If you’ve been a Christian for any amount of time, you’ve likely encountered some challenging passages in the Bible. Sometimes the truths proclaimed in one section of Scripture don’t seem to fit with statements made in other sections. Perhaps you’ve heard that extra-biblical sources don’t confirm some of the historical events in Scripture. It could be the case that these Bible difficulties have caused you some spiritual trouble as you’ve wrestled with questions you cannot presently answer.
Whatever your current situation, it is vital to remember that whenever we investigate alleged biblical difficulties, we must always begin our inquiry with two truths: (1) All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16); and (2) all Scripture is without error (Ps 12:6; John 10:35; Heb 6:11). Solutions to alleged difficulties may be readily forthcoming, or they may take some time and careful study. Either way, Scripture is God’s Word and therefore without error in the original manuscripts.
Occasionally, no clear answer will present itself, so rather than force a solution, we must patiently wait until a reasonable solution can be established. At times, there may be more than one possible answer. In any event, the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy does not rest on our ability to solve biblical difficulties. Inerrancy is a theological truth clearly taught and Scripture and rooted in the character of God. I may not be able to solve every problem I or others encounter in the Bible, but this deficiency in me does not, of itself, overturn the doctrine of inerrancy. Roger Nicole says it well:
The student of Scripture is not bound to provide the solution of all the difficulties which he encounters in the Bible. It is better to leave matters unharmonized than to have recourse to a strained or artificial exegesis. Even when no solution of a difficulty is offered, we are not thereby driven to assume that the problem is insoluble.1
With the confidence that God’s Word is wholly true and coherent, we can proceed in doing our best to solve apparent difficulties in Scripture, knowing that the veracity of Scripture does not rest on our exegetical or theological skill. We do not need to feel forced, therefore, into proposing unlikely solutions. We can take our time, study Scripture and other resources, and allow the various strands of truth to coalesce and present a reasonable solution.
With these important truths in place, we are now ready to engage a few problem passages in Scripture. In each of these alleged problems, we will see that not every solution can provide an air-tight answer. Some solutions are better than others, but we will also see that many alleged difficulties do yield plausible solutions.
Problem #1: How can God say that “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; each one shall be put to death for his own sin alone” (Deut 24:16; see also Ezek 18:20), yet Joshua had Achan and his household killed for Achan’s sin in Joshua 7? Other examples of God’s apparent violation of his own law include David and Bathsheba’s son dying because of David’s sin (2 Sam 12:14) and God tearing the kingdom from Solomon’s son due to Solomon’s sin (1 Kings 11:11).
With regard to the situation with Achan, it’s possible that his family knew about his transgression and therefore shared in it. If this was the case (the text does not say explicitly that they knew about Achan’s transgression), then their punishment did not violate Deuteronomy 24:16 for they were also collectively guilty. Furthermore, Achan’s act could be seen as a religious and not a civil infraction, and because of this, it defiled his entire household.2 Deuteronomy 13:12-18 was likely in view in Achan and his family’s punishment.3
Concerning the death of David’s son, this does seem to be a judgment upon David rather than upon the child. There is evidence in the text that David believed his child went to heaven upon his death (2 Sam 12:23). Therefore, David was bereaved of his child as a consequence of his sin, yet the child entered immediately into glory.
Regarding Solomon, the Lord did say that he would tear away the kingdom from Solomon due to his sin, but not during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 11:11). However, God was not unfairly punishing Rehoboam (Solomon’s son) for Solomon’s sin. The immediate cause of the division of the kingdom was Rehoboam’s own foolishness in forsaking the wisdom of the elders and the sinful decision to treat Israel harshly. Although God had ordained that the kingdom would be taken away from Solomon’s son, it was, in God’s providence, Rehoboam’s sin that occasioned the split in the kingdom (see 1 Kings 12:1-15).
Problem #2: Why does Jude apparently quote a non-canonical book authoritatively?
The book of 1 Enoch is not considered canonical Scripture by any major branch of Christianity or Judaism. In terms of authorship and date, one biblical scholar writes, “1 Enoch is clearly composite, representing numerous periods and writers.“4 The dates seem to span from the second century BC to first century AD.5
Regarding the specific question, we must note that just because Jude quoted the book of I Enoch does not mean that he took the entire book to be God’s Word and therefore canonical. Paul, for example, quoted Aratus (Phaenomena 5) in Acts 17:28 and Epimenides in Titus 1:12, yet it is clear that the apostle did not take those works to be canonical.
Also, Jude’s use of the word “prophesy” doesn’t necessitate that he believed 1 Enoch to be canonical Scripture. The word “prophecy” can refer to canonical Scripture (Matt 15:7; 1 Pet 1:10), but it can also refer to an utterance that came directly from God that was not recorded in Scripture. Many people prophesied in the Old and New Testaments whose utterances were not recorded in canonical Scripture (e.g., Num 11:25; 1 Sam 10:10; Acts 21:9).
Finally, we must note that Jude does not use the phrase, “It is written,” to introduce the quotation in 1 Enoch—a common New Testament way to introduce a quote from canonical Scripture (e.g., Luke 19:46; Rom 12:19; 15:3; 2 Cor 8:15, etc.). Jude is likely taking a selection from 1 Enoch that he believed to be true and used it in his argument without endorsing the entire book of 1 Enoch as canonical Scripture. It may have been that his opponents had high regard for 1 Enoch, so Jude used this book against them to make his point.6
Problem #3: There is little evidence of the Exodus outside the Bible. This is strange considering it’s a massive event for large-scale miracles and so many Jews wandering in the wilderness for 40 years.
There are multiple reasons why scholars reject the biblical account of the Exodus. The account seems fantastic, unbelievable, and even indicts the character of God (in their ethical judgment).
However, one of the material reasons many reject the Exodus account is that there is little record of the Exodus outside the Bible. If it really happened, they reason, there should be more extensive documentation of it among ANE records and artifacts. But there are several good reasons why this story was not well preserved.
First, the Amazon Delta region itself, where Israel would have resided during their time in Egypt, has removed all kinds of potential artifacts due to its constant flooding. Only a tiny fraction of historical records have been retrieved from this area.7
Second, the Exodus was humiliating and devastating to Egypt. It is likely that Egyptian historians did not record this history precisely because it was so humiliating. The gods of Egypt were all conquered through the first nine plagues, all the firstborns of the entire nation died as a result of the tenth and final plague, and the Pharaoh himself and many of his soldiers were killed when Israel crossed the Red Sea. This is not something that historians seeking to uphold the glory and reputation of Egypt would be compelled to record and preserve.8
Two more points related to the reliability of the Exodus narrative: Nations moving away from another nation due to oppression is not uncommon in the Ancient Near East, so Israel’s migration was not unusual9 and the Exodus narratives “fit readily into the general East Delta topography as presently known.”10
Conclusion
There are other alleged problems in Scripture that we could examine. My point in this article is simply to help you see that in many cases, reasonable solutions are available. The Christian does not need to doubt the truthfulness of the Bible whenever they bump up against a troubling passage or verse. Rather, with a little time and study, we can come to sound conclusions and potential solutions to many of these challenges. As we diligently study Scripture and work hard to solve these problems, our faith will grow as we behold the resilience of Scripture and the truthfulness of God’s Word.
NOTES
1Roger Nicole, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 27.
2ESV Study Bible, 405.
3John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb, A Commentary on Joshua-2 Kings: from Conquest to Exile (Winona Lake: BMH, 1970), 55.
4E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse) of Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York, DoubleDay, 1983), vol. 1, 6-7.
5E. Isaac, “Enoch,” 5-7.
6Thomas Schreiner, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Nashville: B & H, 2003), 468-70.
7K. A. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 246.
8Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, 246: “…as Pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else.”
9Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, 254.
10Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, 261.
