The Bible is a large and complex book. It is a collection of sixty six different books written by dozens of different authors over the course of centuries. Yet Christians believe that, as the word of God, the Bible is ultimately one coherent whole, the foundational guide for the Church’s faith and practice. Antichristian skeptics, on the other hand, claim that the Bible is incoherent, containing numerous contradictions that undermine Christian claims that it is God’s inspired word.
Most alleged contradictions in the Bible are regarding trivial details. Even if these contradictions were real, this would only disprove the idea of biblical inerrancy, which, as I have argued in this previous theology post, is not an essential part of an orthodox Christian doctrine of Scripture; even if there are incidental historical errors in the Bible, this would not prove that it is not God’s inspired and Authoritative word for His Church. In these posts, I am not going to attempt to address every trivial claim of a biblical contradiction that has been made, as that would be a very tedious task. I will simply address a number of examples of alleged biblical contradictions and show that these apparent contradictions are not real.
In the book of Exodus, God tells Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them” (Ex 6:3). But the book of Genesis describes Abraham and Isaac calling on the name of YHWH (Gen 12:8, 13:4, 21:33, 26:25). There are two possible explanations for this apparent contradiction. One is that “calling on the name of YHWH” is a stock phrase used by the author of Genesis to refer to the patriarchs worshiping God, even though the patriarchs themselves did not actually know the name “YHWH.” The other is that, though the patriarchs knew the name YHWH, God had not fully revealed His essential character expressed by the name YHWH: the great I AM (Ex 4:14) who is covenantally committed to and present with His people.
There are a number of times in which two different parts of the Torah give two different penalties for the same crime (Ex 22:1 vs. Lev 6:1-5; Lev 15:24 vs. Lev 20: 18). However, seeing this as a direct contradiction relies on a misunderstanding of the nature of ancient Near Eastern law. Ancient Near Eastern law was not legislation that was enforced, equivalent to the laws of nation states today. Rather, it was a kind of wisdom literature, which, through a multitude of examples, provided guidance in understanding what justice looks like. Guided by this, judges and rulers were then expected to make decisions, not by enforcing legislation, but by making a decision that would be just according to the particularities of the case they were considering. Depending on the circumstances, the same crime might justly merit different punishments. So, there is no direct contradiction when different parts of the Torah give two different penalties for the same crime.
Proverbs 26:4 teaches, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be just like him.” But the very next verse, Proverbs 26:5, teaches, “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” Many have claimed that this is a blatant, direct contradiction in the span of just two verses. However, this claim is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the genre of proverbs. A proverb is not an absolute principle that is supposed to be applicable to 100% of situations. Rather, a proverb is a saying which provides guidance for wise living, but requires wisdom in order to know when it is applicable. This is why the book of Proverbs itself teaches, “Like a thornbush in a drunkard’s hand is a proverb in the mouth of a fool” (Prov 26:9). Although proverbs can provide guidance for wise living, a fool will apply a proverb to the wrong situation, turning the proverb into something harmful and dangerous.
Consider two popular proverbs used in our culture today: “You can’t be too careful,” and “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” One highlights the need to be cautious, the other highlights the need to take risks. There is nothing contradictory about a person using both of these proverbs; both of them are true. A wise person will know how and when to apply each of them in order to live wisely.
So, sometimes it is best not to answer a fool according to his folly, since you will just be drawn into a foolish and pointless discussion. But sometimes it is best to answer a fool according to his folly, thus showing how foolish his remarks are, so that he will not continue to think he is in the right. Knowing how and when to apply these two proverbs requires wisdom.
It is often claimed that there is a fundamental contradiction between the character of God as revealed in the Old Testament and the character of God as revealed in the New Testament; the God of the Old Testament is wrathful, while, in contrast, the God of the New Testament is loving. However, as I have argued in this previous theology post, this claim is quite simply false. God is revealed as both wrathful and loving in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in love” (Ex 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 86:15, 103:8, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2; Nah 1:3). In the New Testament, God’s love is more fully revealed, but so is His wrath (Matt 25:46; Heb 10:26-31; Rev 20:10-15). Divine love and Divine wrath are not contradictory. Rather, God is angry at whatever harms and corrupts His creation because He loves His creation so much. The Old and New Testaments are united in revealing a God of Holy love who exhibits wrath toward sin and evil.
At one point in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus refers to how David “entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence” (Mark 2:26). However, according to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the high priest at the time of this incident was Ahimelek. At first glance, this seems to be a contradiction. However, it is quite possible that Jesus meant, “in the time of Abiathar, who later became high priest.” Abiathar was the son of Ahimelek, who succeeded his father as high priest when he was killed shortly after this incident (1 Sam 22:18-20). It is also possible that the meaning of the Greek is, “in the Scripture section of Abiathar the high priest.” (The exact same grammatical construction (Greek epi+genitive) is used in Mark 12:26, when Jesus says, “in the book of Moses, in the Scripture section about the bush”). While Ahimelek is high priest in 1 Sam 21, he is quickly replaced by his son Abiathar, who is the more prominent high priestly figure in the book of Samuel. In either case, there is no contradiction between Jesus’s words and the text of 1 Samuel.