CONFLICTING COUNSEL: SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE
Dr. Paul Manuel—2016
A common objection people raise to the authority of scripture is that the Bible contains many contradictions undermining any claim to divine authorship. After all, how could a perfect God produce an imperfect work? Some critics settle inconsistencies by appealing to different strata in the Bible, to books or portions thereof composed at different times or written by different authors (i.e., source criticism). This brief study assumes that one author (God) supervised the entire composition process and that any solution to apparent inconsistency lies in a better understanding of the text itself.
Perceived inconsistencies often represent different circumstances or perspectives which become clear as one understands the context. To assume an inconsistency is an error may offer an easy resolution but not necessarily the correct resolution. Consequently, most Supposed Contradictions in Scripture fall into one of two categories, depending on the clarity of the context.
Two proverbs warn against the dangers of responding to a fool, implying that it is best not to engage with him at all lest one's efforts prove unproductive or even detrimental:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. (Prov 26:4)
One danger of responding to a fool is that a person's counsel will not only confirm the fool's conduct but will draw the counselor into the same bad behavior.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Prov 26:5)
Another danger of responding to a fool is that counsel will actually have the opposite effect, confirming the fool in his bad behavior.
However strong the urge to help, some people are not worth the effort, and it is best simply to ignore them:1
Some sayings are embedded in disparate contexts sufficiently distinct to convey two different meanings, and the biblical author may distinguish between sayings in these larger contexts expecting the reader to have a broad knowledge of his material. Two passages seem to indicate different reasons for Jesus' advent.
which is not (yet) eschatological, "not...to judge the world, but to save it."
In two close passages from Paul's letter to the church in Galatia he seems to recommend two different courses of conduct for his readers. Again, the context reveals that they are distinct admonitions:
Some doublets appear beyond the boundaries of a single book or single author. Jesus' instruction about carrying a sword seems inconsistent. In Matthew's record he condemns it, but in Luke's record he condones it.
In Luke's gospel Jesus wants the disciples to prepare for what they may encounter (whether beasts or bandits) during their final missionary assignment: "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied" (Luke 22:38). "You will be my witnesses...to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Jesus did not, however, want the disciples forcibly to prevent his arrest:
Yet further apart (contextually) are the personal sacrifices new disciples must make. Elijah and Jesus both attracted followers but did not always have the same expectations of them. Elijah, who allows Elisha to bid farewell to his father, seems less demanding than Jesus, who forbids an unnamed candidate from saying goodbye to his father.
An apparent contradiction may arise when God seems to change His mind about what He expects from His people.7 For example, God tells Abraham to circumcise all males as a sign of His covenant:
The two different treatments of circumcision, one in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament, do not illustrate God's changing His mind or contradicting Himself. Rather, they show His clarification of the rite's purpose, that it only marks a person—and only a male at that—as a member of God's people; it does not indicate that person's redemptive status.
There are other Supposed Contradictions in Scripture, but like these examples they are more apparent than actual, finding resolution through a careful consideration of the biblical (even canonical) context. In any case, assuming there is a problem with the text should be a last resort not a first reaction. The believer can safely assume that God's word is reliable, that it is "truth" (Ps 119:160; John 17:17; cf. Ps 33:4; 119:160), and that it is immutable: "The Father...does not change" (Jms 1:17).
Perceived inconsistencies often represent different circumstances or perspectives which become clear as one understands the context. To assume an inconsistency is an error may offer an easy resolution but not necessarily the correct resolution. Consequently, most Supposed Contradictions in Scripture fall into one of two categories, depending on the clarity of the context.
- Simple opposites: Apparent contradictions with insufficient context for resolution.
- Complex opposites: Apparent contradictions with sufficient context for resolution.
Simple Opposites
Two proverbs warn against the dangers of responding to a fool, implying that it is best not to engage with him at all lest one's efforts prove unproductive or even detrimental:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. (Prov 26:4)
One danger of responding to a fool is that a person's counsel will not only confirm the fool's conduct but will draw the counselor into the same bad behavior.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Prov 26:5)
Another danger of responding to a fool is that counsel will actually have the opposite effect, confirming the fool in his bad behavior.
However strong the urge to help, some people are not worth the effort, and it is best simply to ignore them:1
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. (Prov 23:9)Despite your best efforts, you will not change him:
Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him. (Prov 27:22)
Fools despise wisdom and discipline. (Prov 1:7b)In fact, he may change you:
A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct. (Prov 10:23a)
The way of a fool seems right to him. (Prov 12:15a)
Fools detest turning from evil. (Prov 13:19b)
A companion of fools suffers harm. (Prov 13:20b)The challenge for any potential counselor is to identify one who truly is a fool and then to accept that some people have no desire to change.2 To persist in such matters is simply to "throw your pearls before swine" (Matt 7:6).
Some sayings are embedded in disparate contexts sufficiently distinct to convey two different meanings, and the biblical author may distinguish between sayings in these larger contexts expecting the reader to have a broad knowledge of his material. Two passages seem to indicate different reasons for Jesus' advent.
For judgment I have come into this world. (John 9:39a)Jesus is addressing a blind man he just healed, assuring him that he will escape judgment because he has responded positively to the savior's mission, unlike some of the religious leaders who have responded negatively.
I did not come to judge the world. (John 12:47b)Jesus is addressing his disciples and is reviewing the reason for his first advent,
which is not (yet) eschatological, "not...to judge the world, but to save it."
In two close passages from Paul's letter to the church in Galatia he seems to recommend two different courses of conduct for his readers. Again, the context reveals that they are distinct admonitions:
Carry each other's burdens. (Gal 6:2)Paul's concern is for the spiritual health of the church, especially for anyone "caught in a sin" (Gal 6:1), and he places great value on members caring for one another. Consequently, he wants stronger members to support weaker members, helping them to avoid sinful entanglements.
Each one should carry his own load. (Gal 6:5)Nevertheless, though they support each other, they must not depend on each other to the point that they shirk personal responsibility.
Complex Opposites
Some doublets appear beyond the boundaries of a single book or single author. Jesus' instruction about carrying a sword seems inconsistent. In Matthew's record he condemns it, but in Luke's record he condones it.
All who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt 26:52)Jesus is not giving his disciples contradictory instructions, advocating non-resistance in Matthew's gospel and armed resistance in Luke's gospel. Jesus is not a pacifist, as the rabbi's conduct in the temple showed: "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matt 21:12). His treatment of enemy forces when he returns will also not be gentle: "Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations" (Rev 19:15a).
If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
In Luke's gospel Jesus wants the disciples to prepare for what they may encounter (whether beasts or bandits) during their final missionary assignment: "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied" (Luke 22:38). "You will be my witnesses...to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Jesus did not, however, want the disciples forcibly to prevent his arrest:
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-5 1)Indeed, Jesus did not need the disciples to intervene. He said later to Pilate: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt 26:53). The differences in Jesus' instruction through Matthew and Luke about their arming themselves are not contradictory but complementary.
Yet further apart (contextually) are the personal sacrifices new disciples must make. Elijah and Jesus both attracted followers but did not always have the same expectations of them. Elijah, who allows Elisha to bid farewell to his father, seems less demanding than Jesus, who forbids an unnamed candidate from saying goodbye to his father.
Elisha then left his oxen and ran after Elijah. "Let me kiss my father and mother good-by...and then I will come with you." "Go back" Elijah replied. "What have I done to you?" (1 Kgs 19:20)3Either requirement may apply to the disciples of any teacher at some point in the course of their training.4 Separation from one's family, for example, seems to have been common among Jesus' followers: "He saw...James son of Zebedee and his brother John.... Immediately they left...their father and followed him." (Matt 4:21a, 22).5 The teacher also promises to reward "everyone who has left...father or mother...for my sake" (Matt 19:29). Nevertheless, separation did not necessarily entail a complete break: "When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever" (Matt 8:14).6 Again, the specific demands of discipleship may vary according to the circumstances of the candidate.
Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:61-62)
An apparent contradiction may arise when God seems to change His mind about what He expects from His people.7 For example, God tells Abraham to circumcise all males as a sign of His covenant:
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.... My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Gen 17:10, 13b-14)Circumcision became such an integral part of being Jewish that by the first century some people assumed its value extended beyond an individual's inclusion in the covenant, a notion the apostle Paul decries. This false identification became a competing means of salvation, a deficient attempt to reach God: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1b). Paul attempted to correct this notion by distinguishing between circumcision as a precept in the covenant (which it is) and circumcision as a prerequisite to justification (which it is not). In other words, a person's ethnic identity (whether or not someone is part of Israel) has no bearing on a person's eternal relationship with God: "There is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised...but Christ is all, and is in all" (Col 3:11).8
The two different treatments of circumcision, one in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament, do not illustrate God's changing His mind or contradicting Himself. Rather, they show His clarification of the rite's purpose, that it only marks a person—and only a male at that—as a member of God's people; it does not indicate that person's redemptive status.
There are other Supposed Contradictions in Scripture, but like these examples they are more apparent than actual, finding resolution through a careful consideration of the biblical (even canonical) context. In any case, assuming there is a problem with the text should be a last resort not a first reaction. The believer can safely assume that God's word is reliable, that it is "truth" (Ps 119:160; John 17:17; cf. Ps 33:4; 119:160), and that it is immutable: "The Father...does not change" (Jms 1:17).
For a pdf including Bibliography and Endnotes see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Relevant and civil comments are welcome. Whether there will be any response depends on whether Dr. Manuel notices them and has the time and inclination to respond or, if not, whether I feel competent to do so.
Jim Skaggs