Silly "Bible Contradiction" #40: Achan's Father

In this supposed contradiction, Joshua 7:1, 24, and 22:20 are set beside one another and it is noted that the first passage says that Achan was the son of Carmi. The other two passages say that he was the son of Zerah. Whose son was he?

As one looks more carefully at the passages, the answer becomes obvious. Joshua 7:1 says, “Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah.” Joshua 7:24 and 22:20 are clear examples of compressed genealogy. In other words, the writer has skipped over one or more generations to note certain descendents who may have been prominent or especially memorable to the community. This is typical Israelite thinking. A New Testament example illustrates: “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on us.” Jesus was not literally the biological son of King David but a descendent removed by numerous generations. Yet no one blinked when people described Jesus' family this way (cf. Matthew 1:1, 20). They were fully aware of compressed genealogy and its use in Israel.

Principle: Know the culture and how it speaks.

Silly "Bible Contradictions" #39: Two Accounts of Creation

Genesis 1–2 presents a famous example of a supposed contradiction, often among the first cited by critics of the Bible. Usually, critics of Genesis complain that the two accounts offer different sequences of creation and therefore different and contradictory versions of history.  But let’s take a step back from the matter and ask ourselves a question: if having both of these accounts in the Bible severely undermines the Bible’s credibility, then why did the author (or editor) of Genesis put both of these accounts right next to one another? Wouldn’t it have been obvious to him that he had introduced a massive contradiction? He was either (1) intentionally undermining the credibility of his book as history, (2) too stupid to see that he had introduced a contradiction, or (3) did not see the accounts as contradicting one another.

The first and second options above strike me as exceedingly silly. I don’t think they are worth exploring. So I will focus on the third option: the author or editor of Genesis did not see the two accounts of creation as contradictory.

The first thing we should notice about the accounts is that they are written in very different styles and with very different focuses. The first account (Genesis 1) is a sequential presentation of days. The second account (Genesis 2) does not have this strict, ordered character. The first verse of the second account includes a word about time, Hebrew therem (2:5), that is decidedly not what you use for writing a 1, 2, 3 style account. It gives a much looser time relationship, literally starting the account with “not yet”  as translated in the ESV, “When no bush of the field was yet in the land . . . .” The writer is clearly mentioning things out of sequence and intentionally telling the reader right away. This is his way of saying, "to begin with, you read an ordered account but take note that I am now doing something different."

One should also note that the two accounts focus on different things. Whereas Genesis 1 described the creation of all plants on the third day as part of its grand order, Genesis 2 seems to focus especially on the creation of Eden (“the land”; 2:5) where God created man and planted a garden home for the man to tend. So Genesis 2:9 does not contradict Genesis 1:11–13 by having man created first and then all plants. Instead, Genesis 2 has man created and then the garden planted for him.

Similarly, Genesis 2: 19 does not necessarily have God creating the animals after Adam, contrary to 1:20–27. The word for their creation may be translated, “had formed.” In other words, God had already made them and would bring them into the garden to the man. As above, the focus is on the garden and what God is providing for man in the garden, not a strict chronological sequence.

The most important thing that ch 2 is driving toward is the creation of the man and the woman, whom God placed together in the garden. This is the highpoint and conclusion of the second account. The earlier elements (2:5–9) are there to serve this main point. He is writing a wonderfully literate account and expecting readers to notice and follow his cues.

Principle: The author/editor of Genesis was no fool. He described creation in different ways in order to make different points. A reader needs to follow the writer's cues. He did not see himself introducing contradictory accounts but making different points about God’s creation by using different ways of writing about (1) the creation of all things, (2) the creation of mankind and the garden God designed especially for him.

Silly "Bible Contradiction" #38: Time of Absalom's Rebellion

In this supposed contradiction, it is pointed out the David reigned a total of 40 years (2 Samuel 5:4) but 2 Samuel 15:7 states that Absalom rebelled against his father “after forty years.” Something must be wrong.

Indeed, something is.  The Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 15:7 has “forty,” which raises the problem. However, the Septuagint and Syriac texts have “four” instead of “forty,” which removes the problem. A Hebrew scribe must have mistakenly written “forty” at some point in the long history of the text. The early translations preserved for us the better reading, which resolves any contradiction.

Principle: Mind the footnotes in your Bible translation. Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Story Bible Comparision: Concordia Publishing House and AugsburgFortress

My colleague, Gail Pawlitz, brought me a sampler for the AugsburgFortress Spark Story Bible the other day. Interesting to see what they published in comparision to our work on The Story Bible: 130 Stories of God's Love.

The immediate, obvious difference is in the art work. Whereas CPH created a realistic look for The Story Bible to be used with its Sunday School and other curricula, AugsburgFortress created a cartoon look.

The second telling difference is in the text of the books. Whereas CPH strove to use the actual text of the ESV Bible translation, adjusted for use with early readers, the AugsburgFortress story Bible created a free paraphrase with additions to the Bible stories.

By comparing some text from a specific story, one sees the difference between the two books. For example, here are selections from Adam's naming of animals after the creation (Genesis 2):

CPH The Story Bible. "Then God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper for him.' God had formed out of the ground every animal and every bird. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them. The man gave names to all the animals and birds. But there was no helper for Adam. So God caused a deep sleep to come upon the man. While he slept, God took one of his and closed up its place with flesh. God used the rib He had taken form the man to make a woman." [Etc.]

A/F Spark Story Bible. "God said to Adam and Eve, 'I need someone to help me take care of this amazing world! Will you help me? Adam and Eve said, 'Sure! We'd love to help you, God!' . . . When she looked at all of the animals God placed in the garden---the ones that fluttered through the sky, the ones that wiggled and squirmed across the ground, and the ones that frolicked and played across the land---Eve said, 'It's going to be hard to keep track of them all!'
'Don't worry, Eve,' Adam said, 'God asked me to give all the animals names to help us keep track and take care of them all---this is toucan and chickadee and monkey and squirrel.'" [Etc.]

Reader Question: Does the Old Testament Talk about the Soul?

A reader sent me the following question:

The other day I was listening to a broadcast where an author was translating the Bible from the original Hebrew and he said that in Hebrew there was no word for "soul". So when he translated Psalm 23[:3] where we usually recite "he restores my soul", this author said something to the effect of "he revives my inner most being". Can you elaborate on this for me? If seems the concept of a soul is an integral part of a Christian's belief in eternal life.

The Hebrew word in Psalm 23:3 is nephesh. It refers to the breath or life-force, as when God breathes into Adam the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). The English word "soul" is commonly used to translate this term and is found in the standard Hebrew dictionaries. The term may describes the aspect of a human being that is not body, so it can refer to the self, emotion, desire, etc. and gets translated those ways depending on the context of the passage. This fits pretty well with English use of the term "soul." So I don't share the broadcaster's reservations about the term "soul." His expression "inner most being" is trying to express the same idea.

If the broadcaster teaches that human beings don't have a soul or that the "inner most being" can cease to exist when someone dies (called "annihilation"), I would stop listening to him. The Bible clearly and often teaches that a human being continues to exist after death, even though one's "life-force" or "inner most being" or "soul" is separated from the body.  As I read in devotions this morning, from St. Paul:

"For we know that if the tent [earthly body] that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

"So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:1-7 ESV)

Silly "Bible Contradiction" #37: Absalom's Sons

In this supposed contradiction, 2 Samuel 14:27 is set beside 2 Samuel 18:18. The first passage says that Absalom had three sons. Absalom states in the second passage, “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.”

The careful reader will immediately note two things: (1) there is no definite time given for Absalom’s statement in 2 Samuel 18:18, so we do not know whether he made the statement before his sons were born or after they would have died; (2) the sons mentioned in 2 Samuel 14 are not named, though Absalom’s daughter is named. From these observations, commentators have concluded that Absalom’s sons must have died in infancy. Although the text does not explicitly say what happened to Absalom’s sons, the circumstantial evidence for their untimely deaths is fairly strong. These circumstances would agree with the sense of disappointment Absalom expressed in 2 Samuel 18, why he set up a monument regarding his sons, and why the daughter is named in 2 Samuel 14 though the sons are not.

Principle: Read carefully and don’t assume that a contradiction exists if the circumstantial evidence is explainable in another way.

Silly "Bible Contradiction" #36: Abraham Leaves for Canaan

Genesis 11:26, 32 states, “When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. . . . The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.” The Book of Acts tells us that Abram left Haran after his father died. Simple math tells us that if Abram was born in Terah’s 70th year, then Abram would be 135 years old when he left Haran after his father’s death. Here is how it charts:

Terah born

Terah 70               Abram born in the land of Ur

Terah dies 205     Abram 135, leaves city of Haran for Canaan (cf. Acts 7:2–4)

However, Genesis 12:4 tells us that Abram left Haran when he was 75 years old. Genesis 16:16 tells us that Abram was only 86 years old when his first child, Ishmael, was born in Canaan. These ages don’t work with the age of 135 above. Something is wrong here but what is it?

The problem arises because of an assumption about Genesis 11:26, “When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” The assumption is that, since Abram is the first son mentioned, he must have been the first one born, when Terah was 70 years old. Please note that the text never explicitly says that Abram was born first or specifies how old Terah was when Abram was born. The assumption arises because Abram is listed first. However, there could be a different reason why Abram is listed first. For example, he will be the main character in Genesis for at least the next ten chapters. The story is moving from Noah’s family (Genesis 6–11) to Abram’s family (chs 12 and onward) so Abram is naturally the focus—the most important person—in the account. The precise ages in Genesis 12 and 16 must have priority for the interpreter over assumed information. Taking all this into account and working with the traditional chronology of the Bible, here are the results one can chart:

2296 BC: Terah born

2166 BC: Terah 130                          Abram born in land of Ur

2091 BC: Terah dies 205                 Abram 75, leaves city of Haran for Canaan (cf. Acts 7:2–4)

Principle: Math is great. But check your assumptions before doing your calculations. The Bible is literature. When describing characters, the authors just might make literary interests, such as storytelling, top priority over neat chronology or genealogy.

Reader Question: Does My Forgiveness Depend on Forgiving Others?

One of my readers has asked this very good question, which comes from the following Bible passages:

Matthew 6:14-15; Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 18:21-35; Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
Mark 11:25; Teaching on Forgiveness
Luke 6:37; Sermon on the Plain

The first passage is most direct and harsh. It follows immediately after Jesus teaches the disciples the Lord's Prayer, in which He states that Christians will forgive even as they are forgiven. Forgiveness of sins is so central to the Christian life that it is a matter of our relationship to God, daily prayer, and our relationship to one another.

The confusing thing about Matthew 6:14-15 is that Jesus seems to make our forgiveness dependent on forgiving others. In other words, He makes it sound like we have to forgive before God will consider forgiving us.  In view of the potential confusion about the passage, I would note a few things to keep matters clear:

1. Jesus assumes that the person forgiving is already a believer, a person who has repented and asked for his Father's forgiveness (Matthew 6:9, 12). The point about forgiving others (vv. 14-15) is an added note of warning, not about the conversion of the one praying, but about how that person will live his Christian life.

2. In other passages, Jesus teaches that there are times when forgiveness should be withheld from someone who will not repent (cf. e.g., Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:23). So Jesus is not saying absolutely in Matthew 6:14-15 that anytime someone withholds forgiveness it means that the Father won't forgive him. He has a special situation in mind where a person who has received God's forgiveness wrongly refuses to forgive someone else.

3. The special situation Jesus has in mind is explained in His "Parable of the Unforgiving Servant" (Matthew 18:21-35). In the parable, a servant is forgiven by his lord and received his lord's forgiveness. However, when a second servant pleads for the first servant's forgiveness, the first servant refuses to forgive. In other words, even though the second servant is truly repentant and pleading for mercy, the first servant KNOWINGLY WITHHOLDS FORGIVENESS. The first servant fails to forgive as God has forgiven him. Based on the broader context in Matthew's Gospel and in Jesus' teaching generally, this is the problem He is addressing in Matthew 6:14-15.

So what is happening here with the first servant or the one knowingly withholding forgiveness, as Jesus describes in Matthew 6:14-15? His unwillingness to forgive becomes a sign that his faith is either weak or failing---he is at a point where he cannot even appropriately pray the Lord's Prayer without ending up in a personal contradiction over "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (v. 12). Like the servant in the parable, hearing someone else pleading for forgiveness, "He refused and went and put him [his fellow servant] in prison" (Matthew 18:30). And this is the point where the heavenly Father steps in with His condemnation (18:32-35; cf. 6:14-15), withholding forgiveness in an effort to drive the unforgiving servant to repentance.

Jesus' teachings, taken in whole from through the Gospel of Matthew, hang together very well and are consistent. The difficulty is that we encounter the hard saying of 6:14-15 before we get the rest of the teaching. Jesus probably taught this way to stir His first hearers to repentance as they experienced the Sermon on the Mount. At times, the Lord in His wisdom comes forward harshly with the Law so that He may later come to us gently with the Gospel, calling us to simple trust in His mercy and in His ways (Matthew 11:25-30).

Charlesworth Endorses The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

We have been getting some great endorsements for CPH books in recent years but it's not every day that we get one like this. Charlesworth is tops in this field of study and he highly praises our book. To learn more about Dr. Charlesworth, click here.

Scripture in Jesus’ Judaism and in the Early Church included more documents than those found in the Protestant canon. Some of these works, called “Apocrypha” by Protestants and “Deuteron-canonical Works” by Roman Catholics are expertly and attractively collected in The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes. In these writings you will find a deep expression of the need for God’s forgiveness (the Prayer of Manasseh) and a vision of the future with the coming of the Messiah (2 Esdras or Ezra Apocalypse = 4 Ezra). The introductions are superbly well written and engaging. One can see how the Apocrypha bridge the bicentennial that bridges the “Old” Testament with the “New” Testament.  Highly recommended, as Athanasius said in 367 “for instruction in the word of godliness.”

---James H. Charlesworth, PhD

Director and Editor, Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project
George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature
Princeton Theological Seminary

Guest Post: Praying about Politics by Brant Kasbohm

As a young man I was active in politics.  I supported candidates, was a member of local political groups, and was a card-carrying member of one of the national political parties.  In 1996 (before I was even old enough to vote) I attended a campaign rally for one of the two candidates for President.  This was the first time I was exposed to an event of this nature, and thankfully was the last time.  It was very disturbing to me to see how much faith, hope, and joy people placed in this man.  I was standing near a gentleman who nearly broke into tears when the candidate appeared.   People were full of emotion and listened with rapt attention to his every word. 

It took me until 2012 and another presidential campaign to realize what I saw back in 1996.  At Dictionary.com, one of the definitions for idol is “any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion.”  What I saw then and now was the idolization of a politician.  Many people are blindly devoted to a person, party, or ideology with the thought that he, she, or it has all the answers and can make their lives better. 

So how can we avoid falling into this trap?  Here are some ideas:

·         Remember the big picture.  There is nothing bigger than God.  Nothing.  Politicians and charismatic leaders come and go and empires rise and fall, but God remains.   

·         Pray for our leaders.  That they too remember the big picture and don’t succumb to the temptations that come with power, prestige, and wealth.  Every leader is himself or herself a flawed human being that needs your encouragement, support, and most importantly, your prayers to help them make difficult decisions and cope with unrealistic expectations.

·         Give thanks.  I am extremely blessed to live in the United States, where we have the ability to freely elect our leaders and have an orderly society free or despots and dictators.  Our system, its leaders, and its citizenry are all far from perfect but we should be very thankful for the freedoms we have.  This is not a call for non-participation, so take advantage of the freedoms God has given us. 

 
Even the most honest, well intentioned politicians will not be able to live up to all of the expectations that we place on them.  We all are better served if we but our faith and hope in God, and be joyful for the gifts He has bestowed to us.