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.

Scriptures in Question: Matthew 14:13-21, Matthew 15:32-16:10 and parallel accounts.

Those who try to find errors in the Bible sometimes claim that similar sounding stories – such as the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and that of the feeding of four thousand by Jesus  – are examples of varying oral traditions regarding  events of which no one knew exactly what had happened or if they had ever happened at all.   The story of the miracles of the feeding of the crowds provides a good example of the fallacy in such thinking and how it completely misses the underlying message of the two stories. 

The “Feeding of the 5,000” is mentioned in  all four  Gospels (Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15).  The story tells us that Jesus fed the hungry crowd that followed him by dividing five loaves of bread and two fish.  After the miraculous feeding was completed, it is recorded that the disciples collected twelve baskets full of broken pieces that were left over.  The “Feeding of the 4,000” is recounted in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Matthew 15:32-16:10 and Mark 8:1-9) and that story tells us that seven loaves and several fish were divided among the crowd. After this miracle the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 

Those who claim these are garbled varying accounts of the same event or story miss an essential piece of information. Mark and John tell us that the first miracle occurred on the western – Jewish – side of the sea of Galilee.  They  explain that Jesus and the disciples then crossed over to the eastern – Gentile – side of Galilee where the second miracle was performed. 

The eastern side of Galilee where Jesus went after feeding the five thousand was the region of the Syrian Decapolis – a separate Roman-controlled area inhabited almost exclusively by Gentiles.  The people on that side of the Sea were notorious to the Jews for their pagan beliefs and practices (Mark 5:11, etc.),  and both the Jewish Talmud and some of the Christian church fathers record the tradition that the inhabitants of the area of the Decapolis were the descendants of  the seven ancient Canaanite nations driven out of the Promised Land in the time of Joshua (Joshua 3:10; Acts 13:19). It is clear, for example, that these people kept swine (Mark 7:31) and doubtless both ate and sacrificed them – both abominations in biblical Jewish culture (see Isaiah  65:3-4, 66:3).  For most Jews of Jesus’ day, the inhabitants of the Decapolis personified pagan uncleanness, and their descent from the pagan Canaanites  seems to have been  commonly believed.

Nevertheless, Matthew and Mark both make it clear that Jesus went to these people, preached to them and compassionately healed their sick.  His miracles on Galilee’s  far side also spoke to God’s desire to include the people of that region in His outreaching mercy.  Just as we are told twelve baskets of leftover food were picked up on the western side of Galilee – doubtless suggesting the spiritual food available for all the twelve tribes of Israel; so seven baskets of food were picked up on the eastern side of Galillee – doubtless symbolizing all those of the seven peoples of the Gentile Decapolis.   A careful reading of the Gospel narratives shows that the details of the two similar miracles were not garbled, but completely meaningful  in what they symbolized.  

Scriptures in Question: Psalm 45:2-3 and Isaiah 53:2    

When studying the  Old Testament it is sometimes easy to become confused regarding prophecies which speak of the promised messiah.   For example, in Isaiah 53:2B we read: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,  nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”  However, when we turn to the Book of Psalms we find a seemingly conflicting statement with clearly messianic significance:  “You are the most excellent of men  and your lips have been anointed with grace,  since God has blessed you forever… clothe yourself with splendor and majesty” (Psalm 45:2-3).

A number of explanations have been put forward for this apparent difference of majesty or no majesty, beauty or no beauty – such as the idea these verses are speaking of different aspects of the messiah’s appearance, or that Isaiah was speaking of “outward beauty,” while Psalm 45 speaks of “inward beauty.”  That this is not the case can be seen by looking at the context of the verses surrounding Psalm 45:2-3 which are clearly speaking of the external appearance and attributes of the messiah.

In this, and in similar cases, the apparent conflict is easily resolved when we separate the first coming of the messiah from the second coming.  The context of Isaiah 53 is clearly one of human life that fits the physical life of Christ:  “… he was pierced for our transgressions…” (Isaiah 53:7), etc.  Isaiah was  speaking of the appearance of the messiah which also matches what we know. When we read the Gospels, we see that Jesus was able to slip through the crowds and avoid arrest on several occasions, indicating that he was probably of ordinary appearance and certainly did not stand out as a person of noticeable physical beauty.  Isaiah’s words give us a clear reason for his everyday appearance in his first coming.

On the other hand, when we look at the context of Psalm 45 it has reference to  the messiah's coming as a conquering king with great majesty and with the nations falling beneath his feet (Psalm 45:4-5).  While this description clearly does not fit the first coming of Jesus Christ, it certainly fits the second coming as we see in the Book of Revelation:  “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.  His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns … The armies of heaven were following him … Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations … On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:  king of kings and lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11-16). When we also compare the description of the “bride” of Christ in Revelation 19:7 with that of the bride of the king in Psalm 45, we see that the connection with the second coming of the messiah in that psalm is complete.

Simple as this principle is, it can resolve many seeming difficulties as we read prophetic scriptures in the Bible.  When we are careful to distinguish the humble servant role of the messiah’s first coming from his role as conquering king at his second coming, the apparent conflicts are resolved.

SCRIPTURE IN QUESTION:  1 Kings 4:26  and 2 Chronicles 9:25  
 
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (1 Kings 4:26).
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (2 Chronicles 9:25).

Some translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, actually change the text of I Kings 4:26 to read “four thousand” so as to avoid an apparent contradiction with 2 Chronicles 9:25, presuming the Book of Kings to have introduced a scribal error by writing “forty thousand” instead of “four thousand.”  But this is an unnecessary supposition, and there need be no contradiction between the two accounts.  The two scriptural passages may simply describe different kind of stalls:

– In Kings the forty thousand stalls are for chariot horses (nothing is said about the chariots themselves).
– In Chronicles, four thousand stalls are mentioned that were for horses and chariots.

It would be natural for there to be fewer stalls for chariots, and the large “chariot stalls” may have been stables with individual stalls for each of the horses in the chariot’s team as well as a holding area for the chariot itself. In other words, the four thousand stalls may have contained many more smaller stalls for the horses.

Another verse sheds additional light on this.  In 2 Chronicles 1:14 we see that Solomon had “fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses,” so all accounts agree on the number of horses/horsemen, but Kings and Chronicles probably look at different types of stalls. 

Why would there be more chariot stalls (four thousand) than there were chariots (fourteen hundred)?  Historically we must realize that Solomon’s standing army was probably garrisoned in specific areas, but stables may well have been built in other fortified areas and outposts to house chariots and horses for units that might need to be moved to them temporarily, depending on defensive needs.

So there is not necessarily any contradiction between the Books of Kings and Chronicles and, fortunately, most recent English Bible translations such as the ESV and HCSB preserve the text of these different verses as they were written.

Scripture in Question:  Mark 6:5

Mark’s Gospel records the famous statement of Jesus that  “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home” (Mark 6:4). These words were spoken in a context which explains them, but which may seem puzzling:  “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them” (Mark 6:5).

Reading these words, that “He could not do any miracles there…,”  we understand that it was the lack of acceptance and faith in who he was that led to the lack of miracles, but does Mark mean that Jesus was unable to do miracles in his home area?

We should first understand that the divinity of Christ was not dependent upon man in any way and could not be limited by man (John 1:1-4). God can perform miracles in any circumstance whether the onlookers believe or not.  So Mark must mean something other than that Jesus was unable to do the miraculous works he would have normally done.  Remember, Mark does say he performed some healings, and Matthew’s account confirms that he “did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith” (Matthew 13:58).  

The use of “He could not do any miracles there” in Mark can be understood in the same way that we use the expression “cannot” in circumstances where we should not or feel constrained not to do something. If  we are encouraged to do something we know is wrong by someone, we might say “I can’t do that” –meaning that we are constrained by our beliefs or moral obligations.  The Greek expression used in Mark 6:5, ouk edunato “he could not,”  is often used in the same way. It appears, for example, in Jesus’ parable of the neighbor who is invited to a feast but says “I cannot (ou dunatai) attend because I have just been married" (Luke 14:20).  It is not that the invited man was physically unable to attend – just that he felt constrained not to do so.

The Son of God could certainly have performed many miracles in his home area had he chosen to do so, but he clearly felt constrained by the unbelief of the people there.  Remember that the miracles Jesus performed were not just displays of power – they were signs of His divine authority and witnesses to his call to people to repent and obey God. If he knew the people in his home town of Nazareth were not ready for that message, or willing to accept it at that time, they might have been jeopardized by the fact that they were given signs but still refused to obey God. Doubtless it was with sorrow that Jesus withheld the power he could have used there.

Is there a lesson in this for us? Perhaps there are times in our own situations when God would be pleased to perform certain things in our lives, but chooses not to do them because we lack the faith to receive them or are not ready for the responsibility such things would bring.  We must remind ourselves that this is the purpose of continued growth in faith – the more we grow, the less God constrains Himself in what He accomplishes in us.

Scripture in question:      

2 Samuel 24:13,  1 Chronicles 21:12 
How Many Years of Famine – Seven or Three?


In 2 Samuel and in 1 Chronicles we find the story of how King David angered God by counting the fighting men of Israel; and as a result of David’s action, God sent the prophet Gad to tell David to choose a punishment.  In 2 Samuel 24:13 the KJV reads: 

“So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, ‘Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? ’”

Most modern translations actually change this verse to read “three years of famine” to avoid an apparent contradiction with 1 Chronicles 21:12 which reads:

“So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus says the LORD, Choose either three years' famine …”

There is really no reason for modern translations to depart from the clear reading of “seven years” found in in the Masoretic Hebrew text of 2 Samuel. If we read both accounts carefully we see that it is actually a different person’s words being recorded in the two books. In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we are told “Thus says the Lord…” and we have a direct quote from God stating three years famine as one of the choices David could make.  But in 2 Samuel 24:13 it is the Prophet Gad who speaks after giving God’s words: “…and told him [the choices], and said unto him…” Gad was aware of the fact that there had already recently been a famine in Israel for three years, the effects of which were probably still being felt.  You can check this by reading 2 Samuel 21:1 which says there was a famine in the days of David for three years, and from the time of 2 Samuel 21:1 to 2 Samuel 24:13 there was apparently about a year in which the land was recovering. 

Thus, after delivering God’s message regarding a possible further three years of famine, the prophet Gad asks David if he wants to choose what would essentially be, for Israel, a total of seven years of famine – the three years that had already occurred, the year of recovery and then a further three years. This seems to be Gad’s way of stressing the problematic nature of that choice as the land was already weakened by famine. So there is no need to presume any contradiction between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles on this point.

You may also notice another detail of 2 Samuel 24:13  in modern dynamic translations such as the NIV:  the words “.. and told him…” are removed from the phrase “and told him, and said unto him,”  as the translators apparently thought these words were extraneous. But in doing this the NIV and other translators  removed the answer to the apparent contradiction with 1 Chronicles 21:12.

Scripture in Question:
Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20




Each year at this time it is common for some who reject Christianity to speak of the “clear contradictions” between the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection. Perhaps because they are at the heart of Christian theology and belief, the resurrection accounts are attacked as being inconsistent in terms of the witnesses to the event, its timing and what the witnesses saw. 

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.    That Mary Magdalene and a group of other women came to the tomb is clear.  Each Gospel writer probably 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 either the first to arrive at the tomb or the leader of the group of women.

Timing of the Event:  John 20:1 states “it was still dark” when Mary arrived at the tomb, but Mark 16:2 states “the sun had risen” 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, though the two writers may just have been describing the dawn from different perspectives – as the end of the night or the beginning of the day.

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 a moved stone. 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 simply stressing other things.

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). 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. This is, in fact, exactly what we find in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection.

Scripture in Question:  Matthew 20:29-34;                      Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43

 

Three of the Gospels tell the story of the healing of two blind men by Jesus in the vicinity of Jericho. The  accounts agree in most details regarding this story, though there are a couple of differences which sometimes confuse readers. Matthew states that there were two blind men healed, while Mark and Luke mention only one blind man. Mark and Luke obviously concentrate only on the one blind man who was perhaps the leader of the two.

Seemingly more problematic, Luke says the healing occurred as Jesus was entering Jericho, while Mark and Matthew record it happening as Jesus left Jericho. Although this is often cited as a contradiction within the biblical writings, there are several possible answers to the apparent conundrum.

First, it helps to realize that there were, by Jesus’ time, two Jerichos: the mound of the anciently destroyed city and the later inhabited city of Jericho to its side. So it is possible that Jesus could have healed the two men as He was leaving the area of the ancient city and entering the newer city of Jericho.

Another possibility is that, while Jesus was approaching Jericho, the blind men cried out, but were not heard because of the noise of the crowds. The next day, after Jesus stayed the night in the city, they may have waited on the road leaving Jericho (knowing that Jesus and the other pilgrims were going to Jerusalem for the Passover), and then called out again and more loudly.

Yet another possibility is that the Greek verb engizo, translated “drew near” in Luke 18:35, can also mean “to be near.” There are several instances of the word being used this way in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:3; I Kings 21:2; Jeremiah 23:23, etc.) and in the New Testament, including usage by Luke himself (Luke 19:29, compare Matthew 21:1).  Given this understanding, Luke 18:35 can be understood as simply meaning that the healing took place while Jesus was near Jericho.

So there are three viable answers to the apparent discrepancy between Luke and the other Gospel writers regarding the location of the healing of the blind men. While we cannot know which answer is most likely correct, the fact that there are several possible answers discounts any need to see contradiction in the scriptural accounts.

This week, on both our websites, we will begin a new series of interspersed blog postings, aimed at increasing Biblical understanding. 

On our sister site, TacticalChristianity.org,  the new series will be called "Scripture in Focus" and will look at scriptures that are difficult to understand for some reason.

The new series on this site will be called "Scripture in Question" and will examine scriptures that are often cited to show "contradictions" in the Bible.  Whole books have been written on this topic to try to discredit the Bible, but we think you will find that there are rational and convincing answers to each of these so-called contradictions.  For some people, claims of biblical errors are troubling and eroding of faith.  This new series aims to show that scripture is indeed consistent - and something in which you can have untroubled faith.

We think you will find both the "Scripture in Question" and “Scripture in Focus” series of posts interesting and also helpful. Look for them here and on our other site starting in a day or two.