A second category of apparent contradictions in the Bible results from misunderstanding the intended context of the texts in question. Let's look at some commonly-cited examples, taking them in the order they appear in Scripture.

A critic asks, "The Old Testament teaches, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. Which is right?" Both.

We're dealing with the Lex Talionis, the oldest law in the world. It appears in the Code of Hammurabi, dated to 2285 B.C. It is found in the Old Testament as well: "If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25).

Before this law, if I wrecked your car you could destroy my house. If I injured your child, you could kill all my children. The original purpose of the law was thus to limit vengeance. Only the one who caused the injury could be punished, not his entire family or tribe. And only to the degree that he has injured another, protecting him from a more powerful enemy. This law did not promote retribution--it limited it.

But the law seems to contradict Jesus' clear teaching in the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Mt. 5:38-42).

In their historical context, Jesus' statements are intended to speak to a very different subject than self-defense and retribution. Each of his examples points to the same principle: stop the cycle of revenge. Don't return slander with slander, gossip with gossip.

His first example relates to your honor: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (v. 39). "Strikes" in the original means to "slap." The right hand was the only one used in public. To slap your right cheek with my right hand was an insult, not a threat to life and limb. Jesus says, Don't slap back. If someone insults you, don't insult them.

Next, Jesus speaks of your possessions: "If someone wants to use you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (v. 40). Your "tunic" was your undershirt with sleeves; it could be taken in a lawsuit. Your "cloak" could not, for it protected you from the elements. But give it anyway. Don't insist on your rights.

Now he deals with your time: "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles" (v. 41). Jesus refers to the power of a Roman soldier to make a Jew carry his military pack for one mile. Carry it two miles. Sacrifice the time, though you don't have to. Do it anyway.

And last, he speaks to your money: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (v. 42). As Augustine reminds us, we are not told to give everything we are asked for, but to give to every person who asks. Even though it is your right not to.

So refuse retribution. Stop the cycle of vengeance. Don't repeat the gossip or slander. Refuse to return insult for insult, pain for pain. It has been noted that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a rapid way to a sightless, toothless world. That's the point of Jesus' teaching, and it in no way contradicts the law in Exodus. The former deals with personal insults, the latter with physical malice. Knowing the context explains the "contradiction."

1 Kings 7:13 states that Huram, one of the builders of Solomon's temple, came from the tribe of Naphtali. However, 2 Chronicles 2:14 says his mother was from the tribe of Dan. Which tribe was hers?

A number of possibilities exist. She could have been descended from Dan but living in Naphtali, or the reverse. One of her parents could have come from one tribe, the other from the other tribe. There is no reason to assume a contradiction in the accounts.

In Mark 2, Jesus defends his disciples' decision to eat grain on the Sabbath: "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread" (vs. 25-26). But 1 Samuel 21:1 says that this occurred when Ahimelech, Abiathar's father, was priest. For such kindness to David, Ahimelech and his family were killed by Saul's soldiers. His son Abiathar escaped, and was later made priest (1 Sam. 22:20-23).

This problem is explainable on grammatical terms. "In the days of Abiathar" translates a Greek phrase which says literally "upon Abiathar the high priest." Mark usually uses "upon" (epi in Greek) to refer to location rather than time. The phrase is better translated, "at the place where Abiathar was high priest," not "during the time when" he served.

Another "contradiction" involving these two men is also explainable. 2 Samuel 8:16-18 lists King David's officials and includes "Ahimelech son of Abiathar" as priest (v. 17). We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that Ahimelech was Abiathar's father. But it is possible that Abiathar had a son whom he named for his own father Ahimelech. Remember that Zechariah's family wanted to name his son for his father, until his parents insisted that he be called "John" (Lk. 1:59-63). My middle name is my grandfather's first name; one of my sons carries his grandfather's first name as well. Such family traditions are still as common today as in the ancient world.

2 Samuel 24:1 states, "the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.'" Then, after David conducted such a census, God responded with judgment and punishment. As a result, 70,000 people died in a plague which an angel brought against the people (v. 15). Why would God punish David and his people for doing what he led the king to do?

To further complicate matters, 1 Chronicles 21:1 records, "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." Now we find Scripture blaming not God but Satan for the census. Again we wonder why God punished the people for something Satan instigated. And we wonder who was behind this apparent sin.

Two facts deserve notice. One: David misused his freedom to conduct the census. His advisers warned him against such an action of prideful self-reliance (2 Sam. 24:3-4). His actions implicated the entire nation, so that judgment came against them all. Disobedience leads to consequences beyond our intention. As someone has noted, sin will always take you farther than you wanted to go, keep you longer than you wanted to stay, and cost you more than you wanted to pay.

Two: the Jewish people saw all that happens as within the providence and permission of God. God does not himself cause us to sin (Jam. 1:13-14). But because Satan must work under the control of the Lord (cf. Job 1:12; 2:6; Ezek. 3:20; 14:9; Acts 4:28), God permits what Satan does. In this sense, Satan's activity (1 Chronicles) was permitted by the Lord and thus attributed to him (2 Samuel).

As the Jewish people grew in their knowledge of God, the Chronicler (writing 400 years after 2 Samuel) could record Satan's activity in more detail than the people had earlier understood. In the proper historical and theological light, the two accounts do not contradict each other.

Luke 2:2 tells us that the census which led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem "was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." However, Jewish and Roman historical records seem to date Quirinius' term in office from A.D. 6-9. Can we reconcile the discrepancy?

Yes. We know from the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 3:48) that Quirinius led military expeditions in the Syrian region a decade earlier. Luke uses "governor" (hegemoneuo) in a general sense of leading or ruling, so that he may well have this military office in mind. And some ancient records seem to indicate that Quirinius served two terms in office; the first from 6-4 B.C. and the second from A.D. 6-9. A census occurred during each term (Acts 5:37 refers to the census which took place during Quirinius' second term in office).

It seems unlikely that Luke would make an historical error regarding political leadership at the time of Jesus' birth, given his careful use of eyewitness records (Lk. 1:1-4) and the fact that such a mistake would be easily exposed by his contemporaries. But given the general nature of Luke's word "governor," it is easy to see how his narrative correlates with ancient historical records.

In a sermon this Sunday, I could attribute the allied victory in World War II to the "leadership" of Dwight Eisenhower, even though Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were president during this time and Eisenhower came to the White House later. If I state that Gen. Eisenhower was "president" in 1945, any who listen to my sermon would quickly correct me. If I call him our "leader," all would understand.

Mark 1:2-3 begins the life of Jesus with this citation: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way'--'a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him."'" The problem is that the first citation does not come from Isaiah but from Malachi 3:1. Did Mark make a mistake? No.

Mark's second citation is taken direction from Isaiah 40:3, so that the prophecy he cites did in fact come from Isaiah. But what of the first prediction? Isaiah was the first book in the division of the Hebrew Bible known as the Latter Prophets, so that everything from Isaiah to Malachi could be considered to be "in Isaiah."

This kind of attribution was common in ancient literature. For instance, the book of Proverbs begins, "The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel." Yet Proverbs 30 claims to be "the sayings of Agur son of Jakeh" (v. 1), while Proverbs 31 is the work of "King Lemuel" (v. 1). The larger book is attributed to Solomon, since he is its principal and best-known author. In the same way, the prophecies found in the Latter Prophets all stand "in" or under Isaiah, their first and best-known representative.

Mark informs us that the friends of a paralyzed man tried to bring him to Jesus, but could not get inside the house crowded with people listening to him teach. So "they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on" (Mk. 2:4). Mark describes a typical Palestinian house, made with a flat roof accessible by a ladder. Usually roofing clay was packed and rolled, then covered with branches laid across wooden beams.

However, Luke describes the same event this way: "they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd" (Lk 5:19). Since Gentile houses often used such tiles, could it be that Luke used a description with which he was more familiar? If so, was he in error? Did the friends "dig through" a clay roof, or remove ceiling tiles?

Both. Jesus was teaching in a house large enough to accommodate a crowd which included Pharisees and teachers of the law "from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem" (Lk 5:17). Perhaps this expansive house was owned by a person wealthy enough to afford roof tiles, rather than the cheaper thatched roof which had to be replaced periodically. These tiles would substitute for the branches which were laid on wooden beams across the clay roof. Mark does not state that the friends dug through branches, but only through the roof itself. Luke gives us the added detail that they removed tiles before they dug through the clay roof. There is no reason to conclude that the two accounts contradict one another.

Here's another supposed contradiction: "Matthew says that Judas hanged himself; the book of Acts says he fell down and died. Which is it?" Matthew's gospel does indeed record Judas's suicide by hanging: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Mt 27:5-8). In Acts 1 Peter says, "Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out" (v. 18).

How can the two accounts be reconciled? In several ways. It may be that Judas's body decomposed, so that when the rope broke or was cut, it fell as Peter describes. Or it may be that the Greek word translated "hanged" is actually the word "impaled" (both meanings are possible), so that Peter describes more vividly the way Judas killed himself. Either option is a possible way to explain the apparent contradiction.

The purchase of the field is likewise explainable. "Judas bought a field" (Acts 1:18) can mean that the field was bought with his money, not necessarily that he procured the land personally. We speak in the same way in our church when we tell members that their offerings paid for a particular ministry or building. "You bought literature for our trip to South Texas," we tell them, even though they did not purchase the materials themselves.

It seems unlikely that Peter would get the details of Judas' death wrong, since it occurred less than six weeks before his comments in Acts 1. He spoke in general terms about an event which was common knowledge; Matthew provided greater detail when he wrote about Judas' death some four decades later.

At Jesus' resurrection, when the women came to the empty tomb "two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them" (Lk. 24:4). John's account agrees: Mary "saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot" (Jn. 20:12). However, Matthew 28:2-7 records only one angel who rolled back the stone, frightened the guards, and spoke to the women. And Mark tells us that the women found "a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side" of the tomb (16:5).

Were there two angels or one at the resurrection? Yes. In ancient literature, it was common for the spokesman to be described without mentioning those who accompanied him. For instance, in Acts 15 we learn that Silas accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey (v. 40). But then Luke records that "He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches" (v. 41), and then "He came to Derbe and then to Lystra" (16:1). Where was Silas? With Paul, though unnamed and unmentioned.

In the same way, one angel could roll aside the stone and speak to the women, while another was present as well. There is no reason to insist that the accounts contradict each other. Additionally, the angels were seated (Jn 20:12) and standing (Lk 24:4), as they changed their posture during the course of the event.

Such independence of accounts actually strengthens the case for biblical trustworthiness. It is obvious that the writers did not try to coordinate their descriptions. No collusion was at work. Any traffic officer will testify that two people who witness the same automobile accident will tell the story with different details. So long as they agree on the essentials, their testimony will be accepted as trustworthy. In fact, if every detail agrees, the court will wonder if the witnesses coordinated their stories before telling them under oath.

In the same way, we can know that those who recorded the first Easter got the intended meaning and message of the resurrection right. To ask more is to raise a question the text is not intended to answer. We don't play tennis with a football.