Scriptures in Question
In this chapter we will see that in many instances an apparent conflict between two verses is simply the result of our not realizing that an ancient text can say something without meaning it literally. This may sound strange at first, but – as we will see – it is no different to the way we often use language today. Our first example of this is whether the Bible contradicts itself regarding if God can be seen or not. Seeing God or Not? The book of Exodus records words spoken by God saying " … you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live" (Exodus 33:20). But only a few verses earlier in this same chapter we find that: "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend" (Exodus 33:11).
As with any two apparently contradictory verses in the same biblical book, by the same author – especially ones that are only a few verses apart, as these are – it would be completely unlikely that the author would have contradicted himself.
Yet the Bible makes it clear that God is invisible to physical eyes, and that even if we could see him we could not live, as Exodus 33:20 affirms (see 1 Timothy 6:16; etc.). On the other hand, there are also numerous verses where individuals claimed to have seen God, as in Exodus 33:11 (and see Ezekiel 1:26-28; etc.). The answer to this seeming contradiction is that there is a difference between fully seeing something and partially seeing it – just as we might partially look at the sun through a darkened sheet of glass, but we cannot look at it directly.
It is clear that in some circumstances God revealed himself to individuals, appearing to them in human or angelic form (Genesis 32:30, Judges 13:22; etc.), with greatly reduced glory (Exodus 33:18-23), or in a vision (Acts 7:55-56). As it happens, 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" – so when a verse talks about seeing God, we must ask if it means literally or not.
Although no human can see God directly, we are promised that eventually 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 3:2). The apostle Paul elaborated on this fact 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 particularly inspiring because it affirms not only our future clear view of God, but also the fact that we can presently see him at least partially – conceptually – if we wish to look.
The Gospel of John records that Philip, one of the twelve disciples, 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 in that sense seeing God, but again, in a limited manner. When we read the detailed accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, we can "see" God in that sense, too. So, when the Bible says God cannot be seen, but also that God has been seen, we realize that although what is said may seem contradictory, what is meant is not.
Utterly Destroyed or Not? We see the same principle at work in understanding the references in the book of 1 Samuel to the Amalekite people who were ancient Israel's neighbors. First we are told: "[King Saul] took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword" (1 Samuel 15:8). Then, later, we read: "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 often cited as showing a serious contradiction in the Old Testament, but do they? First Samuel 15 does tell us that King Saul attacked the neighboring Amalekites and reiterates several times that those people were "totally destroyed." On the other hand, 1 Samuel 27 is just as clear that some years later David attacked the (seemingly now non-existent) Amalekites.
Once again, the first clue we have that there is no contradiction between these seemingly opposing verses is that they were both written by the same person – the prophet Samuel. This alone indicates that it would be unlikely that the two statements were really at variance.
A clear answer to this apparent contradiction is found in the nature of ancient Near Eastern literature itself. The preserved 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 can be found on page 27 of the book Peoples of the Sea by archaeologists Moshe and Trude Dothan (Scribner, 1991), 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" an opposing team. The Ramesses III text is also illuminating in that it shows within the text itself that "made nonexistent" is a figure of speech, because it is immediately followed by the statement that a great many of these same people were captured and brought back to Egypt as captives!
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! Again, although what is said may seem contradictory, what is meant is certainly not a contradiction.
Did the Centurion Go to Jesus or Not? The story recorded by both Matthew and Luke of how Jesus healed a centurion's servant in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) is often said to be one of the clearest contradictions in the Bible. This claim is made because Matthew's account seems to tell us that the centurion went to Christ and talked with him in person, whereas Luke says that the centurion sent others to Jesus who asked for help on his behalf. Notice first what Luke tells us:
The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him … So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: 'Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.' …Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well. (Luke 7:1-10). Luke's detailed account makes it clear that the centurion did indeed send messengers to Jesus to ask his help. When we read about the same event in Matthew 8:5-13, however, it does sound as though the centurion went to Jesus personally because Matthew's account contains expressions such as: "A centurion came to him," "Lord, he said," "the centurion replied," "then Jesus said to the centurion, 'Go …," etc. But the Bible often speaks as though someone in a position of authority did something when, in actuality, a servant or representative was the one who acted.
We can see a clear example of this in John's Gospel which tells us that just before the crucifixion of Jesus: "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him" (John 19:1 ESV), though Matthew 27:26 and Mark 15:15 make it clear that it was the soldiers acting under Pilate's orders who actually performed this beating. This is so obviously what happened that no one claims it to be a contradiction, and the NIV and numerous other versions simply translate John 19:1 to say "had him flogged" as that is the obvious meaning, despite the fact that the text literally says "Pilate took Jesus and flogged him."
The same principle can be seen to be at work in the abbreviated account in Matthew 8 which tells us that the centurion "went" to Jesus. The words of the centurion are the same as those that we find in Luke, but as Luke explains, the message was delivered by others. In both these situations – that of Pilate and the centurion (as well as many others in the Bible) – others spoke the words or completed the actions for individuals in command, and there is no real contradiction in the parallel accounts.
Here again, the principle we can observe is that while biblical accounts may sometimes seem contradictory in what is said, what is meant is clearly not contradictory at all.
Now that we have looked at what are probably the two most common reasons verses may seem to contradict each other, we can move on to a third type of potential problem that is also frequently encountered – but that is based on a very different situation.