“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
 
There have been endless arguments between Christians and non-Christians through history as to whether the Hebrew word betulah in this verse – translated “virgin” in most English Bibles – should actually be translated “virgin” or just “young woman.” Non-believers have also argued that the son promised by Isaiah was simply the Jewish king Hezekiah. Conservative Christians feel there is ample evidence to show that the translation “virgin” is correct,  and that the meaning of Immanuel – “God with us” – as well as the context of the promise could hardly be applied to Hezekiah.

But in this blog post we will go beyond those questions to focus on what the verse says and to look at its wider setting in the book of Isaiah. When we read Isaiah’s prophecy of the Immanuel to come, we may focus on the virgin birth of the child or the meaning of his name – but that is only half of the significance of this great verse. The incredible promise of “God with us” made in this verse is coupled, if we think about it, with the equally astounding prediction of Immanuel’s humanity. God could have dwelt with humanity in the form of some kind of  spirit being – to teach his ways – but the words “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” show the humanity of the Immanuel as much as his name shows his divinity.

This duality of the fully human and fully divine Immanuel is stated again a few chapters later when Isaiah takes up the theme of the promised child again: 

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

The promised One’s humanity is seen in “for to us a child is born” with the emphasis on his human birth contrasted with “to us a son is given” signifying a non-human origin that is made clear in the titles that follow.  Interestingly, the four titles are equally indicative of the human and divine with “Wonderful Counselor” and “Prince of Peace” being essentially human titles and “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” being obviously titles that could only apply to God.

So, beyond its prediction of the virgin birth, the Immanuel promise of Isaiah stresses both the humanity and divinity of the One who was to come – a fact stressed equally in New Testament scriptures such as the transcendent opening verses of the Gospel of John:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14).

The statements that “the Word was God” and “the Word became flesh” are equally important in showing the Immanuel promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Luke’s Gospel confirms the duality in the same way:

“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32–33).
​
Once again, the words “Son of the Most High” and “his father David” proclaim the unique and unmistakable roles of the Immanuel – the promised one who would be born divine and human, equally God and man, and who would eternally bring the two together. 

“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place'” (John 18:36).

The difficulty of this verse is that it appears to contradict other scriptures of the New Testament that show the kingdom of God to be something that would be established in this world. Adding to the apparent confusion, Jesus said in the second half of John 18:36 that his kingdom was not “in,” but “from” another place.

The answer to the seeming difficulty is that both aspects of the kingdom of God are true. On the one hand, the kingdom of God is certainly in heaven. This seems obvious in the expression “the kingdom of heaven,” though that is actually not a proof.  Matthew, writing to a predominantly Jewish audience, used “kingdom of heaven” because many Jews used that expression in order to avoid unnecessary use of the name of God – just as in English people sometimes say “Good heavens,” which is just an indirect way of using God’s name. All the other Gospel writers use “kingdom of God.” But apart from this detail it is obvious that God rules as King in heaven and in that sense, the “kingdom of God” is the “kingdom of heaven” (see Matthew 5:34; Daniel 4:37; etc.).

On the other hand, a great many scriptures  clearly show the kingdom of heaven will be established on earth – something Christ said we should pray for (Matthew 6:10) and a truth at the core of his teaching, as we see in the Gospels: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:2). The situation is not unlike that of earlier centuries when the colonial powers were located in their own countries, but took over distant lands. It was equally true to say that the “kingdom of France” and the “kingdom of England” were in their respective areas, but also that these kingdoms were “coming near” the areas they annexed, and that the rule of those kingdoms was finally established in the new lands.

With this background and a little extra information, we can now understand the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 18.36.   The Greek word used in John (basileia) and translated “kingdom” can mean not only the physical actual kingdom, but also the “rule” or “authority” of the king. In that sense, it is like the colonial analogy we used. French Canada, called “New France,” was not France, but part of the kingdom of France in the sense it was under the rule of the king of France.  Sometimes people say that Christ did not speak Greek, but rather would have said these words in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew.  Even if that is true, the Aramaic (malkuta) and Hebrew (malkuth) words have exactly the same double meaning.
​
So, the words “My kingdom is not of this world”  spoken by Jesus can just as properly be translated “My authority is not of this world … my authority is from another place.” Jesus’ words do not refer then to being the ruler of the kingdom in heaven, but to his having authority from the kingdom in heaven.

When we understand the double meaning of “kingdom,” we can see how John 18:36 does not contradict the many scriptures regarding the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, but simply refers to the origin of Christ’s authority as that kingdom’s King.​

“Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29).
 
The apostle Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthian church have puzzled many Christians for centuries.  Some denominations have extrapolated from the verse and have instituted a ritual by which a living believer is baptized in lieu of a person who is already deceased, and who was never baptized in their lifetime.  But is this kind of “baptism for the dead” what Paul is really talking about?

The apostle may have been referring to one of four possible logical and historical situations:
​
1. The possibility that the early Christians were indeed being physically baptized on behalf of those who had died – perhaps before they could be baptized.  This possibility is extremely unlikely as the New Testament clearly shows that baptism, while commanded, is not a requirement for salvation per se, and that sometimes it cannot be carried out (Luke 23:42–43; etc.).

2. Paul could have been referring to a pagan Greek custom, or to an unscriptural practice of vicarious baptism being followed by some members of the Corinthian church. This could be possible as Paul says “those” who do this, not “we.” But it is unlikely as we have no other record of such a practice in Corinth or elsewhere in the very early church (it is first documented in the third century AD).

3. Because baptism is a symbolic death to sin and a resurrection to righteousness (Romans 6:3–4), everyone who is baptized is, in that sense, symbolically baptized “for the dead” – that is, by baptism he or she proclaims the death of the old person and the new life in Christ.  This was said to be Paul’s meaning by the early Church father, Chrysostom (c. AD 347-), and is certainly possible.

4. A final possibility that is suggested by the context of Paul’s statement is that the apostle was referring metaphorically to the “baptism” of trial and suffering through which the followers of Christ are called to go (Matthew 16:24).  This fits with Paul’s words elsewhere linking our suffering with Christ’s death and resurrection (Philippians 3:10; etc.). The fact that the concept of baptism is used in exactly this sense in Matthew 3:11 and Mark 10:38–39, and that Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians to speak of suffering, also makes this meaning possible. Finally, Paul’s use of the ongoing present tense in his use of the word “baptized” in 1 Corinthians 15:29 makes this  possibility of  the baptism of suffering very likely.

Whichever possibility reflects the situation behind Paul’s statement, it is clear that a physical ritual of vicarious baptism for those who had died (possibility 1) is the least likely of all the meanings the verse could have. It is also a cardinal principle of proper biblical interpretation that we should never establish doctrine on uncertain verses of Scripture. Given that principle and the likelihood that Paul’s comment was either symbolic or metaphorical, there is no reason to invent a ritual practice that is nowhere commanded in the Bible. 

Whatever Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:29, he simply says that if there is no resurrection, why would baptism for the dead occur or make any sense. Paul’s point in this section of his letter has nothing directly to do with baptism, and everything to do with the certainty of Christian suffering and resurrection.

​In his first letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul wrote: “Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15). It has sometimes been claimed that in saying this Paul contradicts the plain teaching of Jesus: “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).

Clearly, the teaching of Jesus is not against calling anyone’s human father by that name, but against using the term as a religious title –  as we see by looking at the context where he tells his disciples they are not to be called “Rabbi” (Matthew 23:8), “Father” (Matthew 23:9), or “Teacher” (Matthew 23:10). These were all elevated religious titles in Jesus’ time, and he continued by stressing that his disciples were to be servants rather than elevating themselves above others (Mathew 23:11-12).

So where does this place Paul’s comment? Was he not putting himself in a position inciting the Corinthians to call him “father”?    The answer is – not at all.  Just as the author of the book of Hebrews speaks of our human fathers (Hebrews 12:7, 9), the apostle John understood that there was nothing wrong with addressing human fathers by that name (1 John 2:13; etc.), and the apostle James knew that it was not wrong to refer to Abraham as his father (James 2:21).

What Paul says to the Corinthians is that he was fulfilling the role of a spiritual father to them. He addressed the Corinthians as  “my dear children” (1 Corinthians 4:14).  Two verses after telling them “I became your father through the gospel,” Paul speaks of his assistant Timothy in the same way: “For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love” (vs. 17).

Paul was certainly not telling the Corinthians that they should use the religious title “father” in their relationship with him, but rather he simply tells them how he feels he relates to them spiritually. Just as Jesus, after forbidding the use of father as a religious title, went on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 23:11), so Paul frankly tells the Corinthians “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants” (1 Corinthians 3:5), and “This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1).

It was clearly the furthest thing from Paul’s intention to set himself up and to encourage or incite the use of elevated titles for himself or other apostles.  As a true pastor, Paul guided and admonished his Corinthian congregation with a father’s concern and love and was moved to express his fatherly feelings to them in what he wrote.

In 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul is not talking about the Corinthians calling him “father” – he was simply using a clear and apt analogy about his role as a spiritual parent to his flock. This is an identical situation to that which we find in the book of Ephesians where Paul is hardly inciting the Ephesians to call him “teacher” when he writes “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self” (Ephesians 4:22).  

It is common for some who reject Christianity to speak of the “clear contradictions” among the Gospel accounts of the resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20). The four accounts are frequently said to be inconsistent in terms of the witnesses to the event, its timing, and what the witnesses saw. We will look at these aspects individually and see how the issue of perspective affects them:

The Witnesses: Matthew 28:1 states that two women (Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”) came to the tomb of Jesus, whereas Mark 16:1 states that there were three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome). In Luke 24:10 we find three women named, but a different list of three than Mark gives (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna); finally, John 20:1 mentions only Mary Magdalene. Clearly, a number of women went to the tomb that morning, but it is likely that each Gospel writer mentions the particular women that he had heard were there. The fact that there is so much agreement between the lists is, in fact, a point for their authenticity rather than some kind of contradiction. John mentions only Mary Magdalene, likely because she was the first to arrive at the tomb. But in each case the perspective of the writer is all that is really different.

Timing of the Event: John 20:1 states “it was still dark” when Mary arrived at the tomb, but Mark 16:2 states it was “just after sunrise” when the women arrived. Once again, perhaps Mary Magdalene (who alone is mentioned by John) arrived at the tomb a little earlier than the others. Thus, from John’s perspective it was dark, whereas from the other writers’ perspective it was now light when the other women arrived.

What Was Witnessed: While Matthew 28:2 tells us “an angel” rolled away the stone sealing the tomb and sat upon it, Mark 16:5 says the women found “a young man” sitting by the tomb. Luke 24:4 says the women saw “two men,” and in John 20:1 it is not recorded that Mary Magdalene saw anything other than the moved stone. But Matthew does not say there was only one angel, just that one moved the stone. The “young man” mentioned by Mark was clearly how the women had described the angel. The fact that John does not mention the two "men" does not mean that they were not there – his account is written from the perspective of Mary Magdalene and it is possible that when she arrived at the tomb – somewhat before the other women – no one else was present. So this is hardly a contradictory situation.

As the theologian N.T. Wright has written, "It is a commonplace among lawyers that eyewitnesses disagree, but that this doesn’t mean nothing happened." (Surprised by Hope, Harper 2008, p. 33). Given four separate accounts of the same event, one would expect differences of detail to be remembered by the different witnesses, and differences in the stress placed on certain details by the four writers as they recorded the event from their own perspectives.

* Excerpted from our new free e-book, Scriptures in Question: Answers to Apparent Biblical Contradictions.  You can download a free copy here.

SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION:                                             
ANSWERS TO APPARENT BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS    
​By R. Herbert              

Every year new and even well-established believers are unsettled and in some cases turned from the Christian faith by claims that the Bible contradicts itself and so it cannot be the inspired word of God.  Our latest free e-book gives multiple examples of seven basic principles that can be easily applied to explain supposed inconsistencies in the Bible. Scriptures in Question is an important tool for answering your own questions and those others might ask you. 

As with all our free e-books, Scriptures in Question is available in multiple formats to read on almost any electronic device and there is no need to register or give an email address to get a copy - just click on the download link and enjoy.  You can download your free copy here. ​

 
Scriptures in Question:  Isaiah 61:1-2 and Luke 4:18-19
​
“The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God...” (Isaiah 61:1-2).
​
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).
 
Did Jesus misquote an important prophecy in the book of Isaiah, as is sometimes claimed?  Luke’s Gospel tells us that early in his ministry Jesus went back to his hometown of Nazareth and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue and began to read from Isaiah.   Luke records the words that Jesus read out, and it is clear that they were the opening verses of Isaiah Chapter 61.  But when we compare the words of Isaiah in our Bibles with Jesus’ words recorded in Luke, we see some important differences. Jesus apparently:

1) Omitted the words “He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted” in Isaiah.
2) Omitted the words “to set the oppressed free” in Isaiah.
3) Appears to have changed the words “release from darkness for the prisoners” in Isaiah to “recovery of sight for the blind.”
4) Stopped reading halfway through Isaiah’s sentence and omitted the words “and the day of vengeance of our God.”

The first of these points is the simplest to explain.  The words “He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted” may not have appeared in the manuscript from which Christ read. It is known that versions of the Hebrew Bible existed that were slightly different from the Masoretic text that our modern translations are usually based on.  As there is no apparent reason why Jesus would omit these words, we can presume they were not present in the text from which he read.

Everything we have said about the first point of difference also applies to the second point.

The third point of difference is an interesting one.  What we said about the first point could also apply to the small difference between “release from darkness for the prisoners” in Isaiah and “recovery of sight for the blind” in Luke.  This is especially true as the ancient Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek has the same words found in Luke  –  indicating that Jesus could have used a Hebrew text similar to that used by the Septuagint, or that Luke could possibly have quoted the verse from the Septuagint as he himself was writing in Greek.  
Yet another possibility also exists for this difference.  It is known that the ancient rabbis often gave interpretive commentary on the scriptures when they recited or read them out and Jesus, as a visiting rabbi, could have done the same here.    The words “to open eyes that are blind” do occur elsewhere in Isaiah (42:7) in the context of the release of prisoners, so Jesus may have brought the two scriptures together –  especially in tying Isaiah’s words to the healing of the  blind that would occur in his own ministry (Luke 18:35-43, etc.). 

But why did Jesus stop reading halfway through what we now call the second verse in Isaiah 61 –   a sentence which all the ancient versions seem to have had?  Luke tells us that after Jesus stopped reading: “The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him” (Luke 4:20).  It was no wonder that Jesus had captured the attention of everyone in the synagogue that day, not just for what he said, but because of what he did not say. 

The passage in Isaiah ends with the words: “and the day of vengeance of our God.” When we compare these words with the ones that come before them – that Jesus did read out – we see a stark contrast between God’s mercy and his justice.  These two aspects of God’s dealing with us are juxtaposed throughout the whole book of Isaiah, but perhaps nowhere more noticeably than in these verses. 

We know that during the time of Jesus, the Jews were expecting and longing for a messianic figure who would free them from Roman occupation and restore their national independence. All those of his hometown who had heard the rumors of the miraculous signs accompanying Jesus would have been listening to him intently to see if he would proclaim himself the agent of God’s vengeance on their enemies.   When Jesus did not read out Isaiah’s words “to proclaim …  the day of vengeance of our God,” he made it clear that such was not his purpose at that time.

The people of Jesus’ day did not understand, of course, that Isaiah seems to telescope time in this and many other passages by juxtaposing events that would occur separately –  the great manifestation of God’s mercy at the Messiah’s first coming, and the expression of God’s judgment at his second coming.  Sadly, many in Jesus’ day were more interested in the possibility of judgment on their enemies than mercy for all, though that is what Jesus offered in his sermon to all who would accept it.

So there is no reason to believe that Jesus “misquoted” Scripture in his reading from Isaiah 61.  It is probable that he quoted a version of the prophet’s writings extant at that time – which would account for the small differences we see between his words and those of Isaiah in modern Bibles.  The reason Jesus stopped reading where he did is equally clear.

Scriptures in Question: Isaiah 43:18, 26
“Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.”   (Isaiah 43:18)
“Review the past for me.”  (Isaiah 43:26)
 
These two verses, from within the same chapter of the book of Isaiah, are sometimes said to be an example of the Bible contradicting itself.  While the one verse clearly tells us to forget the past, the other verse is equally clear in stating that it should be remembered. 

As is so often the case, the simple answer to this apparent contradiction is found in the contexts in which the two verses appear. When we look at the verses surrounding Isaiah 43:18 we find that God is speaking of working with those who had turned to him and whom he had redeemed. We see this beginning in the first verse of the chapter: “But now, this is what the Lord says – he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel: 'Do not fear, for I have redeemed you'” (Isaiah 43:1).

The same situation applies in a number of verses in the following chapters – as when we read “I have swept away your offenses like a cloud, your sins like the morning mist” (Isaiah 44:22).  It is because of this forgiveness that God offered the comforting words: “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.”   

But the situation is entirely different with those who had turned from God and refused to walk in his ways.  It is to those people that the words of Isaiah 43:26 and its surrounding verses were addressed.  Notice that verse in full: “Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence. Your first father sinned; those I sent to teach you rebelled against me” (Isaiah 43:26-27). Here, God instructs those who rejected him to remember the history of humanity and what that rejection had caused. 

This principle of urging those who were not following God to remember the past is repeated several times in Isaiah. We read, for example: “Remember this, keep it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:8-9).  Here, God clearly reminds those who rebel against him of his actions –  both of correction and blessing.

There are other biblical verses, of course, that urge us to remember the things that God has done for us in the past. For example, Deuteronomy 6:12 states clearly: “be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”   In exactly the same way, the apostle Paul reminds us of our past and tells us to “remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” ( Ephesians 2:12).

But in the context of Isaiah 43, we see God differentiating between those who rebel against him and those who do not.  Isaiah, like many other biblical writers, shows that God works with us according to our attitude.  His message to those who turn to him and want to walk in his ways is very different from the message he addresses to those who refuse and rebel.

So there is no contradiction between verses 18 and 26 in Isaiah 43. In actuality, the two verses simply provide examples of two different situations.  The first shows God urging the repentant to refuse to be afflicted by their past mistakes  –  as one of the benefits of his forgiveness. The second shows God urging the unrepentant to consider the past –  as a reminder of both his blessings and his judgments.

Scriptures in Question:
​
“Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us…” (Luke 11:4).
“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12).
 
Many readers of the Gospels notice that in the accounts of the Lord’s Prayer given in Matthew and Luke there is a noticeable difference regarding the petition for forgiveness.  While Luke tells us that Jesus taught we should pray for forgiveness of our sins, Matthew records that we are to pray for the forgiveness of our debts.  Matthew doubtless refers to spiritual rather than financial debts, but the two Gospels use different words with very different meanings. 

Luke’s account uses the Greek word hamartia which is the word most often used for sins in the New Testament.  Matthew, however, uses the Greek words opheilēma and opheiletēs which are translated as “debts” and “debtors” and which convey the idea of a responsibility we have not paid off.  To make matters seem even more complicated, Matthew records that directly after giving the Lord’s Prayer Jesus said:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:14–15 ESV).

Here, the word “trespasses” is translated from yet another Greek word paraptōma, which we know means any sin that goes over the boundaries (like trespassing on someone’s property) of established laws.

But this seeming tangle of different Greek words is put in clear perspective when we realize that Jesus certainly would not have given the Lord’s Prayer in Greek, and that the language he would have used would have been Aramaic – the language spoken by the population of Judea in New Testament times.   Unlike Greek, which has separate words for the ideas of sin and unpaid debts or responsibilities, Aramaic has a single word khoba signifying both sins and debts.

This means that the petition for forgiveness given by Jesus was interpreted as referring to “sins” by Luke and “debts” by Matthew.  There is actually a clear hint of this double meaning in Luke’s Gospel where the Greek actually includes both ideas in stating: “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us” (Luke 11:4, emphases added). Although this double meaning does not appear in the NIV, it is accurately recorded in the ESV, NKJV, Holman Bible, etc.

But we should not forget the significance of the double meaning of the Aramaic word doubtless used by Jesus.  That word signifies both sins in the sense of things we do that we should not do and debts in the sense of responsibilities we should have fulfilled but did not – sins of “commission” and “omission.”
​
So the accounts of Matthew and Luke do not contradict each other.  Matthew simply stresses the debt aspect of the word Jesus used, while Luke stresses the sin aspect – though he also manages to include the idea of indebtedness.  And Matthew, the tax collector who perhaps naturally remembered and stressed the aspect of debts, also includes the additional word paraptōma which can refer to any transgression and which covers both types of failing to love – either by what we do or do not do. 

Scriptures in Question:

“And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died” (Exodus 9:6).

“Give an order now to bring your livestock and everything you have in the field to a place of shelter, because the hail will fall on every person and animal that has not been brought in and is still out in the field, and they will die” (Exodus 9:19).

In the narrative of the plagues sent on Egypt described in the book of Exodus, we are told that in the fifth plague “All the livestock of the Egyptians died” (Exodus 9:1-7), while later, in the seventh plague, Moses tells Pharaoh that any livestock not brought under shelter will be killed by a great hailstorm.  If all the animals were killed in the fifth plague, how could there be animals left to shelter from the seventh?  There are at least four possible answers to this seeming contradiction.

First, strange as it may sound, the words “all” and “every” in Hebrew do not mean “all” or “every” in all cases. Just as in modern English we can say “Everyone was at the party” meaning a great many people or all the people of a certain type such as a group of co-workers, so in ancient Hebrew the words all and every sometimes simply mean the majority or a great many.
​
Second, the expression “all the livestock” can mean livestock of every kind – horses, cows, sheep, goats, etc. –  as, in fact, we find in Exodus 9:3: “…your horses, donkeys and camels and … your cattle, sheep and goats.”

Third, the exact wording of Exodus 9:3 is that “the Lord will bring a terrible plague on your livestock in the field …”, so it may be that livestock not in the fields would not be affected. The ancient Egyptians had extensive stables and holding areas for livestock, as many of the “fields” were covered in water during the annual inundation of the Nile.

Fourth, we are specifically told that in the fifth plague none of the livestock of the Hebrews was affected (Exodus 9: 7), so it is very possible that by the time of the seventh plague the Egyptians had forcibly requisitioned many of these animals and now had them in their own fields.

Given all these –  and even other –  possibilities, there is no reason we need see any contradiction between what Exodus tells us occurred in the fifth and seventh plagues. The fact that the supposed contradiction is an obvious one that occurs within a few verses indicates that the ancient Hebrews were fully aware of what was said but saw no problem regarding the situation.  As a result, we need not either.   

​Scriptures in question: Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13
 
A number of books claiming to show discrepancies and contradictions in the New Testament mention that the accounts of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness found in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 give the temptations in a different order. This is said to show disagreement among the New Testament writers as to what happened and that they were not sure themselves. 

The temptations of Christ are identical in the two accounts, but Matthew records them as:

1.  Turn stones into bread to satisfy his physical hunger.
2. Leap from the temple pinnacle to show his divine nature.
3. Worship Satan to receive great power. 
 
Luke changes the order of the temptations slightly to:

1. Turn stones into bread.
2. Worship Satan.
3. Leap from the temple pinnacle.
 
However, there is a very likely reason for the different order in Matthew’s Gospel and that of Luke. Matthew’s Gospel was written to a Jewish audience.  Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, seems to have been written to a primarily Greek-speaking audience.   Many of the differences between the two Gospels – for example, the genealogies of Jesus – are clearly as a result of the audiences addressed. The stories of the temptation of Jesus are no exception.

In Matthew, from a Jewish perspective, the temptations are arranged in an increasing order from appropriating God’s power for personal needs, to taking an easier path to fulfilling God’s will, to finally placing another god before God himself.  For a Jewish audience, all these temptations would seem serious, but there is no question that they would be seen as being in an increasing order.  

In Luke, the order of the temptations is subtly but importantly changed. For a gentile Greek audience, the temptation to perform the miracle of changing stones to bread would not be as great as a temptation to great power and rulership in the world, but that would itself not seem as great a temptation as to become like a god oneself.  Luke’s order of the temptations perfectly fits this gentile Greek perspective, as do so many of the details in his Gospel.

There is another detail we should consider in looking at these accounts.  Matthew’s order of the temptations not only fits the Jewish perspective best, it also seems to be an actual chronological order. We see this in the fact that Matthew uses chronological markers in his account – he writes “then…” or some similar term before each of the temptations to show that one followed the other (Matthew 4:1, 5, 8, 11).

Luke, however, uses no chronological markers and simply tells us what the temptations were – in an order that would make the most sense to his own primarily non-Jewish audience. 

Ultimately, the fact that the temptations are listed in a different order in Matthew and Luke shows that the order itself does not matter.  But the cultural perspectives of the audiences addressed by the two Gospels may show why the order changes in each of the accounts.  

​Scriptures in Question:  Ezekiel 29:10  Isaiah 19:21-25
 
“… I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush.” (Ezekiel 29:10).
​ 
“So the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. … In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.’”  (Isaiah 19:21-25).
 
The most obvious answer to the apparent discrepancy between the two scriptures above, and others like them, is that they address different times. Ezekiel speaks to a time close to his own when Egypt would fall to outside invaders – as it soon did, in fact, to the emerging Babylonian and Persian Empires.   On the other hand, Isaiah speaks to a more distant time of millennial peace when the future nation of Egypt will be blessed for its obedience.

But there is another aspect to understanding scriptures like these.  Ancient Egypt is represented with a kind of “split personality” in the Bible.  On the one hand it is sometimes shown quite negatively, and on the other hand it is sometimes shown in a much more positive light. Egypt and Israel shared a common border in the ancient world, just as they do today, and this fact led to a great deal of interaction between the two lands – some of which was of a negative and some a positive nature.

Many scriptures speak of the national sins of ancient Egypt (Isaiah 19:1-25, etc.), and ancient Israel was repeatedly warned not to follow its example in many things – ranging from religious customs (Ezekiel 20:8, etc.) to trusting in horses and chariots for their national protection (Isaiah 31:1, etc.).  But most scriptures giving a negative view of Egypt do so by using it as a symbol of slavery and bondage, as the Bible records it had been for the Israelites.

On the other hand, although Israel left Egypt in the Exodus, the land of the Nile remained a major superpower during most of Israel’s history, and it provided shelter for a large number of individuals mentioned in the Bible.   We see this even as early as the time of Abraham and Sarah who went to Egypt when conditions were difficult in the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:10-20), and we see the same thing in the life of Joseph, of course, when his brothers went to Egypt for food during a famine in Canaan.  Other biblical figures such as Jeroboam fled to Egypt for political asylum (1 Kings 11:40), and later, when the nations of Israel and Judah were overthrown and taken into captivity, many individuals fled to Egypt for refuge (2 Kings 25:26) – including the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 43:5-7). In the New Testament, of course, Mary and Joseph also fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus to avoid persecution by King Herod.

So throughout biblical history Egypt played two very different roles – both as a land that had held Israel in slavery, and as a land that was a safe haven for many who escaped to it. Depending on the time and circumstances, Egypt was either an adversary or an ally, a place to flee or a place to flee to.

As a land symbolizing pride and oppression as well as refuge and protection, it is understandable that some scriptures speak of punishments that would come on Egypt and others speak of rewards.  The Bible shows that nations, just like individuals, are held accountable for their behavior, and so it is no contradiction that Egypt was prophesied to receive curses when it did evil and blessings when it did good.

Scriptures in Question:   ​

“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1).
 “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  


These two scriptures ­­– Job 1:1 and Romans 3:23 – are loved by sceptics as they feel the two verses provide a “perfect” example of biblical contradiction.  How, they ask, could Job be “blameless” (NIV, ESV, etc.) or “perfect” (as translated in the King James Version) –  in other words, sinless –  if, as Paul affirms, all have sinned?

Many Christians realize that when the New Testament uses the word “perfect” (as when Jesus tells his followers to “be perfect” – Matthew 5:48), the Greek word used means “mature” or “complete” (see “Does God Expect us to Be Perfect?” on our sister site, here).  In the Old Testament a similar situation occurs.  The Hebrew word tam translated in Job 1:1 as “blameless” or “perfect” (and again in Job 1:8, 2:3) has several shades of meaning. It comes from a root word meaning to be complete or finished (Genesis 47:18, Deuteronomy 31:24) and in a secondary sense to be morally sound or upright (Job 22:3, Psalm 18:26).  Tam itself can be translated “complete,” “finished,” “blameless,” “innocent,” or “having integrity.” In Proverbs 29:10, for example, the word is used in the phrase “a person of integrity.”

This meaning –  of having moral integrity or “uprightness” –  that lies at the heart of what we are told in Job does not imply perfection as we might think of the word in modern English usage. In fact, the respected Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1981) states categorically: “the words which are rendered in English by ‘perfect’ and ‘perfection’ [in the Hebrew Bible] denoted originally something other and less than ideal perfection.” 

So although Job 1:1 records that Job was blameless, and in Job 1:8 and 2:3 God is said to have declared Job to be blameless, the Hebrew word translated “blameless” does not have to mean morally perfect and completely sinless.  This can be seen in that the book itself shows Job’s failings.   In 7:21 Job states “Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?” and in 42:6 Job confirms his own sinfulness when he says: “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”   When we take these facts into account, it is clear that being “blameless” or “perfect” before God in Job – and elsewhere in the Old Testament – means being morally upright, but it does not have to refer to some kind of sinless perfection.

Putting the scriptures together, then, there is no contradiction between what the Book of Job tells us and what Paul affirms in Romans.  All humans, including Job, have sinned, as Paul stresses; but Job had attained a level of integrity or moral uprightness that God himself acknowledged as being remarkable – just as the Book of Job states. 

​“Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46 ESV).

“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30 ESV).

On the surface, the accounts of Luke and John certainly might seem to be at variance with each other regarding the last words of Jesus, but when we look more closely we find little reason to see any contradiction.

First, we should notice that while Luke specifically says “…having said this he breathed his last,” the wording of John’s Gospel “… and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” does not necessarily preclude intervening words – it could simply mean that moments or minutes after receiving the wine, Jesus died. 

Note that while Luke focuses specifically on Jesus’ last words – and calls them exactly that – John seems to focus on the sour wine event and its resultant “It is finished” as the final prophecies fulfilled by Christ. This is typical of Luke’s frequent focus on the humanity of Jesus and his actual words, as opposed to John’s focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies relating to the Messiah and details regarding the message of salvation.

But there is no real reason to think that both accounts were not true.  Jesus’ last words may have been a combination of what John and Luke record: “It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”   If these were the actual and full last words of Jesus, then the two Gospel writers simply recorded that part of the expression which was of most importance to their own accounts.

It is also sometimes said that both Luke and John are contradicted by Matthew and Mark, whose Gospels both record Jesus’ expression “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” as his last words.  But both Matthew and Mark write that, soon after this, Jesus gave a loud cry: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit” (Matthew 27:50); “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last” (Mark 15:37).

But these accounts do not say whether the “loud cry” or “loud voice” contained words or not. If the cry contained words, it was doubtless those recorded by Luke and John.  The reason that the other two Gospels say a “voice” or “cry” was probably because they are based on the account of a witness of the crucifixion who was close enough to hear the cry, but not close enough to make out the exact words.  (Both Matthew and Mark agree that many of the witnesses stood “at a distance” from the cross – Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:40).

When we keep both factors in mind: that Luke and John compiled their Gospels stressing different themes, and that Matthew and Mark may well have drawn their information from different witnesses, there is no need to presume any contradiction between the four Gospels as to the last words of Jesus.

​Scriptures in Question:
 
 
“ … you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20).
​
“The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11).
  

 
The Bible makes it clear that God is invisible to physical eyes, and that even if we could see him we could not live (Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16, etc.). Yet there are also scriptures that show individuals have claimed to have seen God (Exodus 33:11, etc.).   The answer to this seeming contradiction is that in some circumstances God revealed himself to certain individuals – in human or angelic form (Genesis 32:30, Judges 13:22), with very reduced glory (Exodus 33:18-23), or in a vision (Acts 7:55-56).

But what about the rest of us?  For now, at least, we can only “see” God conceptually (both the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible for “see” can mean to see with the eye or to see in the mind – as in “I see what you mean”).  Eventually, we are promised that we will see God in his fullness: “… we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2b).   So when Christ affirmed that “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8), he undoubtedly was referring to both our present conceptual view of God and our future literal view.
 
The apostle Paul elaborated on this fact for us in his inspiring words:  “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Paul’s statement is doubly inspiring because it affirms not only our future clear view of God, but also the fact that we can presently see him – conceptually – if we wish to look.

How do we do this – how do we see God to the extent that is now possible?  We can certainly read the scriptures that talk about God, but not many give detailed descriptions. Is there something else we can do? Someone else once asked that same question. The Gospel of John records that one of the twelve disciples – Philip – asked Jesus:

“Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9). 
​
Because Jesus was God in human form (John 1:1, 14), when people saw him, they were seeing God.  When we read the detailed accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry, we can “see” God in that sense, too. The privilege and pleasure of doing exactly that is one of the greatest aspects – and purposes – of studying the word of God:  of seeing “The Word” in “the word.” It should always be in the forefront of our minds as we approach the Bible.

​Scripture in Question:  Matthew 27:9-10 

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.’
​
The problem with these verses, according to many skeptics, is that the words quoted from Jeremiah do not appear anywhere in that book, but seem to appear in the Book of Zechariah. If the Bible is inspired, skeptics ask, why did the biblical writer incorrectly state the book from which the quotation is taken?

First, we can say that there is no confusion as to what Matthew says – the Greek text of his Gospel does clearly say “Jeremiah” and not “Zechariah,” so there is no issue of mistranslation.  

Jeremiah does mention purchasing a field (Jeremiah 32:9–12), but not for 30 pieces of silver. However, when we read Zechariah we find a much closer parallel: 

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.  And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13).  

The wording in Zechariah is not exactly the same as that found in Matthew, so it is possible that the words quoted by Matthew were actually spoken by Jeremiah at some other point. We must always remember that the Old Testament and New Testament represent the final culmination of many years of selection and editing by the Jews and early Christians, respectively.  We know that many other books were written by the biblical writers that were not included in the Bible as we have it today.

The Old Testament, for example, mentions a number of books such as the book of Nathan the Prophet which is cited, but not included in the Bible (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29). In the New Testament, 2 Peter and Jude both refer to the “Book of Enoch” (2 Peter 2:4, 3:13; Jude 4, 6, 13–15) which was apparently known to the New Testament apostles, but is not extant today, and Paul’s epistle to the Colossians mentions an “epistle from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:16), which is not otherwise known.

There are numerous other instances where biblical writers quoted or alluded to other works that were not included in the Bible itself and have become lost through the course of history. So there is no reason to find it surprising that Matthew may have been able to quote specific words from Jeremiah that are not found in the Book of Jeremiah in the form that we now have it.  So Jeremiah may have uttered the prophecy recorded by Matthew, even if we do not have the actual source in which the prophecy was made.

But an even simpler answer to this problem exists.  The Hebrew Bible was divided into three sections called the “Law,” the “Prophets,” and the “Writings” (see Luke 24:44).  The scrolls on which the biblical books were written were sometimes referred to by the name of their first book (thus Jesus refers to all the “Writings” as “Psalms” in Luke 24:44), and the first book in the division known as the Prophets was Jeremiah.  So, when Matthew –  whose Gospel most closely reflects Jewish culture –  wrote that the prophecy he referred to was found in Jeremiah he may simply have meant in the scroll of the Prophets.

“The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5).

This may be one of most frequently quoted-out-of-context scriptures in the New Testament!  In a great many cases Luke 17:5 is quoted alone as it is above, with resulting problems of understanding. But what is the real significance of these words?

If we continue reading in Luke 17, we find that Jesus apparently did not accept the request of the disciples and even appears to gently rebuke them for the question.  Unless we look at his words carefully, in context, they make little sense.  Notice how Jesus replied to the disciples’request:

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”  He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you. Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’?  Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do?  So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty’” (Luke 17:5-10).

There is a clear negative note in what Jesus is saying here – in fact, Jesus not only denies the request, but he seems to be criticizing the request itself.   To understand this reply, we should first notice that this exchange takes place well after Jesus had sent out his disciples to preach and heal and they had successfully accomplished many healings – which doubtless showed they had a measure of faith by this time (Luke 9:1-6 and see James 5:15). The disciples’ sudden request for more faith seems odd, therefore, if it is a general request. However, the immediate context of their petition throws more light on its meaning.  Their request came directly after Jesus told them:

"… If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them” (Luke 17:3-4).

So the request for greater faith appears to have been made in the context of doubt regarding being able to fulfill the seemingly extreme requirement of forgiving those that sin against us virtually without end.   Understanding this makes more sense of Jesus’ reply.   First Jesus apparently tells his disciples that forgiveness is not a matter of having more faith – faith is not really the issue here – and if they only have a small amount of faith, it will be enough. But then Jesus immediately switches to a parable-like story or example of the fact that servants must simply do what they are told and expected to do.
  
This story makes little sense if the disciples were requesting more faith in general, but it makes perfect sense if the disciples were essentially questioning their ability to forgive a repeated offense in an ongoing manner.  Just as a servant continues to prepare his master’s meals on an ongoing daily basis, Christ seems to say, so the Christian must be willing to follow the instruction to forgive on an ongoing daily basis.

If the disciples had simply been asking for “more faith,” we would expect that Jesus would have responded in a positive manner – instructing them on developing faith, just as he instructed them when they asked him to teach them to pray (Matthew 6:9-13).  But the specific things Jesus said and the apparent tone of his response indicate that the disciples were not as interested in growing spiritually in this instance as much as they were registering  their opinion of the level of difficulty of the command they had just been given. 
​
Jesus reminded the Twelve that faith was not really what was needed in this regard, but a simple understanding that the command to forgive was a command we are expected to follow.  Ultimately, the disciples would come to learn that forgiveness is not based in faith, but in love.  As Peter himself would later write:  “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). 

Scriptures in Question:  
​Matthew 3:17  and John 5:37  
 
Matthew 3:17  records that at the baptism of Jesus a miraculous sign was given: “And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

This verse is often contrasted with ones found in the Gospel of John which tell us: “And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form" (John 5:37).

So do Matthew and John contradict each other? Was the voice of God heard or not?

First, we must understand that these verses are both talking about God the Father, as we see clearly in Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew 3:17 where the voice said “This is my Son…” and John 5:37 where the Father is specifically named. 

But there is no contradiction between Matthew and John’s accounts, as Matthew does not say it was the voice of God himself that onlookers heard.  Certainly the voice said “This is my Son …” so we know the message was from God, but God has used many messengers to deliver his words. 

We should remember that in his preincarnate form Christ himself was the “Logos” or “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14), acting as the “Spokesperson” of  God (compare Genesis 1 and Hebrews 1:2). 

Since Christ, the primary spokesperson for God, was now in human form, the voice that was heard from heaven must clearly have been that of an angelic messenger relaying this message on behalf of God, just as angels are recorded to have delivered messages at various points in the Gospels, such as when they  spoke to Mary at the time of Christ’s conception (Luke 1:26-38) and to the shepherds at the time of his birth (Luke 2:8-20). 

What Matthew records regarding the voice heard at the baptism of Jesus is doubtless another example of the angelic delivering of God’s words, and Matthew’s statement does not contradict the words of Christ recorded in John that no one has heard the actual voice of God the Father.

​SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION: 
​Luke 23:46 and John 19:30

“Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46 ESV).
“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30 ESV).

On the surface, the accounts of Luke and John certainly might seem to be at variance with each other regarding the last words of Jesus, but when we look more closely we find little reason to see any contradiction.

First, we should notice that while Luke specifically says “…having said this he breathed his last,” the wording of John’s Gospel “… and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” does not necessarily preclude intervening words – it could simply mean that moments or minutes after receiving the wine, Jesus died. 

Note that while Luke focuses specifically on Jesus’ last words – and calls them exactly that – John seems to focus on the sour wine event and its resultant “It is finished” as the final prophecies fulfilled by Christ. This is typical of Luke’s frequent focus on the humanity of Jesus and his actual words, as opposed to John’s focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies relating to the Messiah and details regarding the message of salvation.

But there is no real reason to think that both accounts were not true.  Jesus’ last words may have been a combination of what John and Luke record: “It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”   If these were the actual and full last words of Jesus, then the two Gospel writers simply recorded that part of the expression which was of most importance to their own accounts.

It is also sometimes said that both Luke and John are contradicted by Matthew and Mark, whose Gospels both record Jesus’ expression “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” as his last words.  But both Matthew and Mark write that, soon after this, Jesus gave a loud cry:  “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit” (Matthew 27:50); “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last” (Mark 15:37).

But these accounts do not say whether the “loud cry” or “loud voice” contained words or not. If the cry contained words, it was doubtless those recorded by Luke and John.  The reason that the other two Gospels say a “voice” or “cry” was probably because they are based on the account of a witness of the crucifixion who was close enough to hear the cry, but not close enough to make out the exact words.  (Both Matthew and Mark agree that many of the witnesses stood “at a distance” from the cross – Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:40).

When we keep both factors in mind: that Luke and John compiled their Gospels stressing different themes, and that Matthew and Mark may well have drawn their information from different witnesses, there is no need to presume any contradiction between the four Gospels as to the last words of Jesus.

​Scriptures in Question: Leviticus 7:23 and  Deuteronomy 32:14
 
“Say to the Israelites: ‘Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats’”  (Leviticus 7:23).
“The Lord … nourished him with … curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats”  (Deuteronomy 32: 12-14).      
 
Those who think they see contradictions in the Bible sometimes point to the many verses such as Leviticus 7:23 in which God expressly forbade ancient Israel to eat the fat of the animals, along with other verses, such as Deuteronomy 32:14, in which God is said to feed his people with the fat of animals, or encourages them to feed on the fat.

The answer to this seeming anomaly is a very simple one.  The Hebrew word cheleb often translated “fat” in English Bibles does indeed mean the fat of animals, but it also has other meanings such as “fatness,” “richness,” “finest,” “best.”  This is somewhat analogous to the English word “sweet,” which can mean sweet” as in “sugary” or “sweet” as in “pleasant” (for example, “sweet music” or a “sweet disposition”).

When we understand this broader meaning of the word cheleb, the meaning of Deuteronomy 32:12-14 becomes clear when we look at the verse in context:

“The Lord … nourished him with …curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat [or “the best”] of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat — and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.” 

Notice three things.  First, when we understand the “fat” of the lambs, rams and goats to mean the “best” or “finest” of these animals, there is no contradiction with Leviticus 7:23 or similar verses. Second, note the expression “the very finest of the wheat” that appears in this verse. The word “finest” is actually the same Hebrew worb cheleb – “fat” –  but the text obviously doesn’t make sense if it is translated “fat,” so translators opt for the word “finest” or something similar.  But the context shows clearly that cheleb should be translated “finest” in both cases – the finest of the lambs and the finest of the wheat.

Finally, notice the end of the verse speaks of the Israelites drinking wine made from the “blood” of the grape.  Leviticus 3:17 clearly forbids the drinking or eating of blood: “This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.”  So in actuality, consumption of both fat and blood was forbidden in the laws given Israel, and the words found in Deuteronomy 32, that God gave Israel the “fat” of the animals and crops and the “blood” of the grape, are clearly symbolic and not literal.

​This is the case in scriptures such as Genesis 45:18, Isaiah 55:2 and others which talk of eating the “fat of the land.” Those who claim contradiction between such verses and the clear prohibition of actual fat and blood are simply not understanding the language or the context of the verses in question. 

Scriptures in question:
“[King Saul] took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword” (1 Samuel 15:8).
“Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites …” (1 Samuel 27:8).

These verses in 1 Samuel are sometimes cited as showing a serious contradiction in the Old Testament.  1 Samuel 15 certainly gives a detailed description of how King Saul attacked the neighboring Amalekites, and the chapter reiterates several times that those people were “totally destroyed.”  On the other hand, 1 Samuel 27 is just as clear that later on David attacked the (seemingly now non-existent) Amalekites.

The answer to this apparent contradiction is found in the nature of ancient Near Eastern literature itself.  The historical annals and records of the kings of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and other cultures of the ancient biblical world are full of examples of kings who “totally destroyed” their enemies, while other records show just as clearly that those enemies still existed much later.  A good example may be found on page 27 of the book Peoples of the Sea by archaeologists Moshe and Trude Dothan who cite an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses III:

“I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.”

The expression “made non-existent” used by Ramesses in this boast is clearly hyperbole.  It is an exaggeration for effect no different from the way that we might say today that our favorite sports team “annihilated” or “totally destroyed” the opposing team.   This Ramesses III text is also illuminating in that it shows within the text itself that “made non-existent” is a figure of speech, because it is immediately followed by the statement that a great many of these people were captured and brought back to Egypt as captives!

So, it should not surprise us at all that the descriptions of battles found in the Bible often use exactly the kind of language and figurative expressions that were commonly used of victories and defeats by the  peoples of the ancient world, and that we still use today of defeated sports teams – even when we know they will be playing again in another week!
 
* See also our article on “Was Genocide Commanded in the Bible?” 

Scriptures in Question:   Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

“And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one” (Acts 9:7 NKJV).  “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me” (Acts 22:9 NKJV).

These two verses in the Book of Acts are often said to represent a contradiction in the New Testament – with Acts 9:7 stating that Saul’s traveling companions on the road to Damascus heard a voice, while  Acts 22:9 seems to state that they did not hear the voice.

The supposed contradiction  is perhaps unlikely on logical grounds because the two verses occur in the same book by the same author, so we might expect that there is some explanation for the apparent difference in the accounts. Such an explanation is found in an understanding of the way the word “hear” was used in the Greek language.  

Anyone who has ever said “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch what you said” knows it is possible to hear a voice without understanding what it said, and the ancient Greek language adjusted for that fact in its use of the word “hear” (akouō ).  When  a sound was heard as a meaningless or unintelligible noise, the verb “to hear” was used with a noun in the “genitive case.”  On the other hand, when a sound was heard that conveyed meaning or a message, the same verb “to hear” was used with a noun in the “accusative case.”

In Acts 9:7  we are told Saul’s companions “heard” a voice (genitive case noun  – hearing a noise only), whereas in Acts 22.9 Paul, in recounting the event later, tells us the other men did not hear the voice (accusative case noun – hearing something  with meaning).

So there is no real contradiction between the two accounts in Acts.  In fact, unlike the King James Version or its derivative New King James Version from which the verses above are quoted,  most modern English translations understand this fact and translate accordingly.  The NIV, for example, translates the two verses in the following way:

“ The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7 NIV). “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9 NIV).

The English Standard Version (ESV) translates the latter verse perfectly in a marginal note: “Acts 22:9 - Or hear with understanding.”

Saul’s companions heard a voice, but did not understand it.  The reason might have been as simple as that the voice was speaking in Hebrew, which Saul (but not all inhabitants of ancient Judea) understood (Acts 22:2).  In any case, there is no contradiction in the fact that Saul’s companions heard but did not understand the voice that spoke to Saul.