12 Some Problems in the New Testament
Some Problems in the New Testament
Errantists also cite a number of passages from the New Testament that supposedly deny inerrancy or at least require a definition of inerrancy that contains so much latitude that it becomes errancy. One writer cites 2 Chronicles 4:2, Numbers 25:9, Mark 2:26, and Matthew 22:42 as examples of “a kind of inerrancy that falls short of perfect conformity to what was actually said” and of problems to which only “highly fanciful” explanations could be given (Robert Mounce, “Clues to Understanding Biblical Accuracy,” Eternity, June 1966, p. 18).
Another is troubled by Matthew 13:31-32 and problems in Acts 7:1-42 that he says cannot be solved compatibly with inerrancy (Daniel P. Fuller, “Evangelicalism and Biblical Inerrancy” [unpublished material, 1966], pp. 18-19). Still another cites Matthew 27:9 as an error and says that there are “hundreds of examples like this one” (Berkeley Mickelsen, “The Bible’s Own Approach to Authority,” in Jack B. Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1977], p. 86). We cannot obviously discuss “hundreds” of unnamed examples, but we will look at the ones named in the writings of those who hold to something less than total inerrancy.
Matthew 10:9-10 (Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3). Matthew records that Jesus allowed the disciples to take staffs, whereas Mark and Luke say He forbade doing so. That leads one errantist to say: “I know of no way to reconcile this inconsistency. The proper conclusion, I think, is that the accounts are inconsistent and that at least one of the Gospels is in error” (Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977], p. 106).
If one believes that every word of the text was inspired, then he would surely notice that in Mark and Luke the verb is the same and means that they should take the staffs they already possess. Matthew uses a different verb, which means that the disciples were not to procure staffs. Putting the accounts together, the Lord permitted them to take along the staffs they already owned, but prohibited procuring new or additional ones.
Notice that errancy feeds on itself. If all the words cannot be trusted, then one may tend not to do careful exegesis and therefore either ignore or refuse to accept a perfectly proper grammatical explanation like this one.
Matthew 13:32. In His parable of the mustard seed the Lord said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds. Is that plainly an erroneous statement since botanically the mustard seed is not the smallest? Before jumping to that conclusion, remember that it was stated by Jesus Christ. If He spoke a lie, how could He have been sinless? This is not simply a small factual discrepancy; if the statement is not true, then it proves something about the one who made it, and that becomes a serious doctrinal matter. You cannot separate this history from its doctrinal ramification. But how are we to understand the Lord’s words? One suggestion stated well by R. C. Trench years ago is this: “This seed, when cast into the ground, is ‘the least of all seeds,’-words which have often perplexed interpreters, many seeds, as of poppy or rue, being smaller. Yet difficulties of this kind are not worth making; it is sufficient to know that ‘small as a grain of mustard-seed’ was a proverbial expression among the Jews for something exceedingly minute (see Luke 17:6). The Lord, in His popular teaching, adhered to the popular language” (R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord [New York: Revell, n.d.], p. 91).
Another fact to note is that the word smallest is actually a comparative not a superlative, and should be translated (as in the New American Standard Bible and New English Bible), “smaller of all the seeds.” In other words, the Lord did not state an absolute (the mustard seed is absolutely the smallest), but placed the mustard seed in the class of smallest seeds.
Perhaps the two suggestions should be combined. Technically, He placed the mustard seed among the smaller seeds and capitalized on the popular proverbial understanding of that seed as representing something exceedingly minute. But He did not make a technical or scientific error. The blind men at Jericho (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43). The accounts of the healing of the blind men at Jericho (one of them being Bartimaeus) contain some different details that some have interpreted as irresolvable, leading to the conclusion that one or another of the accounts must contain errors. Matthew says that the Lord healed two blind men as He left Jericho. The other accounts mention only one blind man and record the miracle being performed as they entered Jericho. As to the number of blind men, if Mark or Luke had said only one blind man, then there would be an error. But if Bartimaeus was the more forward of the two, then it would be natural for one writer to focus on him, whereas another might mention both of them. The statement that there were two includes the focus on one. A statement that there were two would conflict if there were a statement that there was only one. But such is not the case. As to when the miracle happened, two plausible suggestions have been made. One is that the men pleaded with the Lord as He entered Jericho, but were not healed until He was leaving. The other is that since there were two Jerichos (old Jericho and the new city), the healing could have taken place after the group left old Jericho and as they were nearing new Jericho. Thus Matthew’s “as they were going out” refers to old Jericho, whereas Mark’s and Luke’s references to approaching Jericho refer to new Jericho.
Whichever suggestion is adopted, it is clear that there is no need to see an insoluble contradiction in those accounts.
Matthew 23:35. In this verse Zechariah (not the prophet by the same name, but a priest) is said to be the son of Berechiah, but in 2 Chronicles 24:20 he is said to be the son of Jehoiada. “Son of” does not have to mean the next immediate generation, (as in Genesis 31:28 where Laban refers to his grandchildren as sons and daughters, or as in the case of Christ, the son of David and Abraham, Matthew 1:1). Most likely, Jehoiada was Zechariah’s grandfather and is named in the Chronicles account because of his fame.
Matthew 27:9-10 . The main part of this quotation comes from Zechariah 11:12-13, whereas Matthew seems to ascribe it to Jeremiah. Is this not a clear mistake on Matthew’s part?
Before reaching such a conclusion, consider that Jeremiah was placed at the beginning of the Old Testament prophetic writings in the Babylonian Talmud. Matthew, then, may be simply using Jeremiah’s name to designate the section of the Old Testament from which the Zechariah references come. It is much like saying, “in the book by Smith, Jones said …” Jones wrote a chapter in a book that Smith edited. (This is not to suggest, however, that Jeremiah edited Zechariah’s prophecy). Note the same prominence given Jeremiah in Matthew 16:14, where he is the only prophet named specifically though others are included in the statement.
Though that seems the most plausible explanation, some find a solution in the thought that Matthew had primarily in mind the events mentioned about the potter’s house in Jeremiah 18:1-23 and Jeremiah 19:1-15. Mark 1:2-3. These verses raise a problem since immediately after the words “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” there follows a quotation from Malachi, then a quotation from Isaiah. Many regard this as an obvious error, though a harmless one. However, the structure of the chapter introduces the “beginning of the gospel” by focusing on the ministry of John the Baptist in the wilderness. So the quotation from Isaiah is in Mark’s mind the principal one because it predicted the figure in the wilderness. His attention’s being on the Isaiah prophecy explains why he mentions Isaiah only in verse two.
Mark 2:26. Mark, in referring to David’s eating the Tabernacle bread, says Abiathar was the high priest, whereas the Old Testament record of this event states that Ahimelech was (1 Samuel 21:1-6). A solution recognizes that although the event actually happened during Ahimelech’s priesthood, he soon was killed, and Abiathar, who also would have been exercising priestly functions at that time, shortly became high priest and proved to be more prominent than Ahimelech. Mark is not saying that Abiathar was actually high priest when the event took place, but he was a ministering priest and soon became a very prominent high priest. Similarly one might speak of some event that occurred in the senatorial years of John F. Kennedy and refer to it as happening in the days of Kennedy, the president. He was not president when it happened, rather a senator, but he is identified as Kennedy the president because he (later) became a prominent president.
Again, the examples in Mark remind us that if someone comes to the Bible expecting or allowing for error, he can make a case for an errant Scripture. But if he comes expecting the Bible to be inerrant, he can find plausible solutions, and even if he cannot honestly accept any of the suggested solutions, he can still believe that the Bible is inerrant and that we simply do not yet have enough facts to solve some of the problems. The death of Judas. In Acts 1:18, Peter describes Judas’ death as “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Most likely both descriptions are true. He did hang himself but something happened that caused his body to fall and break open. This is the simplest solution and has been suggested since the time of Augustine. The same two accounts seem to contain another problem. Matthew states that the priests bought the “field of blood,” whereas Acts attributes it to Judas. Again the simple solution is that both accounts are correct. The priests could not take the money back, so they bought the field in Judas’ name since they did not want to appear to have anything to do with his money.
Problems in Acts 7:1-42. Although it is well within the boundaries of the concept of inerrancy to permit Stephen in this speech to utter something erroneous and have Luke record it accurately, the serious interpreter will want to know as clearly as possible what Stephen was saying. One of the problems focuses on verse 6 where Stephen gives the length of the Egyptian captivity as 400 years, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430 years. Further, Paul in Galatians 3:17 wrote that the law came 430 years after the Abrahamic promise. The problems in those figures are two: (a) The difference between 400 and 430, and (b) the apparently large error of Paul, because the time between Abraham and the giving of the law was considerably longer than 430 years. Many simply acknowledge that the 400/430 difference involves an approximation. Four hundred Isaiah 430 rounded off. The 430 years in Galatians does not use the termini from Abraham to the law (Genesis 12:1-20 to Exodus 20:1-26 ). Rather, it refers to the end of the patriarchal age (Genesis 35:11-12) to the giving of the law in Exodus 20:1-26.
Others believe that 400 years was the duration of the Egyptian bondage and that both 430-year figures refer to the time between the last confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob and the giving of the law. This illustrates a case where we simply do not have enough known facts to be able to make a conclusive decision. So once again one’s attitude comes into play: you can believe there are errors, or you can believe that there would be perfect resolution if all the facts were known.Sometimes the apparent problem in verse 14 poses a question. There Jacob’s family is said to be seventy-five persons, whereas in Genesis 46:27 only seventy are included. Stephen in Acts follows the Septuagint number, which included five extra persons (the son and grandson of Manasseh and two sons and grandson of Ephraim). Genesis does not include those. But in both numbers only a restricted group is included because the total number of the family of Jacob would have been much greater, including wives of Jacob’s sons and grandsons and husbands of his daughters and granddaughters who are not listed. Anyone trying to list the number in an immediate family of that size would easily have come up with at least two ways of doing it and two different totals without contradiction.
Those represent the New Testament problems being discussed. Some of them have been used throughout church history to try to prove that there are errors in the Bible. And reasonable solutions to the problems have been proposed throughout history. Some have come into focus more recently. Any of them might be used to conclude that the Bible contains errors, but all of them do have reasonable explanations.
Remember, it takes only one error to make an errant Bible. It may be a “small” error, an inconsequential one, an historical one, or a doctrinal one, but if there is one, then we do not have an inerrant Bible.