Question: How can one view contradictions in Scripture in a faithful way?


Question: How can one view contradictions in Scripture in a faithful way?

Latter-day Saints do not believe in the doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy where the scriptures have to be completely historically accurate, contain no theological tensions, and have no contradiction. That said, Latter-day Saints tend to hold the scriptures with a high degree of authority. How can such be the case? We don’t believe that Scripture is inerrant, yet we also don’t want others to believe that we seek to create a God after our own image (Doctrine and Covenants 1:16) or that we believe that truth cannot be found in Scripture. It may become the responsibility of Latter-day Saints from time to time to defend the high authority of scripture and thus a hermeneutic for understanding how Latter-day Saints view contradictions/tensions may be in order. This article will suggest a few ways to view contradictions that don’t hold to Scriptural Inerrancy but still wish to use the scriptures to paint an accurate picture of God and the truth that he has revealed through prophets. It will distinguish different types of contradiction/tension and suggest ways to interpret them.

Historical Contradictions and Omissions

The first type of contradiction to deal with is historical contradictions. Historical contradictions are those in which information which is supposed to be historical is told in different chronological order or certain details about historical events differ in irreconcilable, non-harmonizable ways. Scripture contains some historical contradictions. A few examples:

  • The death of Judas. Did he die by hanging (Matthew 27:5)? Or did he fall headlong and have his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Academic attempts to harmonize these two passages ceased at least as early as the late nineteenth century. Scholars today generally see both accounts as irreconcilable and nonhistorical[1].
  • Jesus calming the sea. In Gospel accounts differ in the succession of events when Jesus calms the storm at sea. In the Matthean account, the Lord chastises his apostles for not having enough faith and then calms the storm whereas in the Markan and Lucan accounts he calms the storm and then chastises his apostles. The Johannine account doesn’t even mention the story[2].
  • The name of Moses’ Mountain. The Pentateuch differs in its naming of the mountain from which Moses received the Ten Commandments. In some instances it is “Horeb” (Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deuteronomy 1:2; 4:10) and in others it is “Sinai” (Exodus 19:1-2, 11, 18, 20, 23; 34:2,4,29,32; Numbers 3:1,4,14). This is one of the reasons that scholars see the Pentateuch as the composition of multiple authors/redactors.
  • The Gospels differ in their timing of the crucifixion of the Savior. Was it during Passover? Before Passover? Or after Passover? Scholars believe that the difference is ultimately irreconcilable, and one simply must choose which account to believe. Generally, Mark is favored since it is considered the earliest to be authored[3].

So, how can one view such contradictions? A few questions to ask oneself that may provide solutions:

1. The presence of contradiction in the way a historical event is related do not necessarily undermine the historicity of such an event. One may simply focus on the reality of the event being described rather than the presence of contradictions in the relation of the event. Does it matter if there is a contradiction in the relation of the story? Doesn’t the story teach us the same thing? The Bible can generally be trusted on historical grounds for a lot of it’s text[4] as can the Book of Mormon[5]. However, if a text did not mean to be historical or describe its historical events in literal, exact ways, why should this matter? This should inform our theology. Can something be non-historical and still teach us valuable principles? Certainly. The story of the Noachian, Global Flood is likely not historical (or at least not historical at that scale), but what it taught the ancients and what it teaches us today can still be valuable. Of course, we do believe and should believe that certain events from the Bible would be historical in some way. But that does not mean that we can’t learn true principles from scripture that isn’t historical. Which hermeneutic to be applied depends on the situation. Some propositions are core, non-negotiable while others are less core, more negotiable. Knowing which are which requires careful study and evaluation. We are encouraged to do this by scripture itself (D&C 88:77-79).

2. Could the presence of two differing accounts simply be giving more information to the story? Take for instance the presence of one angel at the tomb after the resurrection of Jesus (Mark 16:5) vs. two angels (Luke 24:4). Does the omission of the second angel in the Markan account mean there wasn’t a second angel? Not necessarily. We could just be receiving further information about the event or there could be a legitimate contradiction in the story. Either way, does it matter? The presence of historical contradictions should not come as a surprise. Such is why scripture such as the Book of Mormon so strongly emphasizes the importance of preserving records to accurately show exactly how God has reached out to his children.

3. There may not be any contradiction after all. Such an example might be the claim that there is a contradiction in the Bible as to what time Jesus was crucified[6].

Ultimately one should seek the best scholarly perspectives on the matters and proceed with care as one informs herself. We should seek for as much accuracy as possible in our approach to scripture. As Elder John Widtsoe stated, the scriptures must be read intelligently.

Theological Tensions/Contradictions

Theological contradictions would be the presence of differing views about God, Jesus, or other theological issues written within scripture. It has long been noted by scholars that the Markan account of Jesus portrays Jesus as more human, lowly, and mortal than, say, the Johannine account which portrays Jesus as divine in the antemortal realm. Scholars generally believe that the Markan account holds what they view as a “low Christology” and the Johannine account as a “high Christology”. Other potential tensions might include:

  • How can we not perform our alms in public (Matthew 6:1) but also let our light shine before the world (Matthew 5:16)?
  • How can we set childish things aside (1 Corinthians 13:11) and become as a child (Matthew 18:3)?

Now let’s look at possible solutions:

1. Can the two theological views be giving us two important parts of one potentially fuller concept? Using the Aristotelian idea of the whole being greater than the sum of parts (i.e.synergy), perhaps the differing theological views can be combined to see a more holistic view of a concept and how important it is. In the case of the Christologies, Latter-day Saint New Testament scholar Julie M. Smith has suggested that the Markan Christology is a “full Christology” instead of a “low Christology”, pointing out how Mark still sees Jesus as the God of the Old Testament and other elements of Jesus' divinity while also acknowledging other parts that make him more human[7]. To be sure, one should not attempt to say that the two writers are saying the same thing (such would be an inaccurate and/or disingenuous way of reflecting what appears in Scripture) but that they are stressing two entirely different things that can subsequently be placed into a fuller conceptual picture [8].

2. Could it be that the first theological view is one that was later updated by the second or third theological view expressed? Latter-day Saints believe that revelation comes line upon line (Isaiah 28:10; 2 Nephi 28: 20; Doctrine and Covenants 98:12; 128:21). Could the later theological view simply be a development of the first proposition? This should be considered. For more information, see under “What can change through revelation?” in our article addressing how Latter-day Saints view the nature of revelation.

3. In the case of the Bible, is it possible that modern revelation resolves an issue in conflict? For instance, the different sources of the Documentary Hypothesis differ in their view of God. Some insist in a more anthropomorphic God (one that is human and can be seen) and others insist on one that can’t be seen (see linked article for a chart with examples). The Book of Moses depicts God as anthropomorphic, corporeal, and passable. It thus resolves disagreement in the sources by restoring knowledge that perhaps did not have a faithful record kept for it (D&C 128:9).

In the case of alms, Daniel C. Peterson offers some commentary (responding to critics of Latter-day Saint humanitarian efforts):

Some of them love to quote this passage, from the very teachings of Jesus that most of them otherwise reject:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:1-4)

It’s a handy weapon, I suppose.

But they seem to have forgotten this passage, also from Matthew, just a few verses earlier:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

How to reconcile the two passages?

I think the point is that our goodness, if we can muster it, ought not to be a matter of personal boasting, nor of seeking status in the eyes of mortal humans, but should, rather, serve as a means of drawing attention to God, his Kingdom, and his Gospel. People looking on should be motivated to say, “I want to be a part of that,” not “My, my, that Max Mustermann is a remarkably admirable fellow.”

And that, I think, is how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trying to act. It’s thoroughly scriptural.[9]

In the case of leaving childish things aside but also becoming as a little child, it seems that Paul meant to chastise those people that wouldn't show Charity to others. Thus, he wishes that we could become more mature in our treatment of others. In the Savior's case, he highlights a child's ability to believe, to be submissive, and to be obedient. In this way, we have to become as Children to be saved[10].

In sum, as we listen to scripture and accept it on its own terms, it seems that we can still emerge with truth that God wants us to know to achieve salvation and exaltation.

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Kevin Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible” in Dan Vogel, ed. The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990) 152-53.
  2. ↑ Thomas M. Mumford, “Horizontal Harmony of the Four Gospels in Parallel Columns” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976) 48.
  3. ↑ See Julie M. Smith, “New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark” (Provo: BYU Studies, 2019) for commentary on both issues.
  4. ↑ Craig Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering Challenges to Evangelical Christian Belief” (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); K.H. Kitchen, “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2006); Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2006); Crossway, “ESV Archaeology Study Bible” (Carol Stream: Crossway, 2018)
  5. ↑ John Sorenson, “Mormon’s Codex” (Provo and Salt Lake: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2013); Brant Gardner, “Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History” (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015); Brant Gardner, “Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon” 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).
  6. ↑ See Justin Taylor, "What Hour Was Jesus Crucified?" <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/hour-jesus-crucified-resolving-apparent-bible-contradiction/> (accessed 21 August 2019)
  7. ↑ Julie M. Smith, “New Testament Commentary”.
  8. ↑ For an excellent work putting this in practice from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see Julie M. Smith (ed.), “As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture” (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016).
  9. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "A note regarding complaints about LDS humanitarian efforts" <https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/07/a-note-regarding-complaints-about-lds-humanitarian-efforts.html> Patheos 14 July 2019 (accessed 18 August 2019).
  10. ↑ While these passages aren't contradictory per se, they have been used only to demonstrate the point of the author. It is possible that less mature critics could use this as an example of real tension.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Question:_How_can_one_view_contradictions_in_Scripture_in_a_faithful_way%3F&oldid=210210"