Milo

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)

We learn in other places in the Bible that God intends to work good things in the same situation where Satan (or man) is working to produce something bad.

Joseph told his brothers:

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

Genesis 50:20
Likewise, when Jesus was crucified, Satan meant it for the destruction of the Son of God, (John 13:2, 1 Cor 2:8) but God ordained it to redeem mankind by the death of his son.(Acts 2:14-39)

Solution: Both God and Satan incited David to count the fighting men of Israel.

God did it to humble David and make him better. Satan did it to destroy David

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

a) Twenty two (2 Kings 8:26)

b) Forty two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

This is clearly a copyist error. If Ahaziah were 42, he would have been older than his own father.

A copyist error is not a contradiction. And we have lots of handwritten copies of Old Testament books and New Testament books.

How long did he (Jehoiachin) rule over Jerusalem?

a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8)

b) Three months and 10 days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

Three months and 10 days is approximately three months.

Note: the author of 2 Kings didn’t say “exactly” three months.

If you just turned 21 four months ago, do you say “I’m 21 years, four months?” You probably just say “I’m 21.”

One author decided to be more precise than the other. That’s all.

You have two slightly different viewpoints from two different authors.

Bible critics -when two books of the Bible agree completely- like to claim one author copied the other.

Here the two authors have a slightly different viewpoint and they claim a contradiction.

Some people are determined to disagree no matter what.

The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)

b) Three hundred (1 Chronicles 11:11)

Both are correct. Yes. Both 800 and 300 are correct.
But how?

A careful reading shows that there is approximately a 30-year difference between the two claims.

These are two different chiefs at two different times. The chief in 1 Chronicles 11:11 is Jashobeam -a Hacmonite.

He raised his spear against 300 men at the beginning of David’s reign.

The other chief was Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite.

He raised his spear against 800 men and his exploits are recorded after the Last Words of David just a few verses earlier in the same chapter.

One is near the beginning of David’s reign. The other is near the end of David’s reign.

And these men have two different names and come from two different families.

At the end of David’s reign he was an old man -and in no shape to fight. So his chief from 30 years prior would -by that time- have been replaced by a younger warrior.

When I say “a careful reading” all I mean is any reasonable person can simply read the passages and immediately come to the conclusion it is two different people.

This doesn’t require an advanced degree. No special Biblical knowledge needed.

You don’t have to have a degree in Biblical Hebrew.

An elementary school-aged child can read the passage and easily come to the correct conclusion.

The contradictionists embarrass themselves again and again.

When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)

b) Before (1 Chronicles 13 and 14)

This is one of those places where it’s really awkward to be a contradictionist.

It’s one of those “contradictions” that makes you wonder if these guys even bothered to read the Bible before they came up with this stuff.

It’s downright painful to watch them do this to themselves.

Let’s take a look at these passages and see if they really contradict.

When reading 2 Samuel 5 and 6, it’s completely clear and straightforward that David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem AFTER defeating the Philistines.

Now let’s look at 1 Chronicles 13 and 14.

David begins bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, but only gets as far as the threshing floor of Kidon after the tragic death of Uzzah.

David leaves the Ark there, and AFTER he defeats the Philistines, he then brings the ark to Jerusalem.

The contradictionists are sloppy and factually wrong. You wonder if they even read the whole passage.

How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

a) Two. (Genesis 6:19, 20)

b) Seven (Genesis 7:2) But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark.

Once again, contradictionist sloppiness abounds.

Genesis 6:19-20 refers to 2 of every animal. It never mentions the clean animals, so it’s obviously just about the unclean animals.

When we turn over to Genesis 7:2, we see God’s instruction to Noah to bring in 7 pairs of clean animals:

“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate.” Genesis 7:2, ESV

How much clearer can it get than this? The passage clearly says 7 pairs of clean animals and “a pair” (one pair) of unclean animals.

Contradictionists commit another awkward blunder.

The Bible clearly tells them, but they can’t even tell the difference between clean and not clean when it’s right under their nose.

Is this an innocent error? Or something else?

When it’s this easy to see through it, you’ve just got to wonder.

I was looking to answer some questions on another site where people were asking about religion and stuff. This person supplied a list of so-called “contradictions” in the Bible that someone listed. I told them not to take things out of context but Id like details. Can you help answer them?

Thanks!

Exodus 32:14 says “the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do” VS. Numbers 23:19 says God does not repent. >>
Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved VS. Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.>>
Matthew 15:4 Jesus says, “Honour thy father and mother…” VS. Luke 14:26 Jesus says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother…he cannot be my disciple.”>>
Matthew 26:27-28 – “…Drink ye all of it, For this is my blood…” vs. Deuteronomy 12:16 – “Ye shall not eat the blood.” Symbolically disobeying god. Jesus being the sacrifice and thou shalt not drink the blood of the sacrifice.>>
Mark 15:25 Jesus was crucified at the third hour VS. John 19:14-15 says the sixth hour.>>
Mark 15:40 says Mary was afar off beholding the crucifixion VS. John 19:25 says she stood at the cross.>>
John 13:38 “the rooster shall not crow till thou hast denied me three times.” VS. Mark 14:68 Says the rooster crowed after the first denial.>>
Acts 9:7 VS. Acts 22:9 VS. Acts 26:14
Paul of Tarsus lies each time he tells the story of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul, a liar, wrote over half of the New Testament. The Apostles considered his preachings falsehood.>>
Cicely.

Hi Cicely,

Thank you for writing. Many times you will see some detractor bring out a list of so-called contradictions such as these. There are many online and some are quite long. All go to great lengths to try and prove that the Bible is filled with errors. However, if one is looking at these passages objectively, you will find it is the list maker who is being dishonest in his approach. That’s because they have chosen to ignore the context in which the statement.

You see, context is really the thing that determines what the speaker is trying to convey for any passage. If I were to say “I missed my family today” you may assume that I meant I felt a longing to be with my family when I couldn’t. However, if I put the sentence in this context: “I missed my family. It looks like they left five minutes before I arrived.” then the meaning of the statement changes dramatically. Finally, if the context is “We had a great time at the picnic. I hit all my friends with water balloons. I missed my family.” then we have another meaning.

Let’s extend this idea to two statements. If I were to tell a co-worker on Monday “I had some good family time at the picnic”, then later tell someone else “I missed my family” you might think this is a contradiction, but since the context for the second sentence may be understood in a different manner, you can quickly see that the contradiction doesn’t exist.

Most of the contrasting verses you have listed fall into this type of an error. The critic has taken only a simplistic approach to the statements made and ignored the larger context in which they are given. They therefore seem like a contradiction but this is really not so. With this in mind, let’s take a look at each of the statements below:

Exodus 32:14 vs. Numbers 23:19 – Does God Repent?
Exodus 32:14 says “the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do” VS. Numbers 23:19 says God does not repent.

God is supposed to be all good and all knowing, so why would such a God change His mind or repent of something He has decided to do? This is the challenge offered above. Actually, Numbers 23:19 is describing this very aspect of God. God, speaking through Balaam, explains His nature to the pagan king Balak and says, “God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?”

However, Exodus 32:14 is a completely different context. God is speaking with Moses and telling him that the children of Israel are sinning and their sins are putting them in danger of being judged. God then says “Let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.” Now, God had previously promised that He would deliver the nation of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Notice how He says “Let me alone.” This was a test for Moses. God wanted to see if Moses would intercede for the people and provide a way of escape for them. Moses did as he should have and God didn’t destroy Israel.

In writing this incident, Moses chose to use dramatic language to reflect the seriousness of the situation. By saying “God changed His mind” or “God repented”, Moses employs what is known as an anthropomorphism – ascribing human qualities to God – to make his point. God promised that He would deliver Israel and He did. The “changing of mind” wasn’t a change at all – God made good on his promise.

Matthew 7:21 vs. Acts 2:21 – Calling on the Name of the Lord
Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved VS. Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Again in these passages, context means a lot. In the book of Acts, Peter is speaking before a crowd in Jerusalem, challenging them to believe in Jesus since they have been witness to the events of His crucifixion and resurrection. He quotes a passage from the prophet Joel, and tells the crowd that all they need to do is truly believe in Jesus as Messiah and they will be saved.

The context of Matthew 7 is dramatically different, though. Jesus starts off that passage by saying “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” He then goes on to talk about how to discern a true believer from a pretender by examining their fruit. That’s what leads up to the statement saying ‘Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.” The difference is simply one of true belief versus pretense. I think we can safely assume that Peter meant you must call on the name of the Lord sincerely to be saved.

Matthew 15:4 vs. Luke 14:26 – Honoring Your Parents
Matthew 15:4 Jesus says, “Honour thy father and mother…” VS. Luke 14:26 Jesus says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother…he cannot be my disciple.”

One must remember when reading the Scriptures that to take passages in an ultimate, wooden way is detrimental. One must surely honor his mother and father; however, what should you do if your father ort mother asked you to kill? Would you be disobeying God if you disobeyed them?

The general admonition to honor your mother and father is a good one. In Luke 14:26, Jesus is laying out the marks of a true follower. He uses a common bond, the love for your parents as a point of comparison. He says that to be a true disciple it requires total devotion. You cannot be more devoted to you parents than to God. Indeed, in my example above, one should obey the laws of God that say “do not murder” above the commands of your parents. Jesus is saying that those who follow Him should love Him so much, the love for their parents seems trivial in comparison.

Matthew 26:27-28 vs. Deuteronomy 12:16 – Disobeying God through Communion
Matthew 26:27-28 – “…Drink ye all of it, For this is my blood…” vs. Deuteronomy 12:16 – “Ye shall not eat the blood.”

This one is a bit of a stretch, since one passage is dealing with actual behavior, but the other is symbolic. One is an admonition for the nation of Israel under the old covenant against the real drinking of blood. Many times, drinking of blood was tied to pagan worship and the nation of Israel was to be separate people. Blood also held contaminants and you could get diseases from such an action. However, the symbolic drinking of the Lord’s blood holds a different idea – it is not to consume the spirit of the animal and therefore absorb that animal’s strength, but to rely wholly on Jesus’ sacrifice for us.

To assume that the injunction to not drink actual blood is somehow violated by taking of communion wine that symbolizes the blood of Jesus is stretching things a bit far. Even in the early Christian church, there was a strong debate about whether people should be forbidden to drink real blood and it was held as the standard for Christians at the same time as they celebrated communion (see Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25).

The silliness of this objection is apparent when we look at other symbolic references. For example, Jesus taught that if your right eye offends you, you should cut it out. Now, it is widely understood that actually losing an eye won’t keep you from sinning at all, since you still have another to look at things. In these days, the right-hand side would be symbolic of the bet or the most powerful you had. So, when Jesus says “if your right eye offends you, cut it out”, His audience would have understood that He meant if the best things you have cause you to fall into sin, it’s better to forego them than to continue disobeying God. Similarly, the communion cup is a symbolic gesture that isn’t meant to be taken literally.

Mark 15:25 vs. John 19:14-15 – The Time of the Crucifixion
Mark 15:25 Jesus was crucified at the third hour VS. John 19:14-15 says the sixth hour.

Mark figures the time by Jewish reckoning, where the day would start at sundown and be broken into segments. We still see this today as observant Jews start their observance of the Sabbath at sundown. This would make the third hour to be about noon.

The Romans reckoned their time differently and their segments were longer. Ancient Roman sundials show that the daylight hours were divided into twelve equal segments, or hours. However, there were only two major segments, daytime and nighttime, with the hours beginning at sunrise and counted until sunset. Therefore, this makes the sixth hour in Roman time also about noon. John’s audience was the Gentile church, so John uses Roman time throughout His Gospel.

Mark 15:40 vs. John 19:25 – Mary’s position at the cross
Mark 15:40 says Mary was afar off beholding the crucifixion VS. John 19:25 says she stood at the cross.

Since the entire time of Jesus’ hanging on the cross was three hours, it’s highly likely that both statements are true. This discrepancy can be easily understood by thinking about the vantage point of the witnesses. The women and John could have stood farther away as the Romans actually performed the crucifixion, then drew closer to Jesus after He had been hanging on the cross a while. When the soldiers returned to break the legs of each, they would have withdrawn again. This is not only plausible, but reads quite naturally and would be what you would expect given the fear the Jews would have of the Romans at the time.

John 13:38 vs.. Mark 14:68 – The timing of Peter’s Denial
John 13:38 “the rooster shall not crow till thou hast denied me three times.” VS. Mark 14:68 Says the rooster crowed after the first denial.

Tradition holds that Mark received much of his gospel accounts from Peter, so it’s no surprise that Mark would have a detail about this incident that the others miss. In Mark’s gospel Jesus tells Peter “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Peter’s first denial came before the first crow and his third denial came after the second.

However, to think that this is a mistake is still not accurate. Eric Lyons at Apologetics Press gives a good analogy of a family attending a football game. The parents make plans to meet their son outside the gate “after the buzzer sounds”. Now, in football, there are four buzzers, one for each quarter. However we would understand intuitively that the parents meant after the “last buzzer” sounds. The passage above is similar. In the ancient world, many held that a rooster would crow first at about midnight or one AM, but this was an insignificant action. The crowing that everyone focused on was the crowing near daybreak – which would be the second crowing. So, Mark simply gives us more detail than Matthew, but the end result is the same.

Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 22:9 vs. Acts 26:14 – Paul’s legitimacy as a witness
Paul of Tarsus lies each time he tells the story of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul, a liar, wrote over half of the New Testament. The Apostles considered his preachings falsehood.

I would challenge this claim made outright. To call Paul a liar and to say “The Apostles considered his preachings (sic) falsehood” flies in the face of everything we know about the early church. In fact, Peter calls Paul’s New Testament writings Scripture and puts them on par with the Old Testament scriptures (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). Where does the accuser get the idea that Paul was rejected? This type of objection requires proof before it can be taken seriously. Since Paul’s letters are the earliest manuscripts we have of New Testament documents, since we know that the early church copies and circulated them along with other Scriptures, and since we have the writings of the early church fathers quoting from Paul as authoritative there is no evidence that the apostles or the early church felt his teaching was false.

I have said that context is a very good way of determining the meaning of the passages written. I believe the last statement made by this person who put forth these so-called contradictions is telling. He seems to have an axe to grind against the Bible and simply asserts certain passages to be contradictory without even a fair reading of the passages in question. He offers no historical context for any of them and he ends his list with a vitriolic assertion against Paul. That tells me much. It seems this is a very childish way to treat any text and is inherently unfair, whether the text is Christian, Muslim, or another faith.

I pray that this discussion has helped you to read the Bible in a more mature fashion. If you diligently seek Him, He will be found.

The story of Jesus stands or falls on the trustworthiness of the Gospels. That’s why skeptics pay so much attention to the Gospels’ apparent contradictions. Christianity’s critics cast doubt on the New Testament’s reliability by pointing out disparities in the Gospels. This puts well-meaning—but often unprepared—Christians in a difficult position of trying to reconcile these potential inconsistencies.

So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.

Why can we expect Gospel variations?
It’s important to point out right off the bat that each of the Gospel writers had a particular intention and focus. Each of them set out to accentuate a specific and unique portrait of Jesus. Through their individual gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—focused on particular elements of Christ’s ministry and message that they felt illuminate their narrative.

Despite the writers’ varied focus, the gospels exhibit a surprising cohesiveness. They all bear witness to Jesus and his ministry, but approach the story with an individual perspective. These four panoramas don’t detract from our understanding of Jesus. On the contrary, they give us a richer, deeper, and clearer glimpse at the mystery of Christ.

For more a more in-depth discussion the gospels’ unity and diversity, check out What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?

Four unique presentations of Jesus
The gospel writers were not only interested in exploring specific points about Jesus’ ministry, but they were also focused on speaking to particular groups. Through their presentation to these audiences, various truths about Jesus and his mission were highlighted:

Matthew Mark Luke John
The Gospel of the Messiah The Gospel of the suffering Son of God The Gospel of the Savior for all people The Gospel of the divine Son who reveals the Father
Most structured Most dramatic Most thematic Most theological
You can get a comprehensive understanding of the gospel’s unique presentations in What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?

Keeping the intentions of the authors in mind, it becomes easier to understand why they focus on events differently. As we look at some of the reasons for the gospels “apparent” contradictions, understanding the focus of the four gospels will give us a clearer understanding.

Let’s look at some explicit explanation for the gospels’ supposed differences.

Four reasons we find apparent contradictions in the gospels

1. Paraphrasing and interpretation
   There were a number of languages spoken in first-century Palestine. Throughout the region, you’d likely hear Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Latin. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. It’s thought to be the primary language spoken by most Jews throughout Palestine during this era.

When you realize that the gospels were written in Greek, the fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic becomes very significant. This means that most of his words had to be translated into Greek—making every quote an interpretation. Languages don’t necessarily have equivalent words or phrases to make translating one vocabulary into another a trouble-free endeavor. Each gospel writer had to interpret Jesus’ words and sayings in order to find equivalents in an entirely different language. Translation is interpretation.

This is one of the reasons that scholars have long held that we have Jesus’ “authentic voice” (ipsissima vox) rather than his “exact words” (ipsissima verba). We can trust the essential meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels even though we can’t know precisely what words Jesus used.

The gospel writers’ authority as interpreters of Christ’s story meant that their translation or paraphrase of Jesus’ words would focus on the theological implications.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20), but Matthew records him saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). Now it could be that Jesus said both of these things at different times, but it’s also likely that Matthew felt it was extremely important to clearly communicate the spiritual significance of Jesus’ words.

We can see another example of this at the foot of the cross. Both Matthew and Mark quote the centurion as saying “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54, Mk. 15:39), but that’s not how Luke records it. In Luke 23:47, the centurion says, “Surely this was a righteous man.” This translation make sense in light of each author’s focus. Both Matthew and Mark are focused on emphasizing Jesus’ position as the Son of God, but Christ’s innocence and righteousness is a recurring theme in Luke’s gospel. The two iterations of the centurion’s comment don’t contradict each other, they simply focus on different theological implications.

If we expect that each other gospel writers are going to give us Jesus’ words verbatim, we’re holding the gospels to a historical standard that no other historical document would be able to meet—classical or modern. Remember, no one was standing around Jesus with a tape recorder.

2. Abbreviation and omission
   If you were to ask a husband and wife what they did last Saturday, you’re going to get different responses. Maybe the husband will tell you that they worked in the yard, went to the hardware store, and went out for lunch. The wife, on the other hand, might tell you, “We planted rosebushes, talked to our friends Jarrid and Allie (who they ran into at the store), and got into an argument (because the husband ordered a milkshake even though he’s lactose intolerant).”

These two stories don’t represent discrepancies; they highlight differences in perspective. For the wife, running into their friends was a bigger deal than going to the hardware store, so she focused on the important point and omitted the other. The husband had already forgotten about the argument, and remembered lunch as a high point. (One could argue that it’s in his best interest to forget the argument.)

This example represents the differences you expect to encounter with people describing the same event. We run into the same kind of thing with the gospel writers. They each focused on some details while ignoring others entirely. On the surface, it’s easy to assume that these omissions are contradictory, but that’s not necessarily so.

In Mark’s account of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it gets cursed one day and the disciples come back to find it withered the next (Mk. 11:12–14, 20–25). In Matthew’s version, the withering happens immediately after Jesus curses it (Matt. 21:18-22). For Matthew, the important part of this story isn’t experienced in its strict chronology, but in the miracle itself.

We see also Matthew omitting details in the story of the centurion’s servant. In Luke’s telling of the story, the centurion sends a contingent of Jewish elders to Jesus (Lk. 7:1–10), but Matthew reports it as the centurion himself coming to Jesus (Matt. 8:5–13). Is that a contradiction? From Matthew’s point of view, the centurion was speaking directly to Jesus through the elders. In the first century, there was no functional difference between a centurion telling you something face-to-face or through an emissary.

What about when one gospel mentions two individuals while another only speaks of one?

Two demon-possessed men (Matt. 8:28) vs. one (Mk. 5:2)
Two blind men (Matt. 20:30) vs. one (Mk. 10:46)
Two angels at the tomb (Lk. 24:4) vs. one (Mk. 16:5)
It’s important to note that Mark never insists that there’s only one person present. He simply shines a spotlight on one individual. It’s very likely that he’s highlighting the most important player and ignoring the other. But ultimately, we should see little discrepancies like these as proof of the accounts’ veracity. After all, they didn’t get together to make sure their stories were entirely free of conflict.

3. Reordering of events and sayings
   Sometimes you run into gospel events that aren’t the same chronologically. You can find this when Jesus is tempted in the desert. Matthew and Luke have the order of the last two temptations reversed (Matt. 4:1–11; Lk. 4:1–13). It makes perfect sense that Luke would make the climax of the temptations occur at the top of the temple since there’s a real focus throughout his gospel on Jerusalem and the temple. Matthew, on the other hand, ends with Jesus standing on a mountain looking at all the nations of the world. For a writer who sees mountains as places of revelation and epiphany, this is understandable, too.

What about Christ’s teachings? Was the Sermon on the Mount one long message or did Matthew—like many argue—pull Jesus’ various teachings together into one place? From reading Luke, it would be easy to make the argument that the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of Christ’s teachings. But it’s just as likely that Jesus taught the same lessons multiple times throughout his ministry. Either way, rearranging Christ’s teaching doesn’t nullify the gospels.

4. Reporting similar events and sayings
   When did Jesus clear the temple? Did it happen once or twice? If it happened once, when did it happen? The synoptic gospels place this event at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 21:12–13; Mk. 11:15–17; Lk. 19:45–46), but John puts it at the beginning (Jn. 2:13–17). It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus felt the need to clear the temple multiple times, but the credibility of the gospels doesn’t rest on having to believe that. There’s a possibility that Mark moved this event to the end of the gospel to emphasize its significance as an act of judgement against Israel, or that John moved it to the beginning as a historically symbolic inauguration to his ministry.

The calling of the disciples varies a lot between the gospels:

The Gospel of John: Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, brought his brother Simon to Jesus. (Jn. 1:35–42)
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark: Jesus calls two sets of fishermen brothers—Andrew and Peter; James and John—near the Sea of Galilee. (Mk. 1:16–20; Matt. 4:18–22)
The Gospel of Luke: Peter, James, and John experience a miraculous catch of fish and leave everything to follow him (Lk. 5:1–11)
Were these different versions of the same event? Or could they be the gradual unfolding of their experience with Jesus? Luke suggests the latter by discussing the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law before the miraculous catch of fish (Lk. 4:38–39). It’s obvious that the disciples knew Jesus prior to their decision to follow him full time.

There’s also similarities in three scenes in which Jesus is anointed with expensive perfume. Six days before Passover, John describes Mary, the sister of Lazarus who had been raised from the dead, anointing his feet (Jn. 12:1–8). Matthew and Mark tell us about the anointing of Jesus’ head by a woman at Simon the Leper’s home (Matt. 26:6–13; Mk. 14:3–9). There’s a strong likelihood that these describe the same event. Luke describes another circumstance earlier in Jesus’ ministry where he’s anointed (Lk. 7:36–50). In the case of Luke’s account, the anointing happens in the home of a Pharisee named Simon, and even though the account in Matthew and Mark’s story happens in the home of someone with the same name, it appears to be a separate occurrence. Simon is a fairly common first-century Palestinian name. Jesus displayed a tenderness and respect toward women that they were not accustomed to, and it created fierce sense of loyalty—look at the way women supported him financially (Lk. 8:1–3)—it’s not far-fetched to assume that this common sign of honor occurred multiple times.

The case of doublets
Doublets are two episodes which are typically in the same gospel that critics claim came from the same story. Examples of doublets include:

The feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand (Mk. 6:32–44; 8:1–10; Matt. 14:13–21; 15:32–39)
Matthew’s two accounts of the healing of a blind men (Matt. 9:27–31; 20:29–34)
The parable of the great banquet (Matt. 22:1–14; Lk. 14:16–24)
Matthew’s parable of the talents and Luke’s parable of the minas (Matt. 25:14 – 30; Lk. 19:11–27)
Are these all examples of cases where gospel writers treated two separate versions of a story or teaching as different events? Jesus ministered to a lot of people in a lot of different places. There’s no reason we need to believe that he couldn’t repeat a miracle or a teaching.

Differences aren’t contradictions
Consider these two sentences:

There’s a window in my office
There’s no window in my office
This is a true contradiction because for one of these sentences to be true the other has to be false. These are not the kinds of contradictions usually attributed to the gospels. Instead, the discussions tend to center around apparent discrepancies and contrary accounts, but when we look closely at them we find that they’re typically cleared up pretty easily.

Next time you run into what appears to be a conflict in the gospel accounts, ask yourself if you’re looking at one of these four issues:

Paraphrasing and interpretation
Abbreviation and omission
Reordering of events and sayings
Reporting similar events and sayings
Like those who came before us, we can put our full trust in the veracity of the gospel documents.

June 4th

The never-failing God

For He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Hebrews 13:5.

What line does my thought take? Does it turn to what God says or to what I fear? Am I learning to say not what God says, but to say something after I have heard what He says? “He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.”
“I will in no wise fail thee”—not for all my sin and selfishness and stubbornness and waywardness. Have I really let God say to me that He will never fail me? If I have listened to this say-so of God’s, then let me listen again.
“Neither will I in any wise forsake thee.” Sometimes it is not difficulty that makes me think God will forsake me, but drudgery. There is no Hill Difficulty to climb, no vision given, nothing wonderful or beautiful, just the commonplace day in and day out—can I hear God’s say-so in these things?
We have the idea that God is going to do some exceptional thing, that He is preparing and fitting us for some extraordinary thing by and by, but as we go on in grace we find that God is glorifying Himself here and now, in the present minute. If we have God’s say-so behind us, the most amazing strength comes, and we learn to sing in the ordinary days and ways.

June 4

“The Lord caused the sea to go back … all that night.” (Exod. 14:21)

IN this verse there is a comforting message showing how God works in the dark. The real work of God for the children of Israel, was not when they awakened and found that they could get over the Red Sea; but it was “all that night.”

So there may be a great working in your life when it all seems dark and you cannot see or trace, but yet God is working. Just as truly did He work “all that night,” as all the next day. The next day simply manifested what God had done during the night. Is there anyone reading these lines who may have gotten to a place where it seems dark? You believe to see, but you are not seeing. In your life-progress there is not constant victory; the daily, undisturbed communion is not there, and all seems dark.

“The Lord caused the sea to go back … all that night.” Do not forget that it was “all that night.” God works all the night, until the light comes. You may not see it, but all that “night” in your life, as you believe God, He works.
—C. H. P.

“All that night” the Lord was working,
  Working in the tempest blast,
Working with the swelling current,
  Flooding, flowing, free and fast.

“All that night” God’s children waited—
  Hearts, perhaps in agony—
With the enemy behind them,
  And, in front, the cruel sea.

“All that night” seemed blacker darkness
  Than they ever saw before,
Though the light of God’s own presence
  Near them was, and sheltered o’er.

“All that night” that weary vigil
  Passed; the day at last did break,
And they saw that God was working
  “All that night” a path to make.

“All that night,” O child of sorrow,
  Canst thou not thy heartbreak stay?
Know thy God in darkest midnight
  Works, as well as in the day.

—L.S.P