Supposed Bible Contradictions: The Sermon on the Mount

Hill of the Beatitudes

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount.  Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

Some would suggest that there is a contradiction in the Sermon on the Mount accounts in the New Testament between Matthew 5:1-2 and Luke 6:17-49. The objection above creates a false distinction between the accounts. The objections appears to be something like, "Was Christ's first sermon on the mount or in the plain? It can't be both." As we established earlier we should evaluate the claim and determine if there be any contradiction whatsoever. Are there alternative explanations? It seems there are at least two plausible explanations:

1) They are the same sermon but Matthew and Luke give summaries that highlight different parts or emphasis of that sermon.

2) They are two different sermons but have similar content as is common in preaching.

Apparently, a contradiction is not the necessary conclusion here. Matthew 4:23-25 records:

23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. 24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them. 25 Great multitudes followed Him — from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan. NKJV

 It is clear from vs. 23 that Jesus went throughout all of Galilee preaching. Meaning He preached in more than one location. The noun for "synagogues" is also in the plural form which indicates He preached in more than one. Yet, in different locations and in different places it is said He preached the "gospel of the kingdom" which by necessity includes overlapping content. Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus, while able to introduce new content at will, also preached the same thing repeatedly. Notice the following excerpt from Matthew 14:

13 When Jesus heard it, He departed from there by boat to a deserted place by Himself. But when the multitudes heard it, they followed Him on foot from the cities. 14 And when Jesus went out He saw a great multitude; and He was moved with compassion for them, and healed their sick. 15 When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying, "This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food." NKJV

It is clear from vs. 13 that Jesus, initially, was intending go to a "deserted place" to be by Himself. Yet, multitudes of people, following on foot, moved Him with "compassion for them" and He began ministering to them instead. After time had passed and it became evening the disciples suggested they be sent away because they still had to travel, by foot, back into the villages to buy food. Apparently, Jesus spent many hours with the multitudes ministering to them with miracles and teaching. It would be quite logical to conclude then that the sermons were long and therefore capable of having certain parts emphasized more than others. Craig L. Blomberg notes:

"Luke refers to Jesus’ speaking on a “level place,” but since Jesus has been in the mountains (cf. 6:12 with 6:17), Luke scarcely contradicts Matthew. Both writers envisage a plateau in a hilly area."(1)

In Matthew 5:1 it appears that Jesus is initially teaching the disciples. Yet, in Matthew 7:28 it is obvious that others had gathered. It must not be assumed that Jesus did not relocate or that parts of this sermon were not delivered in differing locations. In fact, if one thinks of a "sermon" here in the traditional modern sense then one has already imported too much into the text.

Matthew simply records that Jesus went up on a mountainside so that His disciples could be nearer to Him and then came down with them to a level place yet still in the mountain. The claim that the Sermon on the Mount is a contradiction is simply false. It begins with a faulty assumption and does not allow the Scriptural data to speak for itself. Instead the assumption that a contradiction is to be found is read back into the text. Such an assumption is not necessary and unwarranted. 

NOTES:

1) Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992). 97.

Bible Contradictions: Some Ground Rules

As a chaplain I hear all kinds of reasons why a person does or even does not believe in the Bible as God's Word. For the past few weeks I have been teaching a Bible study group. We have been going chapter by chapter through Understanding God's Word by David K. Bernard.(1) I highly recommend this book to all my readers. While I'm doing this study I wanted to write this and subsequent posts answering various objections made against the Bible. 

In chapter three Bernard writes "Since the Bible is the Word of God, it does not contain internal contradictions."(1) This is a fundamental guideline for believers. Below, I will set some guiding principles for dealing with Bible contradictions and in subsequent posts look at examples that are used. 

At some point, we must determine what sort of contradiction is being claimed about a particular text. The general laws of logic that would apply here are the law of identity (something is what it is), the law of non-contradiction (nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense), the law of the excluded middle (something either is or is not)(2) and the law of rational inference (proper conclusion based upon logical and reasonable evidence). 

Examine the claim of the skeptic. Is what they claim really a contradiction? Or is the issue interpretive? Once a man slammed my KJV Bible on the table in front of us while uttering expletives suggesting he would not believe one word from it. After some time of talking with the man his disdain from Scripture originated in a misunderstanding of Scripture that he had heard from his mother. Since a child he was taught that Jesus would return in the year 2000. 

It is also good to press the unbeliever to be more creative with their unbelief. If there was an answer to this "supposed" contradiction would they accept the answer? Many will say no and thus confirm that your answer would not matter anyways. This is another issue entirely. Biblical authority is at an all time low in our culture. 

Use proper resources in your study (Bible lexicons, concordances, commentaries, encyclopedias, etc). There are thousands of tools to help one interpret Scripture that are freely available online or that can be acquired in physical form.

We should also examine our presuppositions or the set of assumptions about the Bible. Everyone has them. We get them from several areas (e.g. culture, upbringing, theological). Are our assumptions valid? Are our expectations legitimate? False expectations can lead to false conclusions. For example, do not expect the Bible writers to be digital machines in their writings. God moved upon men to write by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-22). The photocopier is also a recent development. 

Do not ignore the style of the author or the genre of the book you are reading. To do so is to force meaning into the text and not allow the meaning to be read from the text. 

We should also be open to being wrong about some things. The Bible teaches certain things very clearly and unquestionably. But for peripheral issues we should be open to learning and the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

In the next post we will examine some specific examples.

NOTES:

1 Bernard, David K. Understanding God's Word: An Apostolic Approach to Interpreting the Bible. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 2005 Click here to purchase.
2 Miller, Ed L., and Jon Jensen. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Bible Contradictions? Genesis 6:3

³ Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3 NIV)

The direct meaning of this last clause seems clear to most. Yet upon further examination some have suggested it is "obscure at best. ¹ Notice the last clause of 6:3. It seems God is suggesting that men will live an average of 120 years since he is mortal. Critics, such as the Skeptics Annoated Bible, point to this text as a contradiction. Especially since Psalms 90:10 states:

¹⁰ The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

The NET Bible Translator Notes suggest the time frame mentioned in 6:3 more likely "refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgement and the coming of the flood."1

The ancient Targum suggests it refers to it as an opportunity for repentance. There are at least two interpretations for the last clause in vs. 3. The interpretation of the NET Bible is one of them, along with a view that the 120 points to a newly established life span limit on mankind.

Everett Fox, from Clark University, holds to the latter view. He suggests, “Some early interpreters take this to specify a “grace period” for humanity before the Flood. The text seems to be setting the limits of the human life span.” ² This is not likely when you note those who frequently lived much longer, Noah himself lived for 950 years and many other patriarchs lived to be much longer as well.

G. J. Wenham confirms a problem with this interpretation when he states: “within the wider setting of Genesis this interpretation is problematic”.³ Furthermore, In Psalms 90:10 David seemingly contradicts this second interpretation when he suggests that our life span is 70 years, yet suggests that with strength it can be 80. K.A. Matthews states that “Jewish tradition understood the 120 years as opportunity for repentance (cf. ^{Tg. Onq.;} Pirke Aboth 5:2; cf. 1 Pet 3:20).” ⁴

²⁰who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, (1 Peter 3:20 NIV)

The reference to 1 Peter 3:20 squares nicely here since it refers to a diving waiting. I think this makes the most sense of the complete evidence and witness of Scripture. God’s threat of God’s judgment was anticipated by an approaching event, which is why the 120 years cans serve as a prologue to the deluge.

NOTES:

1Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (1997). A handbook on Genesis. UBS handbook series (145). New York: United Bible Societies.

2Fox, E. (1995). Vol. 1: The five books of Moses : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ; a new translation with introductions, commentary, and notes. The Schocken Bible (Ge 1:1). New York: Schocken Books.

3Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (142). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Tg. Onq.;Tg. Onq. Targum Onkelos, ed. B. Grossfield

4Mathews, K. A. (2001, c1995). Vol. 1A: Genesis 1-11:26 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (335). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html