On Contradictions

ON CONTRADICTIONS

  Many theologians seem to err against God. They look for contradictions in the Bible. If there are found to be contradictions, then the Word would not be inspired as claimed, and God’s credibility is questioned. That is blasphemous, and is the original sin. Why so? Adam disrespected God’s authority, accepting the lie of the Serpent rather than Divine truth.

Theologians point to King Saul’s death and David’s response as contradictory and cruel, respectively. Firstly, let’s examine the perceived contradiction:

Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together. (1Sam 31:4-6).

  That is the first description of King Saul’s death. In this case, Saul committed suicide and his armor-bearer did likewise. Now examine, the second description:

And he (Saul) said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. (2 Sam 1:8-10)

  That conversation was after the fact of Saul’s death. The first version was someone’s eye-witness account. They left a deposition in 1 Samuel 31. The second conversation was alleged to be an eye-witness account of what happened before. One story has it that Saul killed himself, but the second account was that this foreigner killed Saul. It is contradictory, but is there a reason?

  Let us look at the motives of the Amalekite: “When he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.” This man was an enemy. He was quick to change sides in the war. “Obeisance” means that he acknowledged David’s superiority. He feared David, and like any fearful person, he sought safety. He had been against the Israelites in battle. How else was he to placate David? Surely knowing that David had sought refuge with the Philistines, it is certain that he knew of the conflict between Saul and David. To impress David to save his own skin, what would be the natural thing to do? Knowing that the enemy of the enemy is a friend, the man claimed that he killed David’s nemesis.

  He paid obeisance to David, and also placated him with I am your friend because I killed the man who sought to kill you! Furthermore, the man was claiming credit for what he thought was a noble endeavor, but it was ignoble to the Lord and David. Rather than gratitude, David, inspired by the Lord, saw through the façade. He surely understood human nature enough to see through the man’s ploy. The man was doing nothing more than elevating himself to save his own skin. In other words, the second version is a lie, and the first version is the truth. The Amalekite’s story was a perversion, and David judged him correctly.

  Albeit, the two versions are contradictory, the second account is an obvious deception. Therefore, the theologians who claim a contradiction are wrong and probably know that they are if they have any discernment at all. Human nature is to bloviate and deceive, and the man whose god was not God would have no qualms about elevating himself and lying. On the other hand, the first account was inspired to whoever wrote it, and would be the truth. So much for the contradiction, and now let’s examine those same theologians who believe that David was overly vindictive in his actions.

And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him (the Amalekite). And he smote him that he died. And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed. (2 Sam 1:15-16)

  Firstly, David did not smite the Amalekite for killing Saul; it was for SAYING that he had killed Saul. David also demonstrated by his words that he knew the man was lying: “Thy mouth hath testified against thee.” In modern English, You are lying to save your skin and your words give you away. David was not stupid, and he had divine insight. He wasn’t fooled by the charade. The Amalekite was not punished for killing the Lord’s anointed, but for lying to elevate himself. Examine the Mosaic Law regarding perjury:

When dealing with cases involving the death penalty in Israel at the time of the Old Testament, at least two witnesses had to be summoned to court (Numbers 35: 30). If these accused the defendant using false testimony, he was, given the corresponding verdict, executed despite his innocence (1 Kings 21).

If, however, the court found that a witness had given false testimony, then this witness would receive the punishment which the defendant would have received if he had been found guilty (Deuteronomy 19: 18-19).

In Jewish wisdom literature, bearing false witness is associated with lying in general: "A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall perish" (Proverbs 19: 9). (From New Apostolic Church International Website; Oct 4, 2013).

  David’s seemingly cruel punishment was nothing more than administering justice as prescribed by Law. There were not two witnesses, although the accusation was against himself. Since he claimed to have killed the king, and their were no other witnesses, then his penalty was death for bearing false witness. Therefore, David’s punishment validates that the Amalekite died for lying not killing the king.

  We must be careful when we read modern theology. It seems that many of the liberal scholars tend to pervert the Word and look for errors to defy the claim that Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God. In other words, they would prefer that the Bible be a “book of lies” rather than profound truth. To fabricate contradictions is blasphemous because their insinuation is that God is a liar. Using the example from scripture and Mosaic Law, those who call this contradictory and cruel deserve the same punishment as the Amalekite. They need to thank God that the “economy” has changed; that grace supersedes the Law for the unwitting!