Biblical & Theological Issues

by Steven B. Cowan –

The Bible is the Word of God. This means that the Bible does not err. Everything that the Bible teaches is absolutely true. However, there are passages in the Bible—many passages!—which may not seem to be true at first blush. There are many passages that seem to conflict with what is taught in other passages, and there are passages that seem to conflict with what we are told by scientists, historians, and philosophers. When we run across biblical passages like this, they can cause us to scratch our heads in confusion, and even wonder whether the Bible truly is inerrant after all.

I think the Christian needs to take these problem texts very seriously. We should not dismiss Bible “difficulties” (as they are called) cavalierly. Yet, we should not become anxious over these problem texts, either. Rather, when we come across them in our Bible study, we should see them as an opportunity to hone our interpretive skills and thereby understand the Bible better.

In this brief article, I want to provide some assistance to the reader in this task. I will lay out ten guidelines for dealing with Bible difficulties in a responsible way—a way that treats the difficulties seriously, but also seeks to preserve and defend the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.¹

One: Consider the possibility that some discrepancies are the result of transmissional errors. Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in its autograph. That is, what the prophets and apostles actually wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is without error. However, it is an undeniable fact that mistakes were made as the text of the Bible was copied by hand and passed on to subsequent generations. So even though we believe that what is inspired is inerrant, we do not believe that those who copied and transmitted the Bible down through the ages were preserved from error. Sometimes a difficult text can be explained as the result of such a transmissional error. For example, in 1 Kings 4:26 (KJV), we read that Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses. But, in the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 9:25, we read that he had only 4000. This discrepancy is certainly due to a scribal error made in copying the original text. In Hebrew, the difference between writing the word 40,000 and 4000 is very slight. It is easy to see how a scribe could have made a mistake and copied the wrong number.

Two: Recognize that the Bible uses phenomenal language. The Bible often describes things the way they would appear to the writer from his perspective. When a writer uses such phenomenal language, what he writes should not be considered erroneous simply because it does not precisely match a scientific description of the facts. For example, in Joshua 10:12, we are told that the sun stood still so that Joshua would have more time to fight against his enemies. Of course, since we know that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa, saying that the sun stood still is, strictly speaking, not what really happened. But, to an observer on the earth (e.g., the writer of Joshua), what really happened would have appeared to the eye as the sun standing still. That is, the human observer saw the sun stop moving across the sky. So, there is no error here as long as what the writer saw and described is what took place on that day. And it is always helpful to remind ourselves that we all use phenomenal language today without ascribing error to ourselves. For example, the weatherman tells us each night what time the sun will rise the next morning, but we don’t call him up and complain that he erroneously holds the view that the sun revolves around the earth.

Three: Do not confuse imprecision with error. In everyday discourse, precision of language is usually not a requirement for truthful and useful communication. If you asked me how many American soldiers were killed in World War Two, and I said “290,000,” you would not normally charge me with error even though the exact figure is 291,557. It is only rarely (e.g., in the conduct of scientific research) that greater precision is called for. The Bible is not, nor does it claim to be, a scientific textbook. Therefore, it cannot be charged with error if it lacks scientific precision. For example, in 2 Chronicles 4:2, we are told that Solomon made the metal Sea of the Temple “ten cubits from rim to rim and. . . .[it took] thirty cubits to measure around it.” An engineer with a calculator knows that if something is ten cubits in diameter, then it will be exactly 31.4 cubits in circumference. But, there is no error here if one keeps in mind that the use of round numbers is perfectly acceptable when there is no need for greater precision. Likewise, no error is made if a biblical author paraphrases or summarizes another author rather than providing an exact quotation. For example, Matthew 16:16 quotes Peter’s confession as, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Mark gives the shorter, “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29). Has one or the other gotten it wrong? By no means. We can understand Mark to have given us an abbreviated version of what Peter said and Matthew to have given us the more exact version. But, just because Mark’s version is less precise does not mean that it reports a falsehood.

Four: Pay careful attention to the literary genre of a passage. The Bible contains many different literary styles, and often the style of literature in which a passage of Scripture is composed will determine how it should be interpreted. In the historical narratives (e.g. Joshua, 1 Samuel, Acts) and the epistles, one proceeds with the rule that they should be interpreted literally unless the context dictates otherwise. But, in the psalms and prophets, which are composed almost entirely in the poetic genre, one interprets with the assumption that most of the terms and phrases are to be taken figuratively, not literally. In Psalm 36:7, David says to God that men “find refuge in the shadow of your wings.” Does this mean that God has wings? No. Because David is writing poetic verse and not prose, we take his language figuratively.

Of course, figures of speech can take place in passages where most of the language is not figurative. In Acts, a historical narrative, we read: “These men [i.e., Paul and Silas] have caused trouble all over the world” (17:6). Now, literally speaking, Paul and Silas had not stirred up trouble all over the world. There were many places they had not been. Someone who is not cautious might then accuse the Bible of error. But, the careful reader immediately recognizes this as hyperbole, a figure of speech in which one intentionally exaggerates in order to make a rhetorical point.

Five: Recognize that differences in parallel accounts do not necessarily imply contradiction. Very often, the Bible is charged with error because parallel accounts of the same or related event do not agree in every detail. For example, Matthew mentions only one angel at the tomb on Resurrection Sunday while Luke mentions two. But just because parallel accounts differ does not imply that they are contradictory or erroneous. It is very common for two people reporting the same event (say, an automobile accident) to see and describe different aspects of the event or to emphasize some details more than others. One person may include a detail that the other omits either because he thinks it more important than the other or because the other wasn’t able to observe that detail from his perspective.

Six: Consider that some parallel accounts may not be parallel after all. Sometimes the discrepancies that exist between two accounts of the same event arise because the two accounts are not really describing the same event after all! A possible example of this mistake is the alleged parallel accounts of the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew and Luke. Luke’s account (Luke 17) is said to take place not on a mountain as in Matthew 5-7, but on a plain. And there are other significant differences in the two sermons. Are these two accounts of the same event? Perhaps. Yet, it is also quite possible that these texts record two different events, two different but similar sermons that Jesus preached. Many preachers will preach a good sermon more than once, changing some of the details to fit the different occasions. Why couldn’t Jesus do the same thing?

Seven: Recognize that authors do not always record events in chronological order. A failure to keep this point in mind leads many people to accuse the Gospels of error because the order in which they describe the activities of Jesus is not always the same. However, there is no reason why an author has to report events in a strictly chronological order. It is plain from a close look at the four Gospels that the authors arranged quite a bit of their material in a topical rather than chronological format. A good indication of this fact is found in Luke 9-18, often called the “Travel Narrative” because it describes Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. But, Luke has clearly not recorded Jesus’ journey in a purely chronological pattern. For instance, in chapter 10, near the beginning of the narrative Jesus is in Bethany, a town very close to Jerusalem. But, in chapter 17, near the end of the journey, he is back in Galilee and Samaria. Obviously, it was not Luke’s intent to give us a chronological account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Rather, what he gives us is a topical account which describes the kinds of things Jesus did on his journey, not exactly when he did them.

Eight: Pay careful attention to grammar and logic in assessing discrepancies. Many alleged errors in the Bible arise due to a misapplication of the rules of logic and/or grammar. The number of angels at the tomb is a case in point. Critics say that Matthew and Luke contradict each other concerning the number of angels—Matthew reporting the appearance of one, Luke the appearance of two. Now, if Matthew had said that there was only one angel at the tomb, then we would have a bona fide contradiction and a real error in the Bible. Matthew, however, says nothing of the sort. He simply says that there was an angel at the tomb, and he was absolutely right because, per the rules of logic, if there were two angels, then there was certainly one angel. Matthew, for his own reasons, simply omits the fact that there was more than one angel. But there is no contradiction in these accounts.

Jesus’ genealogies are a case where careful attention to grammar is helpful in avoiding a false charge of error in the Bible. The observant reader will notice that Jesus’ genealogies, as they occur in Matthew and Luke, diverge at several points. The traditional solution to this puzzle is to attribute the genealogy in Matthew to Jesus’ legal lineage through Joseph, and the genealogy in Luke to his physical lineage through Mary. Some critics charge this theory with being ad hoc, with being pure speculation. But what is often missed in English translations is that the Greek grammar of the text in Luke actually lends support to this interpretation. The NIV translated Luke 3:23b as follows: “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat. . .” This translation makes it appear as if Heli is the father of Joseph. The grammar does allow this translation, but it does not demand it. The grammar also allows the perhaps better translation: “He was the son—of Joseph it was thought—of Heli. . .” On this translation, the reference to Joseph is a parenthetical remark and Heli is said to be the father of Jesus. We can easily surmise here that Heli is the father of Mary, not Joseph. It would be natural, if one were tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary, to begin with her father.

Nine: Consider the literary context of a passage. Many mistakes in biblical interpretation, as well as many charges of error, occur because the reader does not take care to see the passage in its overall context. Words and sentences get their meanings from the context, not in isolation from their context. If one does not consider the verses and paragraphs before and after a given verse, one cannot have any confidence that he has interpreted that verse correctly. For example, many people think they have spotted a contradiction between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of James. Paul teaches that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 4:1-5). Yet, James says that “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24). A careful look at the context, though, will show that there is no contradiction at all. Paul clearly addresses our justification before God, explaining that God declares us righteous before his bar of justice by faith alone. James, however, is not speaking of our justification before God, but our justification before men. Saving faith, even according to Paul (Eph. 2:10), will manifest itself in good works. So, if other human beings are going to know that we have saving faith, the only way they can see it is if we demonstrate it by a life of good works.

This guideline is also relevant when there are discrepancies between what God commands at different stages of redemptive history. I have heard people say that the Bible contradicts itself because the Old Testament commands animal sacrifice, but the New Testament doesn’t; or because the Old Testament forbids eating pork, but the New Testament doesn’t. These alleged discrepancies are easily resolved by paying attention to the context of the whole Bible and noting what is called the progress of revelation. As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe write, “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.”² So, for instance, the New Testament no longer requires animal sacrifices because those sacrifices were merely symbolic of the true and final sacrifice that Christ would offer on the cross. Since Christ has died and risen again, those animal sacrifices are obsolete because they have fulfilled their purpose.

Ten: Do not assume that because a solution is not readily available that there is an error. Sometimes we simply do not have enough information to provide a definite solution to a difficult text. In such cases, we cannot prove that a particular discrepancy is not an error. But, not being able to prove that a text is true is not proof that it is false. Believing the Bible to be the Word of God, the Christian will assume that the Bible is innocent until proven guilty. We will humbly admit our inability to explain a difficult text when no solution presents itself, but we will hold out in faith and hope that when all the facts are known, the truth of the Bible will be vindicated.

Steven B. Cowan is Associate Director of the Apologetics Resource Center and editor of Areopagus Journal.

( First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 2 No. 1 – The Breath of God)

^NOTES

¹ For a more detailed discussion of these guidelines as well as others, see Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1992); and Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

² Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, 25.