Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#35 – The Death of Saul’s Sons vs. Deuteronomy’s Law
The execution of seven of Saul’s sons (2 Samuel 21:7-14) to atone for his actions contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16, which explicitly states that children shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their fathers. This lex talionis violation suggests a tension between the moral and legal principles outlined in the Torah and the actions described in the narrative. biblical contradictions
How Does Ehrman Err?
Bart Ehrman’s challenge—claiming a contradiction between 2 Samuel 21:1–14 and Deuteronomy 24:16—touches on the justice of God and the relationship between individual and corporate responsibility.
Let’s look carefully at the text and its context.
1. Deuteronomy 24:16 — A Legal Principle of Human Justice
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) states:
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”
This law governs human courts in Israel, ensuring that an individual is not judicially executed for a crime he did not personally commit. It upholds fairness and personal responsibility in Israel’s civil administration.
So, Deuteronomy is addressing human judicial procedure, not divine providential judgment.
2. 2nd Samuel 21 — Divine Judgment on Covenant Violation
2 Samuel 21 describes something very different. Verse 1 introduces the scene:
“Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. And David sought the face of the LORD. And the LORD said, ‘There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.’”
This is not a human court applying Israelite law; it is divine intervention because of a broken covenant made centuries earlier with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). Saul, acting as the king and representative of Israel, violated that sacred oath by slaughtering the Gibeonites. Consequently, the nation itself bore guilt before God until restitution was made.
As the PreceptAustin commentary on 2 Samuel 21 explains, this was an act of covenant justice, not a criminal court ruling:
“There seems to be a bit of ‘poetic justice’ here as the covenant Saul had broken was before the LORD, and the reaping of the consequences was before the LORD. … The whole group may be treated as a unit or through a representative, so descendants of a leader could be held responsible when they participated in or condoned his deeds.”
3. The Guilt Was Corporate, Not Substitutionary
The key phrase is in 2 Samuel 21:1 — “bloodguilt on Saul and on his house.” That indicates collective participation, not mere association by birth. Saul’s household appears to have shared in his campaign against the Gibeonites, making them complicit. In biblical thought, the “house” of a king represented his political and covenantal sphere of authority; those within it often shared responsibility for its actions (cf. Joshua 7:24–25).
So, this was not innocent people being executed for someone else’s crimes—it was a reckoning upon those who shared both Saul’s privilege and his guilt.
4. Different Categories of Justice
Deuteronomy 24:16 → Legal ethics for human courts
2 Samuel 21 → Covenantal reckoning by divine decree
When these categories are kept distinct, the contradiction vanishes. God’s sovereign administration of history sometimes includes corporate consequences that go beyond individual human courts. This can be hard for modern readers who think in strictly individualistic terms, but Scripture consistently acknowledges both individual and corporate aspects of sin:
- Exodus 20:5 – God “visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”
This does not mean punishing the innocent but describes how covenant-breaking perpetuates itself among those who continue in rebellion. - Ezekiel 18:20 – “The soul who sins shall die.”
This establishes moral responsibility on an individual level.
The Bible thus affirms both—God is just in holding individuals to account, but He also addresses communal sin when entire groups or households identify with their forebear’s wrongdoing.
5. Mercy and Restoration Follow the Judgment
Once justice was done, the famine lifted:
“After that God responded to the plea for the land.” (2 Samuel 21:14)
The purpose was not revenge but reconciliation—restoring Israel’s covenant standing with God. In that light, the passage teaches that God takes promises and oaths seriously, even when people do not. His justice defends the oppressed (the Gibeonites) and purges national guilt.
6. Theological Reflection
The account foreshadows the nature of atonement itself. Humanity as a whole bears covenant guilt through Adam (Romans 5:12–19), yet God restores right relationship through the representative obedience and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, the true covenant head (1 Corinthians 15:22). Where Saul’s house fell under God’s justice, the house of Christ bears God’s mercy.
Summary
| Passage | Context | Principle Involved | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deuteronomy 24:16 | Civil law governing Israelite courts | Each person bears punishment for individual crimes | Regulates human judicial fairness |
| 2 Samuel 21:1–14 | Divine judgment on covenant violation | Corporate guilt of Saul’s house for breaking an oath made before God | Reflects God’s justice in covenant matters |
Far from being a contradiction, these two passages address two different kinds of justice—one legal, one theological. Bart Ehrman’s criticism overlooks this crucial distinction.
God remains perfectly consistent in His character:
“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness … but who will by no means clear the guilty.” (Exodus 34:6–7)
The God of 2 Samuel 21 is the same God revealed in Deuteronomy—righteous, faithful to His covenant, and utterly just.In short: the numbers differ because the categories differ—not because God’s Word errs.