I must admit, for the longest time I was a Bible reader who was wholly uncomfortable with the notion of there being "contradictions" in the Bible. Actually, I am still that way. In fact, I still do not believe there are "contradictions" per se, but I do, however, believe that there is "tension". As I have said on this site before, because of the way I "image" the Bible, that is, as a "conversation", the idea of tension doesn't bother me. It is now clear to me that persons like Josh McDowell have simply overstated their cases for "biblical unity". To act as if there is no tension in the Bible is to act naively!
I want to give one example of what I am talking about and hopefully, I can write some more on this soon. If we admit that the Bible, like a conversation between persons, is fluid and oriented towards discussion, we also can admit things like the fact that the author of Deuteronomy had different views than say, the prophet Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. Take for instance, Exodus 20.5 (part of the 10 Commandments) which says, "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, 'but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.'"
In that passage, it is clear that transgenerational sin seems like a given, a certain reality! However, it appears that when we read the words of Jeremiah, some tension arises. Jeremiah 31.30 says: "They shall no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." Similarly, Ezekiel says the same thing and elaborates in chapter 18, "As surely as I live declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel...The one who sins is the one who will die."
Clearly, there is tension between the passage in Dt. and those found in Jer. and Ezek. In fact, in the prophetic texts, the authors even go as far as having God snub what He supposedly said years before. Without a doubt, there is some kind of change, modification and innovation going on here! Why it was changed and why there was tension between the texts is something I want to deal with soon. But in the meantime, I raise a couple of questions for you: 1) How do you deal with this tension and how would you help others deal with it, especially new Christians, and 2) What does this tension suggest about the relationship between canon & exegesis as well as theories of inspiration & authority?
I want to give one example of what I am talking about and hopefully, I can write some more on this soon. If we admit that the Bible, like a conversation between persons, is fluid and oriented towards discussion, we also can admit things like the fact that the author of Deuteronomy had different views than say, the prophet Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. Take for instance, Exodus 20.5 (part of the 10 Commandments) which says, "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, 'but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.'"
In that passage, it is clear that transgenerational sin seems like a given, a certain reality! However, it appears that when we read the words of Jeremiah, some tension arises. Jeremiah 31.30 says: "They shall no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." Similarly, Ezekiel says the same thing and elaborates in chapter 18, "As surely as I live declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel...The one who sins is the one who will die."
Clearly, there is tension between the passage in Dt. and those found in Jer. and Ezek. In fact, in the prophetic texts, the authors even go as far as having God snub what He supposedly said years before. Without a doubt, there is some kind of change, modification and innovation going on here! Why it was changed and why there was tension between the texts is something I want to deal with soon. But in the meantime, I raise a couple of questions for you: 1) How do you deal with this tension and how would you help others deal with it, especially new Christians, and 2) What does this tension suggest about the relationship between canon & exegesis as well as theories of inspiration & authority?
