Questions On Conflicting Passages (2)

Question 6. Hi! i have a question regarding the genealogy of Christ. If you will read Matt. 1:2-15, you can trace His lineage after David with Solomon, then down to His "father" Joseph. But if you will read Luke 3:23-32, it is from His "father" Joseph, upto Nathan (not Solomon) and then David. Why is it different? Is this a  contradiction?

Answer Allow Albert Barnes, the author of a commentary, to answer your question:

Matthew 1:2-16

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

        These verses contain the genealogy of Jesus. Luke also <Luke 3> gives a genealogy of the Messiah. No two passages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. There are two sources of difficulty in these catalogues.         1. Many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and,         2. The tables of Matthew and Luke appear in many points to be different.

        From Adam to Abraham Matthew has mentioned no names, and Luke only has given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lines. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than 42 names, while Matthew has recorded only 27 names.

        Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty, but it must be admitted that none of them is perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them.

        1. It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the different names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into genealogical tables than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred from this cause.

        2. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both descended from David, but in different lines. This solution derives some plausibility from the fact that the promise was made to David, and as Jesus was not the son of Joseph, it was important to show that Mary was also descended from him. But though this solution is plausible, and may be true, yet it wants evidence. It cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke.

        3. It has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the explanation suggested by most of the Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled, According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e., was his legal heir, or was reckoned in law to be his son. ...

        Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent.

        1. No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.

        2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out, it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was to go to the family records-- to the public tables, and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, would be full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now of the birth, names, etc., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question or to attempt to correct them. So, the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. The only inquiry which can now be fairly made is whether they copied those tables correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and therefore that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament.

(from Barnes' Notes)  Contact David

Question 7. In my NIV bible I have recntly been going through the old testament and this has been bothering me.

2 Samuel 24:1 says - Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David amonsgt them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah"

and 2 Samuel 24:9 says - Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.

While 1 Chronicles 21:1 says - Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

and 1 Chronicles 21:5 says - Joab reported the number of fighting men to David: In all Israel, there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

The two contradictions here have been bothering me, as I said above. Which is right?

The two apparent contradictions which I see here are:

1.      Who incited David to take the census, the Lord or satan?

2.      How many soldiers were there, 1,300,000 or 1,570,000?

Answer God and satan are both acting in our lives from the spiritual realm.  We cannot comprehend how they are acting, but they are sure there. 

Eph 6:12 12      For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.   (KJV)

Remember the trials of Job?  Satan and the Lord worked together on Job.  God allowed satan to send problems to Job.

Job 1:6-12 6       Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7       And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8       And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9       Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10      Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11      But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12      And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.   (KJV)

And God has promised us, that if we are determined to do wrong, that He will let us go ahead and do it:

Rom 1:21-28 21      Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22      Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23      And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24      Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25      Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26      For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27      And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28      And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (KJV)

II Th 2:10-12 10      And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11      And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12      That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.   (KJV)

So I don't see any problem if one account attributes the inciting David to do a bad thing to God, and the other accound attributes it to satan.  David messed up, he should not have ordered that census.

Now, after all that dissertation, I consulted Albert Barnes commentary:

2 Samuel 24:1

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

        [And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel] This sentence is the heading of the whole chapter, which goes on to describe the sin which kindled this anger, namely, the numbering of the people <1 Chr. 21:7-8; 27:24>. There is no note of time, except that the word "again" shows that these events happened "after" those of <2 Sam. 21>. (Compare also <2 Sam. 24:25; 21:14>.)                    [And he moved David] In <1 Chr. 21:1> the statement is, "and an adversary" (not "Satan," as the King James Version, since there is no article prefixed, as in <Job 1:6; 2:1>, etc.) "stood up against Israel and moved David," just as <1 Kings 11:14,23,25> first Hadad, and then Rezon, is said to have been "an adversary" (Satan) to Solomon and to Israel. Hence, our text should be rendered, "For one moved David against them." We are not told whose advice it was, but some one, who proved himself an enemy to the best interests of David and Israel, urged the king to number the people.

(from Barnes' Notes)

Then how about the numbers?

The commentator Albert Barnes:

2 Samuel 24:9

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

        <1 Chr. 27:23> indicates sufficiently why the numbering was sinful. It is also stated in <1 Chr. 21:6>, that Joab purposely omitted Levi and Benjamin from the reckoning.                    [Eight hundred thousand ... five hundred thousand] In Chronicles the numbers are differently given. It is probable therefore that the Chronicler has included in his statement of the sum total some numbers which are not included here.

(from Barnes' Notes)

And from the commentator Adam Clarke:

2 Samuel 24:9

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

        [In Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand] In the parallel place, <1 Chr. 21:5>, the sums are widely different: in Israel one million one hundred thousand, in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand. Neither of these sums is too great, but they cannot be both correct; and which is the true number is difficult to say. The former seems the most likely; but more corruptions have taken place in the numbers of the historical books of the Old Testament, than in any other part of the sacred records. To attempt to reconcile them in every part is lost labour; better at once acknowledge what cannot be successfully denied, that although the original writers of the Old Testament wrote under the influence of the divine spirit, yet we are not told that the same influence descended on all copiers of their words, so as absolutely to prevent them from making mistakes. They might mistake, and they did mistake; but a careful collation of the different historical books serves to correct all essential errors of the scribes. ...

(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

This next commentary concludes that the apparent discrepancy can be explained:

2 Samuel 24:9

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

        [Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king.] The amount here stated, compared with <1 Chr. 21:5>, gives a difference of 300,000. The discrepancy is only apparent, and admits of an easy reconciliation; thus (see <1 Chr. 27>) there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty was to keep guard on the royal person, each having a body of troops consisting of 24,000 men, which together formed an army of 288,000; and as a separate detachment of 12,000 was attendant on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes mentioned in the same chapter, so both are equal to 300,000. These were not reckoned in this book, because they were in the actual service of the king as a regular militia. But <1 Chr. 21:5> joins them to the rest, saying, `all those of Israel were 1,100,000;' whereas the author of Samuel, who reckons only the 800,000, does not say, `all those of Israel, ' but barely, `and Israel were, ' etc. It must also be observed that, exclusive of the troops before mentioned, there was an army of observation the frontiers of the Philistines' country, composed of 30,000 men, as appears by <2 Sam. 6:1>; which, it seems, were included the number of 500,000 of the people of Judah by the author of Samuel: but the author of Chronicles, who mentions only 470,000, gives the number of that tribe exclusive of those 30,000 men, because they were not all of the tribe of Judah, and therefore does not say, `all those of Judah, ' as he had said, `all those of Israel, ' but only, "and those of Judah." Thus, both accounts may be reconciled (Davidson).

(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)   Contact David

Question 8. If the Bible says thou shall not kill then we shouldn't eat kill or wear animals right?

Answer The Holy Scriptures do condemn murder, but murder of people, not animals.

Gen 1:24-28 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (KJV)

Gen 2:7 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (KJV)

Four points here:

First -- God made man in His own Image. That means a lot. It does not mean that God has two eyes and two ears and two hands, etc. "In His own Image" has to do not with the physical, but with the spiritual part of man.

That means that God created man different from the animals. One of the differences is that man, in the image of God, has a special value to life. And the taking of that life bears a special punishment:

Gen 9:6 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)

There is not the same punishment for killing animals. Note all the animals which were killed in the course of sacrifices in worship to God. If it were wrong to kill animals, then it would be inconsistent for God to command killing animals in worship to Him!

The reason there is not the same punishment for killing animals is that there is not the same value to an animal's life as there is to a human's life. That doesn't mean that we should torture animals for the fun of it. But we must realize the difference in values which God has placed on human life versus animal life. Don't argue with me, take it up with God! And he has spoken, and I don't think He is willing to negotiate it.

Second point -- God said that man should have "dominion" over animals. That means authority or rule.

Gen 1:26 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (KJV)

Gen 9:1-2 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. (KJV)

And that is consistent with man being made in the image of God -- he is different from animals -- he is to rule over animals.

Third point -- Wearing animals. The first account of humans wearing animals is when God made the covering for man to wear:

Gen 3:21 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (KJV)

I don't think those were plant skins God used, they were obviously animal skins. And I bet that if we looked into other passages in the Bible that we could find where God asked his people to make clothing from animal skins. The tabernacle as I recall was covered with animal skins.

Fourth point -- eating animals. God told Noah that animals were for food:

Gen 9:3 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (KJV)

And again, if we looked far enough, we would see where God discussed the priests eating the flesh of animals as part of their worship, and as part of their payment for doing their priestly duties.

So you see it is inconsistent with the Word of God to think that animals are to be treated the same as humans. That was not God's plan from the beginning. And we only cheapen the value of human life when we try to exalt the value of animal life. Contact David

Question 9.  In 1 Samuel 16:14, 1 Samuel 18:10, and 1 Samuel 19:9 a reference is made to an "evil spirit from the Lord" (NIV). I know that nothing evil comes from God so what are these in reference to?

Answer We are free moral agents. God does not force us to obey His will. He allows us to do what we wish, and allows us to reap the consequences of our choices.

Saul made some bad choices. As a result of his error, he suffered. There are many other examples of this concept. Read I Kings 22 for an entertaining and also enlightening account of Ahab's folly. The previous chapters will shed some light on Ahab's situation. Note verses 19-23. God put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets.

There are other instances of this. Notable is Pharoah.

God explains the concept in II Thess. 2:9-14

9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Note that God allows those who "refused to love the truth" to believe a lie; He wold even send them a powerful delusion that they would believe the lie. Why? Because they refused to love and believe the truth, and they continued in their rebellion against God.

On the other hand, God "chose" those who would love and obey the truth, by His Gospel. Again, God did not "force" anyone to obey Him; He gave them the free choice. If they (or we today) would accept His "free gift" and respond to His Grace by obedience to His Will, then they would be "saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

Another example of God "giving up" on someone, is in Romans 1:24-28

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one anot  her. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (NIV)

Paul is here referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, and their abominable sin of homosexuality. God gave up on them, and let them suffer the consequences of the choices which they made. Contact David

Ask A Bible Question

Answers To Your Bible Questions

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®,
© Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971,
  1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission."
(www.Lockman.org)

Top