In the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, one of the authors cites the story of Jesus healing the blind man near Jericho as an example of "the futility of some efforts at harmonization ...." (p. 148).
The passage contains what in his opinion are two irreconcilable contradictions:
1. Luke represents the healing occuring while Jesus is entering Jericho, while Matthew and Mark have Jesus leaving Jericho.
2. Luke and Matthew report only one blind man, while Mark reports two.
"You cannot resolve these differences," we are confidently told, "so it is futile to wait for a day when some bright spark might find a way to resolve the differences, but my point is that we do not need to" (p. 148). Later he adds, "...ancient historians were storytellers, not modern journalists, so naturally they were given to creativity in their narratives and filled in the gaps on details when necessary" (p. 168).
So are the supposed contradictions in the story of the healing of the blind man near Jericho irreconcilable? The opposite is true. In fact, the possible harmonies are so numerous I won't even take the trouble to link to them. (Google it if you don't believe me.) In the same volume, Al Mohler writes, "Once an interpreter of Scripture begins to use human standards of moral judgement to evaluate the truth status and authority of the Bible, in whole or in part, the authority of the Bible is immediately denied. The real standard of judgment is now to be human moral reason and sensitivity. A commitment to biblical inerrancy requires a commitment to the responsible interpretation of Scripture and to the development of a mature biblical theology. The abandonment of inerrancy renders every biblical text suspect until it passes or fails some test of human reason" (p. 57).
Here's an analogy from modern-day cinema. Being a huge WWII history buff, I've always enjoyed the movie The Great Escape. But the film contains numerous factual errors.
- The film features American characters but no American actually participated in the escape itself.
- The movie depicts the majority of the escapees being shot in a single event whereas they were executed in smaller groups.
- Certain scenes like the motorbike chase were added for dramatic effect and did not occur in real life.
In short, the movie is riddled with fiction. And yet we are told in the opening credits that "This is a true story" and that "every detail of the escape is the way it really happened."
"It's no big deal," someone says. "This is just Hollywood being Hollywood." I get that. That's why I still enjoy watching the movie. It's basically a true story. And it's a story told in a marvelously entertaining way. Still, the details matter to me.
The Bible is a true story. And it's told in a remarkable readable fashion. BUT ... it is also true down to the last detail. No Hollywood embellishment is needed to add to its power or impact. "Difficulties that have not been resolved may yet be resolved under further scrutiny," write Sproul and Geisler in their book Explaining Biblical Inerrancy. "This approach to the question of the resolution of difficulties may seem at first glance to be an exercise in 'special pleading.' However, if any work deserves special consideration it is sacred Scripture. Before we jump to the conclusion that we are faced with an ultimately unresolvable contradiction we must exhaust all possible illuminating research. A spirit of humility demands that we give careful attention to the resolutions that have already been made, and that we acknowledge that we have not as yet left every stone unturned in our efforts to give a fair and judicious hearing to the text of the Bible" (p. 114).
When Paul sailed for Rome he warned of dangers ahead. But the Roman centurion listened to the master of the ship rather than to Paul. The expert was heeded rather than the evangelist. And so the ship sailed away to its own shipwreck.
In 50 years of scholarly activity, I have discovered a simple truth. When the church listens to the "masters of the ship" rather than to the ministers of the word, it's in for trouble. This is the day of the "expert." They tell us, "The details don't matter. Irreconcilable contradictions are to be expected. That's just how they wrote back then." Yet again, I agree with Mohler when he insists that " ... even when we cannot resolve the question as easily on the test case, the affirmation of the unity and consistency of Scripture must rule. Otherwise the Bible is not the Word of God in every word and every respect" (p. 54).
Amen and amen.