BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: ABRAHAM

The following contradictions offered by an Islamic critic all involve the life of Abraham:

Abraham departed to go to Canaan (Genesis 12:5)

Abraham went not knowing where. (Hebrews 11:8)

If you read the complete narrative in Genesis 12, you will see that God first tells Abraham to go to a land he will show him (vv. 1-4). At that point, Abraham in faith prepares to leave without questioning where or why. In verse 5b, the final destination of Canaan has apparently been revealed, but only the specific portion of Canaan given to him in v. 7. This is somewhat akin to doing what I have done on occasion – telling a taxicab driver what city to go to, and only when we arrive giving him street directions. And finally giving him a house address when we get to the street. All along the way, the driver has no idea what the final destination will be but trusts that I will lead him to it eventually.

Other approaches to this contradiction have been expressed in the scholarly literature. For example, slightly different renderings of the Greek in Hebrews 11:8 yields “to a land he did not know” (New Bible Commentary) or “to a land he was unacquainted with” (International Bible Commentary). Either understanding resolves the contradiction with Genesis 12:5.

Abraham had two sons. (Galatians 4:22)

Abraham only had one son. (Hebrews 11:17)

Our critic conveniently ignores the fact that this same “contradiction” appears side-by-side in Genesis 21-22. First Ishmael and Isaac are given as Abraham's two biological sons. Then in Gen. 22:2, after Ishmael has been sent away into the desert, Abraham can rightly say that he has only one remaining son, his legal heir through his only wife, and the only heir of God's promise. This is stressed in that verse and reiterated in Gen. 22:16, where it is stated in parallel with the phrase variously translated as “your beloved,” “your favored one,” or “your precious one.” This general understanding is confirmed later in Gen. 25:6 where Ishmael and others are pointedly called “the sons of his concubines” while Isaac is called “his [Abraham's] son. This leads quite logically to the next problem area.

Keturah was Abraham's wife. (Genesis 25:1)

Keturah was Abraham's concubine. (I Chronicles 1:32)

There is no need to go to I Chronicles to examine this phenomenon; Soon after she is called his wife in Gen. 25:1, she is called his concubine. (25:6). As in the previous example, our critic purposely steers away from listing such side-by-side comparisons. Those are obviously not accidental or purposeful errors unless the author in each case is being unbelievably obtuse. Hamilton explains it quite simply: “Normally the concubine is an auxiliary wife. Hagar and Billah are both called by both designations.”

Abraham had a son when 100 years old by God's help. (Genesis 21:2; Romans 4:19; Hebrews 11:12)

Abraham had six more without God's help. (Genesis 25:1-2)

For the third time in three “contradictions” the critic has purposely omitted information found right next to a passage he quotes. Genesis 21:1 says twice that God did for Sarah what He had promised. After all, the real miracle was that Sarah could bear a child at her advanced age. It is not unheard of for a man of advanced years to father a child. Both the Romans and Hebrews references stress the barrenness of Sarah. But to see the latter, you would have to consider the previous verse (Heb. 11:11), and our critic seems incapable of doing that.

The second laughable thing about this “problem” area is that nowhere does it say that Abraham's subsequent children were acquired without God's help. And some commentators actually state that the additional listing of Abraham's children was obviously given as a final indication of the way God blessed him.

Jacob bought the tomb from Hamor. (Joshua 24:32)

Abraham bought the tomb from Hamor. (Acts 7:16)

The critic here has made an error in both statements; it was from the sons of Hamor that they bought a tomb. Apparently, it isn't only the Bible that contains errors. But that point aside, a problem still remains. Again, one has the choice of several possible approaches to resolving it. You can pick the one that seems most reasonable.

1. Stephen, in his extemporaneous speech before the crowd, simply confused the two different events in Genesis when patriarchs (both Abraham and Jacob) purchased land for a burial site. This is not only an understandable error, but it cannot really be called a biblical error unless one wants to make the ridiculous assumption that any comment by any character who appears in the Bible must be without error. If Luke, as the narrator of the events, can be shown to have made an erroneous statement that is one thing. But it is quite different if he accurately reports what Stephen said on the occasion.

2. Neil (among others) explains that Stephen as a Hellenistic Jew would not have been familiar with the Hebrew text of the Bible and therefore he was accurately referring to a different textual tradition than any we now possess. Some scholars have even felt that Stephen was quoting from a Samaritan document, not the Bible. (Blackburn)

3. Stott: Jacob actually bought the tomb in Abraham's name since the latter was still alive at the time.

4. Bruce: Stephen purposely telescoped the two similar events together as he did in Acts 7:2,7. As Davids explains: “What we have to remember is that in speeches like these the speaker do not intend to give a history lesson. Before he started, he would have known good and well that his audience knew the history as well as he did, if not better. What he is trying to do is to make a point from the history. Therefore he can streamline it to fit his purposes.” Davids warns against “losing our focus through fixating on numbers and chronology.”

The promised land was given to Abraham and his seed forever. (Genesis 13:14-17; 17:8)

Abraham and his seed never received the promised land. (Acts 7:5; Hebrews 11:9,13)

This is a rather theological issue. Since I am no theologian, I will just quote from a few experts.

Buchanan: “They all received 'the promises,' but they did not acquire their fulfillment, and that is what the author [of Hebrews] had in mind.” Since even their seed did not retain possession of the Promised Land for long, the real fatherland they were seeking was a heavenly one. The fulfillment will be the New Jerusalem, the city whose builder is God (Heb. 11:10).”

Bruce: “...to Abraham the promise of God was as substantial as its realization.” “He was looking for a city of a different kind...one planned and built by God.”

Ellingworth: “Canaan is indeed the land which God has promised to Abraham and his descendants, yet it does not exhaust the significance of his promise...” “Their nonattainment of Canaan is a type of hopes still unfulfilled for Christians, but guaranteed in Christ.”

Kaiser: He points out that further details are given to Abraham in Genesis 15:1-21, which explains that Abraham will only get a taste of the promised land and that it would be generations later until the full reality came to his descendants. “Thus, even Joshua's settlement of the land did not exhaust the promise of this land as a place chosen by Yahweh for his purposes.” Kaiser warns against spiritualizing the promise as referring to a heavenly reward, but Buchanan puts the two together by alluding to the New Jerusalem which will be situated in the Promised Land on earth.

Finally, my less scholarly comments – (a) We should always keep in mind when reading OT promises that they sometimes come with unstated conditions and (b) the best commentary on the OT is the NT, since that always gives the more complete picture.