Countering Biblical Contradictions, 101-110

by Bumbulis, Smith, and White

Prev 10     Index     Next 10


101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel

[2 Sam 24:1]

David was tempted by Satan to number the people

[1 Chron 21:1]
There are three possible responses here:

1. Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him.

2. Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel.

3. The verse in 1 Chron translated as "Satan" could also be translated as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary.

102. The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000

[2 Sam 24:9]

The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000

[1 Chron 21:5]
The account in 1 Chron twice speaks of "all the people" and "all Israel." The account in 2 Sam does not. Thus, it is possible that the account in 1 Chron is more inclusive, while 2 Sam only deals with the standing army.

103. David sinned in numbering the people

[2 Sam 24:10]

David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah

[1 Kings 15:5]
In 1 Kings, it is important to note that David is being compared to Abijah. Thus, comparatively speaking, David did not fail to keep God's commands (yet, a comparative approach could not hide the sins associated with Uriah). Also note, that 1 Kings did not say that David "never sinned." It said that he did what was right in the eyes of God and had not failed to keep any of God's commands. If God commanded David to number the people, there is no contradiction, now is there? Or, one could say that given David's repentent heart, from God's perspective, he did not sin (see Psalm 51:2).

104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine.

[2 Sam 24:13]

It was not seven years, but three years of famine

[1 Chron 21:11,12]
This could definitely be a copyist's error.

105. David took seven hundred horsemen

[2 Sam 8:4]

David took seven thousand horsemen

[1 Chron 18:4]
This could be another copyist's error.

106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver

[2 Sam 24:24]

David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold

[1 Chron 21:25]
"So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels for the site." - 1 Chron

"So David bought the threshing floor and oxen for 50 shekels." - 2 Sam

It could be that David paid 50 shekels for the oxen, and the amount paid for the threshing floor is not indicated in 2 Sam. This is not implausible given that the account in 1 Chron speaks of the oxen, wood, and wheat, yet only mentions David paying for "the site."

107. David's throne was to endure forever.

[Ps 89:35-37]

David's throne was cast down

[Ps 89:44]
The throne of the seed of David (referring to Christ) will indeed endure forever. Psalms 89:44 is poetry saying that David's throne was cast down.. indeed it never was, although it was threatened for a time by David's son Absalom. Poetry cannot always be taken literally; also, the promise in 2 Sam. 7 regarding the eternal throne is not referring to David. -- MAW
This is a poem, and as such, it is dangerous to take it too literally. The writer of the psalm is lamenting what he perceives as a time when God has abandoned His people (after spending most of the psalm recounting all of God's promises and great works). Did God truly abandon His people? No. But from this writer's perspective, he appeared to. Thus, this psalm captures and communicates the angst that is humanity's lot.

I think it silly to use a poem to establish a contradiction. For example, in Ps 139:13, David says he is knit in his mother's womb. Two verses later, he says he's woven together in the depths of the earth. Is David so stupid that he contradicts himself in a span of two sentences? Or is the critic so "stupid" that he/she insists on precise and very literal meanings of words used in poetry?

108. Christ is equal with God

[John 10:30/ Phil 2:5]

Christ is not equal with God

[John 14:28/ Matt 24:36]
A few of the "contradictions" are based on a lack of understanding of the Trinity. This is one of them. In His person, Christ is equal with God essentially. Economically, for the accomplishment of His plan, Christ took on humanity, forsaking His equality with God temporarily in order to set a good pattern of submission and to pass through death for the redemption of man and the destruction of the devil and to bring His life to all men. Now He has been seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, with all things subjected under His feet.-- MAW
I agree. These teachings involve a discussion of both the Trinity and the Incarnation (which is beyond the scope of this reply). Suffice it to say that it is quite possible that such doctrines could be true, thus these verses would be a case of both/and, rather than a contradiction.

109. Jesus was all-powerful

[Matt 28:18/ John 3:35]

Jesus was not all-powerful

[Mark 6:5]
Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by the Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand.. could be referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John...

Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief.

This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful, He chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's co-operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow workers. God doesn't need man to work together with Him, yet this is His chosen means of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this explains how He is all- powerful and yet "could not do many works of power there because of their unbelief." --MAW

110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation

[Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6]

The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation

[Matt 5:17-19]
Luke 16:16 tells us that the law and the prophets were until John. This is referring to the Old Testament, which indeed lasted until John.

Ephesians 2:15 tells us that Christ in His flesh on the cross abolished the law of the commandments in ordinances. This is not referring to the moral law, but the dietary regulations, the Sabbath, the feast days, and other practices which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles.

Rom. 7:6 says we have been delivered from the law. This is talking about the slavery to the law, i.e. trying to keep the law in our flesh rather than allowing the inner divine life to spontaneously be expressed in a daily walk that is much higher than that mandated by the law.

Matt. 5:17-19 shows us that Christ did not destroy the moral law, but rather fulfilled it. He fulfilled it three ways:

(1) He kept the law Himself.
(2) He fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty for us.
(3) He uplifted the law by instituting the higher law
(meant to be kept not by human effort but by His life in the believers.) --MAW


To this I would also add Paul's teaching in Galatians. That is, the law is a tutor which brings us to Christ. When a person comes to Christ, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled.


Prev 10     Index     Next 10