Looking at 3 Types of Bible Contradictions...

One thing believed by all Christian traditions is the divine inspiration of the Bible.  That is to say, we believe the words of the Bible are the words of God Himself.

So it can be alarming when we read the four Gospel accounts and find apparent contradictions between them.  It would mean at least one of the texts must be in error.

Many people attempt harmonization of the Gospel accounts - and rightfully so.  But other times we have to go back and reflect on what exactly we mean by "inspiration".  What exactly does that doctrine imply?

Today I wanted to look at three types of apparent contradictions in the Bible and discuss what it means for our understanding of inspiration.

Clearing Things Up:

This first one is probably easiest to understand.  Let’s look at a something Jesus said which is recorded by both Matthew and Luke.

Luke renders it in this jarring way:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:26

However, Matthew presents it like this:

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” – Matthew 10:37

Now, someone might read these two quotes and see a contradiction.  Only one of them can be correct, right?

Well, imagine this scenario:

Now, the fella could have relayed the exact words of the person on the phone.  But instead he chose to accurately interpret and relay the meaning of what was said.  Still, we recognize that the rephrase was a true report of what was said. 

The same thing is going on between Matthew and Luke.  In this instance Luke is telling you exactly what Jesus said.  That disturbing idiom really did come out of Christ's mouth.  Matthew, however, interprets it and tells you what it meant.

Thus, if Matthew was only intending to present an accurate summary - which he was  - then the account is perfectly true.  This leads us to our first principle:

True Summaries:

A similar phenomenon occurs when you look at different accounts of the same conversation.  For instance, Matthew and Mark both record an exchange Jesus had with Pharisees regarding divorce.

You can clearly see they are the same conversation... but the details differ.

What gives?

Just like in the first example, before we start nitpicking the details of any quote, we have to ask what exactly the author was actually intending.  Were they meaning to report a literal transcript, or an accurate recollection of the substance of the exchange?

The answer is obviously the latter. In a world before recording devices, it was considered enough to accurately render the substance  of what was said.  Thus we get our second principle:

Cutting the Middle Man

The third type can be found when you compare Matthew and Mark’s account of the Zebedee brothers asking Jesus for worldly power.  Mark’s rendition says:

“And James and John, the sons of Zeb′edee, came forward to him, and said to him, 'Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.'

'What do you want me to do for you?' he asked.

They replied, 'Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.'" – Mark 10:35-37

But then something odd happens when you flip back to Matthew’s account:

“'Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something.'

'What is it you want?' He asked.

"She said, 'Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.'” – Matthew 20:20-21

Notice the difference? Matthew has Mama Zebedee asking the question while Mark said the sons petitioned Jesus themselves.  So which is it?

[You can find another example in the story of the healing of the centurions servant.  Luke records the officer sending Jewish representatives to Jesus.  Matthew says the centurion came personally.]

Here it is important to remember that the Scriptures – not unlike Jesus – are fully human and divine.  They are going to employ all the same patterns people normally use (and used ) to recount stories.  In this instance you’re seeing the author cutting out middle-men to simplify a story.

If you were present for this conversation in 33AD, you would have seen Mama Zebedee pleading for her sons.  But Mark is content to cut out the intermediary because this was ultimately the boys’ request.

But that's OK.  At the time these documents were written, folks didn't see a meaningful distinction between speaking through a representative and asking yourself.  No one would have regarded this as an inaccuracy.

Which gives us a third principle:

What We Mean by "Inspiration":

Let's end by going back to the question we began with.  What do we mean by inspiration?

The Catholic Church, in its Vatican II document "Dei Verbum", summarized it this way:

"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.  

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. 

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. 

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture." - Dei Verbum, 11-12

And when you keep that in mind, many of the difficulties we encounter in the Bible fade away.