11 Some Problems in the Old Testament
Some Problems in the Old Testament No one denies that there are passages in the Bible that contain problems of one kind or another. The inerrancy question does not involve interpretive problems or debates concerning the best text type. But problems of apparent discrepancies, conflicting numbers, differences in parallel accounts, or allegedly unscientific statements do concern the inerrancy of the Bible.
Errantists and inerrantists have access to the same facts concerning each of those problems. Both have capable minds to use in interacting with those facts. Both can read the conclusions of others. But both do not come to those problems with the same basic outlook. The errantist’s outlook includes not only the possibility but also the reality of errors in the Bible. Therefore, when he studies problems, one of his possible conclusions is that one or another of them is actually an error. The inerrantist, on the other hand, has concluded that the Bible contains no errors. Therefore, he exercises no option to conclude that any of those same problems is an example of a genuine error in the Bible. His research may lead him to conclude that some problem is yet unexplainable. Nevertheless, he believes it is not an error and that either further research will demonstrate that or he will understand the solution in heaven.
Consider this illustration: If a happily married man comes home unexpectedly one day to find his wife waving good-bye to a handsome man about to get into a car, what will he think? If his confidence and trust in his wife is total and unwavering because of their years of satisfying experiences together, he will assume she had a good reason for seeing that man. Though he may be curious, the husband will not doubt his wife’s loyalty. Perhaps it will not be until Christmas or their anniversary that he learns that the man he saw was delivering a special present his wife had ordered for him. But if his confidence in his relationship with his wife is even a bit shaky, his thoughts will wander into all kinds of paths including suspicion of unfaithfulness on her part. Because of his insecurity, his wife might be branded an adulteress in his eyes. The analogy is clear, is it not? If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out from God and are therefore without errors, and if that confidence has been buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable, then I will not be shaken by a problem, and I certainly will not conclude that it is an error. But if I think there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. And even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible. From the current literature on the inerrancy debate, it is difficult to cull a definitive list of “errors.” It is probably not possible to list criteria by which to judge errors, only to list actual examples of errors. Although no two writers agree on a list of errors, when all the examples are put together there are about two dozen, more or less. The lack of uniformity in those lists raises a serious question: Who and what determines the boundary line between the territory of permissible errancy and the territory of necessary inerrancy? If, for instance, some errancy can be expected and tolerated in historical matters, but not in doctrinal areas, how do I know which historical matters? After all, some important doctrines are built on historical matters. So where do I draw the line?
Admittedly, there are certain problem passages to examine. However, I maintain that reasonable suggestions can be found so that we need not conclude they are errors. In a discussion like this I can only make suggestions, and not in great detail. Further information is readily available in other books and commentaries. But the point is that suggestions have been made that are compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy. The “two accounts” of creation. Although the allegation that there are two conflicting accounts of creation has ramifications in a number of areas of interpretation, often in the inerrancy discussion the focus is on the supposed contradiction between Genesis 1:11-12, which records vegetation appearing on the third day, and Genesis 2:5, which seems to say there was no vegetation until after Adam was created.
Two things are wrong about such a conclusion. First, Genesis 2:1-25 adds details to the account of creation in Genesis 1:1-31, not in contradiction but in supplementation. For example, Genesis 1:27 says that God created man (a generic term here) male and female, but not meaning that the first creature was a male-female combination. The details of that creation of the male Adam and the female Eve are given in Genesis 2:18-23. Likewise, Genesis 2:5 adds details about the creation of vegetation on the third day.
Second, the words used in Genesis 2:5 refer to the kind of plants that require cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants. Plants that required such cultivation either did not appear until Adam was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did not grow until Adam was created.
H. C. Leupold has summed up the matter well: “Verse 4b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and draws our attention to certain details, which, being details, could hardly have been inserted in chapter one: the fact that certain forms of life, namely the kinds that require the attentive care of man in greater measure, had not sprung up.… When verdure covered the earth, the sprouting of these types of vegetation was retarded, so that they might appear after man was already in full possession of his domain and in a position to give them their needed care.… The fact that not the whole of vegetation is meant appears from the distinctive terms employed, neither of which had as yet appeared in the account.… From all this it appears sufficiently how absurd the claim is that in this account (Genesis 2:4 ff) man is made first, then vegetation.” [H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1942), pp. 112-13.]
Thus a contradiction and therefore an error appears in this account only for those who want it. Good exegesis requires no error.
Cain’s wife. Though by many inerrantists the question of where Cain got his wife would not be considered a problem at all, the question is often used by those who try to demonstrate that the Bible is unreliable in what it claims. How could it claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who had two sons, one of whom murdered the other, and yet who produced a large race of people? Clearly, the Bible does teach that Adam and Eve were the first created human beings. The Lord affirmed that in Matthew 19:3-9. The genealogy of Christ is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Jude 1:14 identifies Enoch as the seventh from Adam. That could hardly mean the seventh from “mankind,” an interpretation that would be necessary if Adam were not an individual, as some claim. Clearly, Cain murdered Abel and yet many people were born. Where did Cain get his wife?
We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Genesis 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters.
Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or mentally retarded children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters or nieces or nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.
Numbers 25:9. The plague that followed lsrael’s worship of Baal of Peor killed 24,000 people according to Moses. Yet Paul records only 23,000 deaths in 1 Corinthians 10:8. An obvious error? Not necessarily, for Paul limits his 23,000 figure to those killed on one day. The account in Numbers 25:1-18 records that the judges were involved in carrying out the judgment and may include additional deaths that occurred the following days. In other words, they may not have completed their awesome task in one day. The two accounts do not conflict because of Paul’s additional phrase “in one day.” But no damage is done to inerrancy if we consider both numbers as round figures. If so, then the number killed was between 23,000 and 24,000. If either passage stated that “exactly” or “only” a certain number died, and if they did not agree, then that would constitute a clear error. But such is not the case.Who caused David to number Israel (2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1)? One account says the Lord did, whereas the other says Satan did. But why does that have to be a conflict? Could not both the Lord and Satan have been involved? They have been in other matters. Paul said that the Lord sent a messenger to Satan to keep him from exalting himself (2 Corinthians 12:7). Certainly the Lord and Satan are involved in activities that lead to Armageddon. Why not here also? Such a simple solution makes even the suggestion of a contradiction seem incredible. Yet this is no straw man. One errantist emphatically stated that “both accounts cannot be accurate. But from the viewpoint of doctrinal integrity they both present exactly the same truth: What David did was wrong …” (Ray Summers, The Baptist Standard, 4 February 1970, p. 12). Who killed Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19 compared with 1 Samuel 17:50 )? Did David kill Goliath or did someone else, named Elhanan? Before assuming that the accounts are in conflict and therefore that one is in error, let us ask some other questions: (a) Could David have had two names, the other one being Elhanan? Solomon had two names (2 Samuel 12:24-25). (b) Could there have been two Goliaths? In the immediate context (2 Samuel 12:20), another giant at Gath is mentioned. (c) Perhaps we are to understand that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. Any of those solutions is equally plausible; it is unnecessary to conclude the presence of an error. And all of them are more plausible in light of the proved accuracy of the Bible elsewhere.
Certain numbers in 2 Samuel 24:1-25 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-30. Other numbers in these parallel accounts seem not to harmonize, and errantists conclude that some things are in error. 2 Samuel 24:9 says 800,000 were numbered in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, whereas 2 Chronicles 21:5 gives a 1,100,000 total for Israel and 470,000 for Judah. The difference in the total for Israel may be accounted for by assuming that the 800,000 figure did not include the 300,000 listed in 1 Chronicles 27:1-34, which if added would make a total equal to the 1,100,000 figure in 1 Chronicles 21:5. Perhaps the 30,000 difference in the other figures involves the 30,000 specially mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:1. When God gave David a choice of punishment, He offered as an option seven years of famine according to 2 Samuel 24:13 and three years famine according to 1 Chronicles 21:12. The Septuagint translation says three years, so likely the figure in 2 Samuel is a scribal error. Though copies were very carefully made, errors inevitably crept in. This seems to be one, but it is not an error in the original-that was inerrant when it was written. Regrettably, inerrancy cannot be extended to the copies.
Finally, in these chapters the question of how much David paid for the property he bought from Araunah seems to be in conflict in the two accounts. 2 Samuel 24:24 says 50 shekels of silver, but 1 Chronicles 21:25 records 600 shekels as the price. The difference is great, even allowing for inflation! But is it too great if, as 2 Samuel 24:24 says, the 50 shekels were paid for the threshing floor alone whereas the larger amount included other property surrounding it? The laver in 2 Chronicles 4:2. In describing the measurements of the laver, the circumference is given as thirty cubits (or 540 inches if the cubit was 18 inches) and the diameter is ten cubits (180 inches). However, circumference is arrived at by multiplying the diameter by pi (3.14159), and that total is more than 565 inches, an apparent contradiction. One writer resolves the problem by saying that “in the culture of the day the measurement was not only accurate, but also ‘inerrant.’ “ (Robert Mounce, “Clues to Understanding Biblical Accuracy,” Eternity, June 1966, p. 18).
However, there is a better solution that does not include sleight of hand. The ten-cubit measurement was from brim to brim; that is from one outside edge to the other. But verse 5 states that the width of the edge was a handbreadth, or about 4 inches. So the inside diameter was ten cubits (180 inches) minus two handbreadths (8 inches). Multiplying 172 inches by pi, the total inches, the same circumference as given in verse 2.
Those represent passages currently being used as illustrations of errors in the Old Testament. Without going into reat detail I have tried to show that reasonable explanations are at hand.
We need not conclude that errors are present in the text except for, possibly, occasional copyists’ errors. How one views those suggestions will be a reflection of one’s underlying confidence, or lack of it, in the Bible itself.