Why do people misunderstand the Bible? We cannot deny the fact that some passages in the Bible seem to contradict others. But the difficulty may be traced to one of two causes:
Either the passages in question have not been studied with the individual and personal care and prayer which this Book demands. This carelessness lies at the root of nearly all the supposed difficulties that we hear about. Or, —
As it does happen in a few cases a mistake has been made by an early copyist in writing out the ancient documents now in our possession. (Sidney Collett, Scripture of Truth, pp. 115, 116, emphasis mine.)
Carelessness in reading the Bible and ignorance of what it says is a major cause of difficulties and seeming contradictions. Here is what Sims says about this:
Since so much knowledge is proved to be necessary to a right understanding of the Bible, we may easily believe that difficulties, or seeming contradictions, which occur to us in reading it, most probably arise from our ignorance or inattention. (A. Sims, Helps to Bible Study, p. 100, emphasis mine.)
Personal prejudice and bias is another cause of difficulties. As Tuck says:
The difficulties may be in part, due to the incompleteness of the record, which so seldom tells us all we want to know; but they are chiefly due to the insufficiency, or the incorrectness, of our knowledge, and to the blinding influence of our prejudices.
These, so often, first put things into the Word for us, and then persuade us that the difficulties we find belong to the Word itself. (Robert Tuck, A Handbook of Scientific and Literary Bible Difficulties, p. 2, emphasis mine.)
The apostle Paul said some people corrupt the Word of God and handle it deceitfully (II Cor. 2:17 and 4:1-4). Ministers and theologians do this to this day.
The Kinds of Bible Difficulties
All the difficulties in the Bible — the "glaring inconsistencies," the seeming "self-contradictions," and the "manifest discrepancies" — can be found to be one of several major groups. The first group of difficulties to consider are those due to present-day ignorance of conditions and circumstances under which the Biblical books were written. According to Anstey:
One of the chief sources of the supposed contradictions of Scripture is the practice of ignoring the relation of the various books to each other, to the testament to which they belong, and to the Bible as a whole. (Martin Anstey, How to Master the Bible, pp. 22, 23.)
Because of ignorance, people misunderstand the time when the events were recorded and the commands given. Whenever there is a time gap between one passage and another, there may have been a change in the circumstances. This difference will explain some apparent discrepancies and remove any hint of a contradiction. In this group we can include those "moral difficulties" having to do with the conduct of people in Old Testament times — the difficulty of understanding why God commanded Israel to exterminate the Canaanites when Christ said we are to love our enemies — of understanding why polygamy and other things were practised by men of the Old Testament. People of the Old Testament didn't have a complete understanding of God's ways — not having the fulness of the Holy Spirit to guide them as those living after the coming of Christ. It was those "times of ignorance" that God "winked at" or overlooked (Acts 17:30). We cannot judge the conduct of people living in Old Testament times by the standard given by Christ and His apostles.
Who is Speaking?
Some difficulties are caused by carelessly assuming who is doing the speaking. Words are even attributed to God when Satan is actually the speaker. When we say that the Bible is the Word of God — inspired by God with His authority — we don't mean that God is the speaker in every single quotation the Bible contains. The Bible often records what others say — good men, bad men, inspired men, angels, holy or fallen and Satan himself. The record of what they said is absolutely true, but the words they said may or may not be true. Genesis 2:16 says: "Thou shalt surely die" and Genesis 3:4 says, "Ye shall not surely die." Is there a contradiction? No! The first verse gives the words of God — the latter, the words of Satan. It is true that the Devil said these words recorded in Genesis 3:4, but he told a lie — a lie believed today by those who say man has an immortal soul. Careless readers of the Bible don't notice who is doing the talking. They will tear a verse right out of context regardless of the speaker. Many difficulties in understanding the Bible arise from not noticing who is speaking. Always notice who is speaking and what is said. The Bible will sometimes record what a man said to God which may or may not be true. In studying the Bible, if God is the speaker, we can believe what He says. If an inspired man is the speaker, believe what he says. If an uninspired man is the speaker, judge it according to the law and the testimony of what God has said and revealed (Isa. 8:20). What is said is perhaps true, perhaps false. If the Devil is speaking, we need to remember that he was a liar from the beginning, but even he could tell the truth at times, or he will mix truth with error. We should ask ourselves: "whose are these sayings? Are they recorded as being inspired, or inserted as a mere matter of history? Does the writer endorse the statements as being true, or merely record them? The answer to these simple questions will often be the only solution a problem needs.
Differences Between Bible Writers
Even between the inspired writers of the Bible there may appear to be disagreements or contradictions. One reason is because a basic idea can be said in different ways. When Christ was tempted by Satan, He quoted from the Old Testament and said: "It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4 and compare with Mat. 4:4). But the original quotation in Deuteronomy 8:3 says: "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." Both scriptures convey the same basic idea though phrased differently. Inspiration doesn't prevent a writer from using his own personal method of expression. Haley says:
Inspiration does not destroy the individuality of the writers. It deals primarily with ideas, rather than words. It suggests ideas to the mind of the writer, allowing him, generally, to clothe them in his own language. In this way his individuality is preserved, and his mental peculiarities and habits of thought make themselves felt in his writings. On this principle we account for the marked difference of style among the sacred writers, as well as for their occasional divergences in setting forth the same idea or in relating the same circumstance. (John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp. 6, 7.)
We can compare Isaiah 61:1, 2 with Luke 4:18, 19 and see how Christ quoted from the Old Testament. He didn't follow it word for word. Also notice how Matthew condenses Isaiah 9:1, 2 in Matthew 4:14-16. An inspired Bible writer was not required to follow the same routine of words. When New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, they didn't think it wrong to modify those quotations. They grasped the sense and basic thought of the Old Testament writer and then molded that thought into the form that would best serve the people to whom they were writing. This principle accounts for the apparent discrepancies between the phraseology of the Old Testament and the citations in the New.
Writers Differ in Approach
We need to consider also the point of view and objective of each writer. Two Bible writers may approach the same subject from two different angles. Both accounts must be studied to see the whole truth. Writers also have used different methods of arrangement. One writer may follow a strict chronological order. Another groups associated ideas together. While one will write history in detail as the events took place, another will omit some events, condense others, or expand them. One writer may give us an orderly, well-constructed biography, but another may give us merely a series of stories grouped together to illustrate some specific point. In recording the same event, different writers may record different circumstances, some giving more facts and some fewer. A more complete account will include the facts given in the shorter one and the shorter account will not contradict the more complete one. This solution is especially useful when studying the four Gospels. The differences in the four Gospels are due to the fact that the writers did not depend on one thing nor draw their accounts from one source. Each one gives only an incomplete history, introducing those details with which each writer was familiar. If we knew all the circumstances of the case, those which we now know would seem to fit perfectly into their appropriate places in the account. Not one of the Gospel writers gives, nor intended to give, ALL the details. Each selects those particular facts which seem to him to be the most important and passes by incidental points. Each writer records only what referred to his own particular purpose or experience. Thus, many of the minor connecting facts have not been preserved and recorded. Therefore, we must fill in the missing facts ourselves by resorting to deduction and possible explanations. Here is what Collett says about this point:
Let those who imagine they have discovered errors and contradictions in the evangelists' writings remember how easy — indeed, how natural — it is to give three or four accounts of one circumstance from different points of view, each account being quite different from the others, and yet all absolutely correct. (Sidney Collett, Scripture of Truth, p. 140, emphasis mine.)
The Gospel of Matthew doesn't follow any chronological series of events or instructions, but groups together associated ideas that portray by living pictures what Christ was like in various circumstances. Mark and Luke are generally chronological. Each writer followed his own method of arrangement and told his account in his own way. Because the personalities of writers differ in the way they express themselves doesn't mean they disagree with each other.
How Was Time Reckoned?
Writers may also differ in reckoning time. The nation of Israel used both a civil and sacred calendar. The sacred year began in the spring with the month Nisan or Abib. The civil calendar was reckoned as beginning in the autumn with the month Tishri. If two writers disagree on the month and day of an event, we must see whether or not they use the same calendar for reckoning. If one bases his date on the sacred calendar for his computation, both would actually be correct once we understand the difference in reckoning. Some say John 19:14 contradicts Matthew 27:45. John describes events before the crucifixion which he says took place at the "sixth hour." Matthew says darkness covered the land after the crucifixion from the sixth to the ninth hours. Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44 say the same. Obviously, John is using the Roman reckoning of time — counting from midnight. The Jewish State was then under Roman control. To John, the "sixth hour" was 6 o'clock in the morning. According to the Jews' reckoning of time, this was the first hour of the day. When Bible writers seem to disagree as to numbers and dates, there is no discrepancy unless it can be proven that they intended to reckon from the same point and by the same method. Considering the opinions the writer opposed when reading what he wrote, is another important point. The epistle of I John takes on an entirely new meaning when we understand that John was writing in opposition to the false teaching of Simon Magus that was creeping into the Church. The apostle Paul continually attacked vegetarianism in his letters. He writes about this problem in Romans 14 and again in I Timothy 4:1-4 where he also opposes celibacy. In Philippians 3:1-9, Paul fights the idea that physical circumcision makes a man righteous. In Colossians 2:16, Paul is not referring to the law of Moses or to rituals. Colosse was an area of asceticism and God's people were being criticized for fellowshipping, eating and drinking on the Holy Days.
What Did the Writer Mean?
Words of each writer in the Bible should be understood in the light of how they are normally used by that writer. What is the meaning the writer meant to convey? Matthew, for example, uses the term, "kingdom of heaven" whereas the other gospel writers consistently say "kingdom of God" (compare Mat. 3:2 with Mark 1:15). Matthew certainly didn't mean that the kingdom was in heaven. The word "of" denotes ownership, not locality. It is the kingdom belonging to God who rules from His throne in heaven. This is what Matthew meant to convey. The apostle John often uses the term "little children" in his first epistle (I John 2:1; 3:7, 4:4). Obviously he's not writing to actual children. He's writing to the "children of God" (I John 3:10) — those who have been spiritually begotten. When we know the character, age, religious background, nationality and other peculiarities of the writer, we can find the solutions to many difficulties.
Copyright © 2024 Herbert W Armstrong Library