Does a history book contradict itself when it contains within its pages the following statements: “Ronald Reagan was a movie star;” “Ronald Reagan was the Governor of California;” “Ronald Reagan was the president”? No, because at different points in time each statement was true. As time passes, things change.
So it is with the Bible. At one time Mark was a hindrance (Acts 15:38); later he was helpful (2 Tim. 4:11). At one time Demas was Paul’s fellow laborer (Phi. 24); later he had forsaken Paul (1 Tim. 4:10). At one time Moses feared Pharaoh (Acts 7:29); later he did not (Heb. 11:27).
Applying the well-understood principle, “as time passes circumstances change,” many supposed Bible contra-dictions are explained. [Also cf., John 1:44 and Mark 1:21, 29; Acts 20:9 and 20:10; Matt. 27:34 and Mark 15:23.]
Different Ways of Reckoning Time
George Washington wrote that he was born on February 22nd, while his mother wrote the 11th. A contradiction? No, not when it is discovered that his mother used the “Old Style” of time, while he used the “New Style.” A child is born at 11:59 p.m. Yet, the next morning when visitors arrive at 8 a.m. (eight hours later), the mother says the baby is one day old.
The same applies to the Bible. There is no problem with Matthew 12:40 stating that Jesus was buried three days and three nights, because part of Friday, part of Sunday and all of Saturday still account for three different days. There is no contradiction with the statements of Jesus being crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25) and at the sixth hour (John 19:14-18). Mark could have been writing according to Jewish time, while John’s account could have used Roman time (beginning at midnight) and began counting at the preliminaries of the crucifixion.
Keeping this principle in mind will help a reader to avoid making the mistake of alleging there are Biblical contradictions in passages which deal with time.
Different Arrangement of Material by the Gospel Writers
Contradictions are leveled against the New Testament when the four different writers have various accounts out of order. However, have not historians presented WWII in various aspects (by nations, by generals, by weapons, etc.) without being charged with contradictions?
So it is with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Actually, it is implied that a pure chronological sequence was not used by some (Luke 1:3). Thus, when there seems to be a contradiction in sequence of order [for example: Jesus traveling beyond Jordan, to Jerusalem, to Jericho and to Jerusalem (Matt. 19:1; 20:17, 29; 21:1), and Jesus traveling beyond Jordan, to Bethany and to Ephraim (John 10:40, 11:17, 54; 22:1)], the reader must remember that the four writers often used different arrangements of material.
Gary Henson