is not asking anything special for the Bible, it is the way we approach all human communications. If we did not, life would not be possible. For example, if we assumed road signs and traffic signals were not telling the truth, then we would probably be dead before we could prove they were telling the truth. Likewise, if we assume food labels are wrong until proven right, we would have to open up all cans and packages before buying. . . . The Bible, like any other book, should be presumed to be telling us what the authors said and heard.
3. Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God’s Infallible Revelation: Jesus affirmed that the “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). . . . But, while the Bible is infallible, human interpretations are not. The Bible cannot be mistaken, but we can be mistaken about the Bible. The meaning of the Bible does not change, but our understanding of its meaning does. . . . And even though God’s Word is perfect (Ps. 19:7), as long as imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of God’s Word and false views about His world.
4. Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage: Perhaps the most common mistake of critics is to take a text out of its proper context. As the adage goes, “A text out of context is a pretext.” One can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure. The Bible says “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Of course, the context is that “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Ps. 14:1) . . . Failure to note that meaning is determined by context is perhaps the chief sin of those who find fault with the Bible. . . .
5. Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones: Some passages of Scripture are hard to understand. Sometimes the difficulty is due to their obscurity. At other times, the difficulty is because passages appear to be teaching something contrary to what some other part of Scripture is clearly teaching. For example, James appears to be saying salvation is by works (James 2:14–26), whereas Paul taught clearly that it was by grace (Rom. 4:5; Titus 3:5–7; Eph. 2:8–9). In this case, James should not be construed so as to contradict Paul. Paul is speaking about justification before God (which is by faith alone), whereas James is referring to justification before men (who cannot see our faith, but only our works).
6. Basing a Teaching on an Obscure Passage: Some passages in the Bible are difficult because their meanings are obscure. This is usually because a key word in the text is used only once (or rarely), and so it is difficult to know what the author is saying, unless it can be inferred from the context. . . . At other times, the words may be clear but the meaning is not evident because we are not sure to what they refer. . . . When we are not sure, then several things should be kept in mind. First, we should not build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The rule of thumb in Bible interpretation is “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.” This is called the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. If something is important, it will be clearly taught in Scripture and probably in more than one place. Second, when a given passage is not clear, we should never conclude that it means something that is opposed to another plain teaching of Scripture. God does not make mistakes in His Word; we make mistakes in trying to understand it.
7. Forgetting That the Bible Is a Human Book with Human Characteristics: With the exception of small sections, like the Ten Commandments which were “written with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18), the Bible was not verbally dictated. The writers were not secretaries of the Holy Spirit. They were human composers employing their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies. These human authors sometimes used human sources for their material (Josh. 10:13; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). In fact, every book of the Bible is the composition of a human writer—about forty of them in all. The Bible also manifests different human literary styles . . . human perspectives . . . human thought patterns . . . human emotions . . . [and] human interests. . . . But like Christ, the Bible is completely human, yet without error. Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a human document.
8. Assuming That a Partial Report Is a False Report: Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false. However, this is not so. If it were, most of what has ever been said would be false, since seldom does time or space permit an absolutely complete report. Occasionally the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways, or at least from different viewpoints, at different times. Hence, inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four Gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people, and sometimes even quote the same saying with different words.
9. Demanding That NT Citations of the OT Always Be Exact Quotations: Critics often point to variations in the NT’s use of the OT Scriptures as a proof of error. However, they forget that every citation need not be an exact quotation. It was then (and still is today) a perfectly acceptable literary style to give the essence of a statement without using precisely the same words. The same meaning can be conveyed without using the same verbal expressions. Variations in the NT citations of the OT fall into different categories. Sometimes they vary because there is a change of speaker. . . . At other times, writers cite only part of the OT text. . . . Sometimes the NT paraphrases or summarizes the OT text. . . . Others blend two texts into one. . . . Occasionally a general truth is mentioned, without citing a specific text. . . . There are also instances where the NT applies a text in a different way than the OT did. . . . In no case, however, does the NT misinterpret or misapply the OT, nor draw some implication from it that is not validly drawn from it.
10. Assuming That Divergent Accounts Are False Ones: Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not mean they are mutually exclusive. For example, Matthew (28:5) says there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection, whereas John informs us there were two (20:12). But, these are not contradictory reports. In fact, there is an infallible mathematical rule that easily explains this problem: wherever there are two, there is always one—it never fails! Matthew did not say there was only one angel. One has to add the word “only” to Matthew’s account to make it contradict John’s.
11. Presuming That the Bible Approves of All It Records: It is a mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is commended by the Bible. The whole Bible is true (John 17:17), but it records some lies, for example, Satan’s (Gen. 3:4; cf. John 8:44) and Rahab’s (Josh. 2:4). Inspiration encompasses the Bible fully and completely in the sense that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful beings. The truth of Scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in everything it records.
12. Forgetting That the Bible Uses Nontechnical, Everyday Language: To be true, something does not have to use scholarly, technical, or so-called “scientific” language. The Bible is written for the common person of every generation, and it therefore uses common, everyday language. The use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific, it is merely prescientific. The Scriptures were written in ancient times by ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific standards upon them. However, it is no more unscientific to speak of the sun “standing still” (Joshua 10:12) than to refer to the sun “rising” (Joshua 1:16) [sic: see Joshua 1:15]. Contemporary meteorologists still speak daily of the time of “sunrise” and “sunset.”
13. Assuming That Round Numbers Are False: Another mistake sometimes made by Bible critics is claiming that round numbers are false. This is not so. Round numbers are just that—round numbers. Like most ordinary speech, the Bible uses round numbers (1 Chron. 19:18; 21:5). For example, it refers to the diameter as being about one third of the circumference of something. It may be imprecise from the standpoint of a contemporary technological society to speak of 3.14159265 . . . as the number three, but it is not incorrect for an ancient, non-technological people. Three and fourteen hundredths can be rounded off to three. That is sufficient for a “Sea of cast metal” (2 Chron. 4:2, NIV) in an ancient Hebrew temple, even though it would not suffice for a computer in a modern rocket. But one should not expect scientific precision in a prescientific age.
14. Neglecting to Note That the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices: An inspired book need not be composed in one, and only one, literary style. Human beings wrote every book in the Bible, and human language is not limited to one mode of expression. So, there is no reason to suppose that only one style or literary genre was used in a divinely inspired Book. The Bible reveals a number of literary devices. Several whole books are written in poetic style (e.g., Job, Psalms, Proverbs). The synoptic Gospels are filled with parables. In Galatians 4, Paul utilizes an allegory. The NT abounds with metaphors (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:2–3; James 3:6) and similes (cf. Matt. 20:1; James 1:6); hyperboles may also be found (e.g., Col. 1:23; John 21:25; 2 Cor. 3:2), and possibly even poetic figures (Job 41:1). Jesus employed satire (Matt. 19:24 with 23:24), and figures of speech are common throughout the Bible. It is not a mistake for a biblical writer to use a figure of speech, but it is a mistake for a reader to take a figure of speech literally. . . . We must be careful in our reading of figures of speech in Scripture.
15. Forgetting That Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is Without Error: When critics do come upon a genuine mistake in a manuscript copy, they make another fatal error—they assume it was in the original inspired text of Scripture. They forget that God only uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies. Therefore, only the original text is without error. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without error. Therefore, we are to expect that minor errors are to be found in manuscript copies. . . . Several things should be observed about these copyist errors. First of all, they are errors in the copies, not the originals. No one has ever found an original manuscript with an error in it. Second, they are minor errors (often in names or numbers) which do not affect any doctrine of the Christian faith. Third, these copyist errors are relatively few in number. . . . Fourth, usually by the context, or by another Scripture, we know which one is in error. . . . Finally, even though there is a copyist error, the entire message can still come through. In such a case, the validity of the message is not changed. . . . So, for all practical purposes, the Bible in our hand, imperfect though the manuscripts are, conveys the complete truth of the original Word of God.
16. Confusing General Statements with Universal Ones: Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing, they forget that such statements are only intended to be generalizations. The Book of Proverbs is a good example of such an issue. Proverbial sayings by their very nature offer only general guidance, not universal assurance. They are rules for life, but rules that admit of exceptions. Proverbs 16:7 is a case in point. It affirms that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” This obviously was not intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to the Lord and his enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus was pleasing the Lord, and His enemies crucified Him! Nonetheless, it is a general truth that one who acts in a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies’ antagonism.
17. Forgetting That Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation: Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive revelation. God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He always lay down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of His later revelation will supersede His former statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a change of revelation with a mistake. The mistake, however, is that of the critic. For example . . . when God created the human race, He commanded that they eat only fruit and vegetables (Gen. 1:29). But later, when conditions changed after the flood, God commanded that they also eat meat (Gen. 9:3). This change from herbivorous to omnivorous status is progressive revelation, but is not a contradiction. (Geisler and Howe, BBBD, 15–26)
IV. Scholarly Diagnoses of Ten Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament
Attempting to address the alleged contradictions in the Old Testament is a daunting task. Entire books have been written to address specific claims, and scholars continue to discuss and debate them in academic literature. It is also important to see how differently people can interpret the meaning of the alleged contradictions. Bart Ehrman believes contradictions undermine the reliability of the Bible in its entirety. (Ehrman, JI) On the other hand, some professing evangelicals accept biblical contradictions. For instance, in his popular-level book, The Bible Tells Me So, Peter Enns says, “The biblical writers often disagree, expressing diverse and contradictory points of view about God and what it means to be faithful to him.” (Enns, BTMS, 25)
We differ from both Ehrman and Enns. While we recognize the difficulty in the task at hand, we believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Some of the alleged contradictions are easy to resolve. Others are quite difficult. But we believe that plausible explanations are available for those willing to probe deeply enough.
In the following section we take a look at some popular alleged contradictions in the Old Testament. Quite obviously, however, we have not yet scratched the surface of a number of important issues. We do not have the space to provide the various possible resolutions or to enter into the nuances of the scholarly debate surrounding each. We aim simply to introduce ten alleged contradictions that we have encountered in our studies and ministries, and to provide reasonable solutions. We hope you gain the confidence that alleged contradictions in the Old Testament are not nearly as problematic for the Christian faith as many critics claim.
A. Genesis 6:3 with Genesis 11:10–32
1. Alleged Contradiction
Genesis 6:3 states, “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years’ ” (NIV). This seems to indicate that human longevity will not exceed 120 years, yet each of Noah’s posterity listed in Genesis 11:10–32, lived longer than 120 years.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
In The Book of Genesis, Victor P. Hamilton provides some helpful perspective:
Is this an age limit, or is it a period of grace prior to the Flood (i.e., [Noah’s remaining] days shall be 120 years)? The first alternative faces the difficulty that most of the people in the rest of Genesis lived well beyond 120 years. It is possible to interpret the longer life spans of the patriarchs as a mitigation or suspension of the divine penalty, just as an earlier announced divine penalty (“on the day you eat of it you shall surely die”) was not immediately implemented.
But the (imminent) withdrawal of the divine Spirit as a means of lowering the life span of humanity does not make a great deal of sense. Rather, it seems to presage some event that is about to occur. Accordingly, we prefer to see in this phrase a reference to a period of time that prefaces the Flood’s beginning. It is parallel to Jon. 4:5, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” God’s hand of judgment is put on hold. (Hamilton, BGC, 269)
B. Genesis 6:19, 20 with Genesis 7:2, 3
1. Alleged Contradiction
According to Genesis 6:19, 20, God instructed Noah to gather two of every kind of animal into the ark, but in Genesis 7:2, 3, God required seven pairs of all clean animals and seven pairs of birds.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
Kaiser explains,
The truth is that there is no inherent incompatibility between the two texts as they presently stand. Genesis 7:2–3 is just more precise than 6:19–20 on the question of the types and numbers of animals and birds that would board the ark.
Noah’s first instruction was to admit pairs of all kinds of creatures on the ark to preserve their lives (Gen 6:19–20). That was the basic formula. Then he was given more specific instructions about admitting seven pairs of each of the clean animals and seven pairs of each kind of bird. The purpose of this measure was to become clear only after the flood. Birds would be needed to reconnoiter the earth (Gen 8:7–12), and the clean animals and birds would be offered in sacrifice to the Lord (Gen 8:20). If Noah had taken only one pair of each and then offered each of these pairs in sacrifice, these species would have become completely extinct.
The simplest and most adequate explanation is that chapter 6 of Genesis contains general summary directions—take two of each. After Noah had understood these general instructions, God spoke more specifically about the role the clean beasts and birds were to play. (Kaiser et al., HSB, 112)
C. Genesis 17:1 with Exodus 6:3
1. Alleged Contradiction
Genesis 17:1 says, “When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless’ ” (NIV). In this passage, God conspicuously identified his name to Abram, but Exodus 6:3 indicates that he did not make himself known to the patriarchs.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
In his tome On the Reliability of the Old Testament, K. A. Kitchen provides one possible response, that in Exodus, the words permit reading the grammar as a question—in fact, a rhetorical question that implies its own answer:
[T]he final narrator in Genesis commonly speaks of the deity of the patriarchs as YHWH (proper name) or as Elohim (“God”). Both terms also occur in words ostensibly spoken by the patriarchs and their contemporaries. Often Exod. 6:3 is understood to signify the opposite; namely, that the name YHWH was unknown to the patriarchs. If that were so, then it is very strange that it should ever have been introduced at all into the text of Genesis; the supposed contradiction would have been just as obvious to the ancients as to any modern reader of these books. However, there is very good reason to translate Exod. 6:3 understanding a rhetorical negative that implies a positive, as “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El-Shaddai (“God Almighty’)—and by my name YHWH did I not declare myself to them?”
This would find support from two angles. First, the “name” or character of a deity in the ancient Near East was by no means a rigidly fixed entity right from the beginning and forever after; more came to be known about, or attributed to, deities as time passed. Second, YHWH served as the proper name of the “God of the fathers,” precisely as with other deities in the early second millennium, and (as with these) was not used all the time. . . . [F]or his part, YHWH revealed himself to Moses in new roles for the Israelites, not known by the patriarchs even if his name was. . . .
And now the second angle of support for reading Exod. 6:3 as a rhetorical negative. . . . From Exod. 6:2–3 we would learn . . . that YHWH was known to the patriarchs both as El-Shaddai (“God Almighty” in many English versions) and as YHWH; the former is an epithet, just as are “God of Abraham,” “God of Isaac,” “God of Jacob,” the latter being his proper name. This is no different to other examples in the biblical world. . . . El-Shaddai also appears to be of ancient format and origin. (Kitchen, OROT, 329–330)
D. Genesis 25:1 with 1 Chronicles 1:32
1. Alleged Contradiction
Keturah is Abraham’s wife in Genesis 25:1, but she is his concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
One option to resolve this apparent dilemma is to understand that there were various levels of marriage in the culture of this time. So, “concubine” is a lower-level form of marriage than “wife.” Hamilton provides another way to resolve this tension:
This is the only passage in Genesis that mentions Keturah. Here she is called Abraham’s wife, but in 1 Chr. 1:32 she is identified as “Abraham’s concubine.” This coidentification is comparable with Bilhah, who is called both Jacob’s concubine (35:22) and Jacob’s wife (30:4). By contrast, Zilpah is identified as Jacob’s wife (30:9) but never as his concubine. If “by concubines” in 25:6 is a reference to Hagar and Keturah . . . then again both Hagar (16:3) and Keturah (25:1) are called “wife” in one place but “concubine” in another (25:6).
The emphasis on Keturah’s status as wife would suggest that Abraham married her after the death of Sarah. If the emphasis is on her status as concubine then one would think that Abraham married her while Sarah was still living, as he did with Hagar. In that case one would have to understand married in this verse as a pluperfect—“had married.” (Hamilton, BGC18–50, 164–165)
E. Numbers 22:20 with Numbers 22:21, 22
1. Alleged Contradiction
In Numbers 22:20, God granted Balaam conditional permission to travel, but according to the following two verses, Balaam’s decision to travel kindled God’s indignation.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
In his commentary The Book of Numbers, Timothy R. Ashley rejoins,
The most common question about this verse is the motive for God’s anger with Balaam. At the very least it seems capricious for God to tell Balaam to go on his way in v. 20 and then to become angry with Balaam because he was going in v. 22. The question is whether the [Hebrew] particle [that was used] (usually translated “because, since” in this verse) should not have another of its well-attested meanings, viz., “when” or even “as” with the participle. This construction is somewhat rare, but not unknown in Biblical Hebrew. If one translates temporally, as above, then God no longer becomes angry with Balaam on the grounds of his going (since God had given him permission to go in v. 20), but as he was going, i.e., somewhere on the journey for an unspecified reason. This view admittedly sidesteps the issue of the motive for God’s wrath, but, if the translation proposed is correct, so does the text itself. (Ashley, BN, 454–455)
F. Deuteronomy 15:4 with Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
1. Alleged Contradiction
Deuteronomy 15:4 states that no poor would be amongst Israel, but verse 7 of the same chapter prescribes for Israel instructions should a brother become poor and verse 11 instructs that the poor will always reside in the land. Will there be poor in the land or not?
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill explains that the key issue is a matter of the ideal for the land (v. 4) and the reality of how the land will actually be (v. 11):
This seems to be the best understanding of v. 4 [that poverty ought not to exist in the rich land the Lord would give them] rather than the idea that there would absolutely not be any poor among them. Complete absence of poverty is squarely contradicted by v. 11, which avers that “there will always be poor people in the land.” The tension between the two statements is indicative of the gulf that exists between the ideal and actual, what could be the case were God’s purposes carried out and what inevitably occurs when they are not. This is the import of v. 5, which plainly states that full compliance with covenant requirements was the precondition to Israel’s prosperity in the land. When this was achieved, not only would Israel be blessed but, in line with the ancient patriarchal promises, they would be the means of blessing the whole world and having dominion over the nations (v. 6; cf. Gen 12:2–3; 17:4–6; 26:3–4). They would be the lender to whom all others would be in debt (cf. Deut 28:12–13). (Merrill, Deuteronomy, 244)
G. Deuteronomy 24:16 with 2 Samuel 12:14–19
1. Alleged Contradiction
According to Deuteronomy 24:16, children were not to be put to death for their father’s sins, but in 2 Samuel 12:14–19, the Lord afflicted David’s son on the basis of David’s sin.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
Geisler and Howe respond:
First, the passage in Deuteronomy is a precept laid down by which the legal system of Israel would function once they were established in the land. It was not the right of the human courts to exact capital punishment from the children of guilty parents if the children were not personally guilty of the crime. However, that which restricts the power of human courts does not restrict the right or authority of God.
Second, the Scripture does not indicate that David’s child was being punished for David’s sin. Rather, the Bible indicates that the death of the child was David’s punishment (2 Sam. 12:14). If it is thought that allowing the child to die was an unjust way to punish David, it must be remembered that David trusted in the righteousness of God when he said in faith, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). David trusted that God had taken his child to heaven and that he would be with the child when he died. God always acts according to His righteousness, and the restrictions of such precepts as this are designed to prevent men from perverting justice. (Geisler and Howe, BBBD, 129–130)
H. Psalm 51:16, 17 and Hosea 6:6 with Psalm 51:19
1. Alleged Contradiction
Both Psalm 51:16, 17 and Hosea 6:6 assert that God does not delight in sacrifices, but Psalm 51:19 maintains that God derives pleasure from them.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
Nancy deClaissé-Walford, in the commentary The Book of Psalms, expounds:
In these verses of Psalm 51, the psalmist reflects on the nature of sacrifice. Sacrifices are not offered by humanity to appease God. Sacrifices are necessary because humanity needs symbols, acts with which to come before God to restore right relationships. But the symbol is not the sole element of the sacrificial system. Proper sacrifice requires proper attitude; in the case of the singer in Psalm 51, the attitude is a spirit being broken and a heart being broken and crushed. The word translated broken is from [a particular] Hebrew root . . . and includes the ideas of “contrite, sorry, and humble.”
In Leviticus 1–7, God gives to the people of Israel instructions concerning the sacrificial system. An important element of that system is outlined in Lev. 6:2–7. The text tells us that if a person defrauds, robs, or swears falsely against a neighbor, the first thing that person must do upon realizing what they have done is to restore that which was taken to its rightful owner, along with an additional 20 percent of its value. Then, and only then, must the person go to the priest and present a guilt offering. Verses 16–17 of Psalm 51 are not a polemic against the sacrificial system. They are a polemic against sacrifice of material goods without sacrifice of spirit and heart. In the same way that sin cannot be forgiven without a broken spirit and heart, so proper sacrifice cannot be offered without a proper attitude. (deClaissé-Walford et al., BP, 457)
I. Proverbs 26:4 with Proverbs 26:5
1. Alleged Contradiction
Proverbs 26:4 advises one not to answer a fool, yet the following verse advises otherwise.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
In his commentary The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke retorts,
[T]he wise son/disciple needs to give the fool a verbal answer. . . . The apparent contradiction between their admonitions, “do not answer a fool” versus “answer a fool,” is resolved by clarifying the ambiguous [Hebrew] preposition ([translated as] “according to”) in light of the negative consequence to be avoided [in the second half of each verse] . . . The son’s answer must distinguish between what is unfitting (v. 4) and fitting (v. 5). It is unfitting to meet the fool’s insult with insult (2 Pet. 3:9). Should the disciple reply vindictively, harshly, and/or with lies—the way fools talk—he too—“yes, even you”—would come under the fool’s condemnation. Rather, without lowering himself to the fool’s level in a debate, but by overcoming evil with good (25:21–22), the wise must show the fool’s folly for what it is. The wise do not silently accept and tolerate the folly and thereby confirm fools in it. Both proverbs are absolutes and applicable at the same time, contrary to the opinion of many commentators, who think they are relative to the situation. To be sure, there is a time to be silent and a time to speak (Eccl. 4:5), but one must always, not in only certain situations, answer a fool to destabilize him, but, always, not sometimes, without becoming like him.
The rationale for the admonition not to answer a fool according to his folly (v. 4a) is to avoid the negative consequence of becoming like the fool (v. 4b). . . . [The wise person] should stand in contrast to the fool.
The rationale for answering a fool according to his folly (v. 5a) is to avoid the negative consequence that the fool arrogantly replaces the LORD’s heavenly wisdom with his own (v. 5b). . . . The wise person must expose the fool’s distortions to serve his own interests at the expense of the community and must not silently accept it and thereby contribute to establishing his topsy-turvy world against the rule of God. An answer that is in agreement with the LORD’s wisdom puts the fool’s topsy-turvy world rightside up and and [sic] so is fitting. Granted the discomfort and even danger of such association, someone has to speak up for wisdom. (Waltke, BPC, 348–350)
J. Amos 4:4 with the Old Testament
1. Alleged Contradiction
In Amos 4:4, the prophet tells the northern kingdom to multiply transgression, but over and over, in multiple contexts, the Old Testament clearly forbids deliberate transgression.
2. Scholarly Diagnosis
After explicating Amos 4:1–3, Karl Möller, in his book A Prophet in Debate, elaborates on the prophet’s awareness of the people’s sinful duplicity in the way they worship, which makes the seeming command actually ironic.
Without any transition or introduction, Amos then goes on to invite the people to come to Bethel and Gilgal. Both—the former being Israel’s national sanctuary or the king’s sanctuary, as the priest Amaziah preferred to call it (Amos 7:13)—were important cult centres. Imitating a priestly invitation to worship, Amos sarcastically calls the Israelites not to come to these places and worship, but to come and sin. Thus, whereas the purposes of such a pilgrimage should have been, and in the eyes of the prophet’s audience would have been, thanksgiving and the fulfilment of vows, Amos equates the Israelites’ cultic performances with the war crimes condemned in Amos 1–2. . . .
The sinfulness of the worship is underlined by the ironic command to multiply their sins . . . as well as by the use of another heptad, in this instance consisting of seven imperatives, which, again ironically, calls on the people to outperform the law’s cultic requirements. Mocking their attitude, especially their reliance on outward gestures, Amos asks the Israelites to offer sacrifices every morning instead of once a year and give their tithes every three days rather than once in three years. By the same token, he calls on his audience to offer thank offerings along with freewill offerings but what is missing, rather conspicuously, is any mention of sin offerings or indeed anything related to the issues of sin and repentance. What Amos does stress, referring to “your offerings”, “your tithes”, and so on, is the people’s egotism, which is at the heart of their remarkable display of religious zeal. . . .
The transition from the initial oracle in 4:1–3 to the present one may seem somewhat abrupt, given the lack of connectives . . . as well as the change of topic. Yet, the combination of social issues (vv. 1–3) with religious or cultic ones (vv. 4–5) is a recurrent feature in the book of Amos. . . . From a rhetorical point of view, it should also be noted that the present arrangement results in an interesting ironic effect, as the people are said to display an impressive religious drive that goes far beyond the requirements of the law while at the same time disobeying the heart of the law by exploiting and abusing the poor. . . . Punctilious as they were in their observance of cultic requirements they believed that they would not have to face Yahweh’s punitive intervention. Amos responds to this with heavy irony, inviting the people to come and revel in a “gala barbecue” consisting in a multitude of offerings and sacrifices, only to condemn their religious zeal, quite brutally . . . as something akin to the horrible war crimes committed by Israel’s enemies. (Möller, PD, 262–264, 266–267)
Hence, no contradiction exists.
Though critics commonly assert that the Old Testament contains authentic contradictions, many Bible scholars have provided plausible harmonizations over the centuries. Alleged contradictions often arise from mistakes in interpretation, ignoring genre or literary devices, or through a host of other faulty assumptions. Some alleged contradictions require further research, and others have been satisfactorily resolved. But given the track record of scholarship in this area, we have good reason to believe that if all the facts were known, all alleged discrepancies would disappear.
Because human knowledge is limited and history is messy, we should expect to face puzzling issues, since we don’t have God’s all-knowing gaze. There is good reason to believe the Bible is true, and so we give it every benefit of the doubt. Given how many supposed contradictions have been resolved in light of recent discoveries, Christians can have confidence that the Bible is authoritative and without error in what it actually teaches and all that it intends to affirm.