In his blog post, Emerson Green lists ten “incontrovertible contradictions” in the Bible. The one he chose above was a particularly poor example to prove the fallibility of the Bible. And that is true for several reasons. The two specific passages he chose to pit against one another were Micah 7:18 and Jeremiah 17:4. Let us start with the verse in Micah since there is little controversy about what it says.
Micah 7:18
“Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in showing clemency.” This is actually a quotation of Exodus 34:6-7, also cited in Numbers 4:10; Psalm 103:7-14; and Jeremiah 32:18.
The historical context behind Micah's statement is described by Chisholm: “Judah's present was marred by their sinful obsession with idols (17:1-2). This idolatrous worship was designed to ensure the nation's prosperity, but the Lord would hand their wealth over to the invaders (vv. 3-4).”
Many other OT passages could be quoted which state the very same principle, and commentators are united in their interpretation. Below are just a few examples:
“Yahweh's faithfulness sometimes is applied in two main ways within the context of Yahweh's punishment of the people. On the one hand, Yahweh's faithfulness provides the basis for his abundant mercy and his reluctance to mete out punishment (Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18); on the other hand, when Yahweh does pass judgment, it is out of his faithfulness and genuine love for his people...Thus, judgment against the people of Israel and Judah is viewed as the result of a loving God who cares enough to discipline his people.” (Cook)
“This description of the complexity of God's character as both forgiving and judging is echoed elsewhere (e.g., Num 14:18; Ps 103:7-14; Jer 13:18...” (Sanderson)
“The verb nasa often means 'to lift up, carry.' When used in relation to sin, it usually refers to bearing sin like a burden or bearing the consequences of sin...However, occasionally it refers to taking sin away in an act of forgiveness (Is 2:9; 33:24; Hos 1:6; 14:2; Mic 7:18).” (McKeown)
McConville states that Micah 7:18-20 is “the theological high point in the book.” He compares it to Hosea 11:8-11. “This is a hope that can reckon with the reality of judgment, but believe, on the grounds of God's character and historic commitment to Israel, that judgment may not be the end.”
“Ultimately, what overcomes divine wrath is divine compassion. Even though Yahweh was angry at Israel, his anger was replaced by a desire to comfort them instead (Is 12:1). Yahweh declares that his anger was temporary, but his love and compassion will be everlasting (Is 54:8). Because Yahweh's compassion grows warm and tender, he will no longer execute his fiery anger, nor come in wrath (Hos 11:8-9). Finally, God does not retain his anger forever because he delights in steadfast love and compassion (Mic 7:18-19).” (Lamb)
“The recurrence of the language of Exodus 34:6-7 reinforces that while God's judgment is in force, it still remains an extension of the 'steadfast love of the LORD,' so that his mercy and compassion might be demonstrated...The destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms was justified because of sin, but God in his mercy will restore his people and land, even creation itself, because of his justice and righteousness (Mic 4:1-7).” (H.A. Thomas)
“Having announced judgment because Israel has failed to reflect God's character (Mic 6:8), Micah in the last few verses of the book, returns to the question raised by Hosea's awful announcement of Yahweh's rejection of his people. Because of Yahweh's exodus self-revelations, judgment cannot be the last word. The God who delights in clemency will again show mercy, compassion and covenant faithfulness to His remnant people (Mic 7:18-20; cf. Ex 34:6-7).” (Watts)
Jeremiah 17:4
Next we turn to this apparent sole outlier that goes against all that is stated above when it declares: “You shall loosen your hand from your heritage which I gave to you and I will make you serve your enemies in a land which you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn for ever.”
Here is how several scholar weigh in on the meaning of this verse:
L.C. Allen: “Jeremiah's premonitions crystallized into Nebuchadnezzar's devastating campaigns and deportations, as his prophesying turned inexorably into fulfillment. Such vehement warfare was a measure of divine anger, in a radical reprisal provoked by Judah's aberrations (Jer 4:5-8; 7:18-20; 21:3-7; 32:28-30,37; 52:3).”
Marlow talks of “the concept of the land as the Lord's most beautiful inheritance or heritage (nahala) (Jer 3:18-19), which the children of Israel have defiled (Jer 2:7; 16:18), and which they will forfeit on account of their actions (Jer 17:4).”
Gane says that “expiation was impossible, and they would suffer the divine judgment of exile (Jer 17:3-4).”
Contradiction?
So much is not in doubt, but does Jeremiah 17:4 really contradict the combined witness of Micah 7:18 and related verses? There are two ways to approach this conundrum.
Translation Issues
“On the whole, every translation of 17:2-3 remains uncertain.” And that uncertainty carries over to v. 4 as well. (Hulst)
The first and perhaps the easiest to comprehend is to consider what Jeremiah is really stating here. A simple look at the grammar of Jeremiah 17:4 reveals that it is not God's anger (better translated as “wrath”) which burns for ever, but the consequences of that anger. And those are the natural consequences of the people's idolatrous actions. A somewhat related idea is expressed in Hosea 8:7 when the prophet talks about Israel's worship of idols: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” The metaphor involves wind in place of fire, but the concept is the same.
When I was a chemist back in New York State, we had a small Bible study which met at lunchtime. One of the participants was a young technician who had led a wild life before he met the Lord. He had to admit to us that he was having a very difficult time comprehending even the simplest concepts that we were discussing since, in his words, “My brain is fried from taking too many drugs.” There is no doubt in my mind that God had long ago forgiven him and no longer visited His wrath on this young man. But there is also no doubt that the consequences of his earlier acts would be with him as long as he lived.
Applying that concept to the historical context of Jeremiah 17:4, we know that due to Israel's grievous sins God removed the blessing of the land from them. Of course, a remnant of the people subsequently returned to a portion of that land, only to be subsequently subjugated by several foreign powers over the centuries as well as being sent into exile again under Roman occupation. And an even smaller remnant of Jews occupies an even smaller part of the Holy Land today. Though God has repeatedly shown mercy to His historic people over the years, the Jews are still living out the consequences of that initial act of disobedience. They sowed the wind and are still reaping the whirlwind however God may view their current spiritual status.
Confirming the above view that this verse in no way says that God's anger lasts forever is what Jeremiah himself says elsewhere in his long book. Allen states, “Jeremiah stands in the tradition of Hosea that embraced post-judgment hope, and so the merited 'forever' of Jeremiah 17:4 is transcended. 'Everlasting love' (Jer 31:3) will trump the divine hatred in Jeremiah 12:8 (cf. Hos 9:15; 11:8-9).”
And Thompson says, “The picture is consistent with much of Jeremiah's preaching. Judah's rebellion was deep-rooted and ineradicable unless a deep change such as described later in the book (31:31-34) took place. Only when God wrote his law on his people's heart could obedience replace rebellion.”
Textual Issues
The following discussion may be a
little complicated and confusing; I know it was for me. It involves
the concept of textual criticism. Many conservative denominational
doctrinal statements express their attitude toward the Bible by
saying something like: “The original manuscripts of the Bible are
free from any doctrinal and factual error.” The problem comes in
with the inescapable fact that in no case do we possess the original
manuscript. We may have very ancient copies of copies of copies of
the original manuscripts, but in no case has anyone ever found even a
scrap of papyrus in Moses' or Paul's handwriting. However, we do have
numerous early copies that can be compared to one another as well as
early translations in other languages. From those, scholars attempt
to reach a consensus as to what the original must have looked like.
And they are generally able to do so except in difficult cases, one
of which happens to be Jeremiah 17:1-4. Here is a brief summary of
the problems we face with this text:
“The text [of verses 3-4]
is obscure; RSV translates with help from the similar passage
15:13,14.” (Cawly and Millard)
“Hebrew here has, 'You (plural) have kindled a fire,' which would fit save that the person of address is singular elsewhere in vss. 3-4.” (Bright) He calls the oracle of verses 1-4 “textually much damaged.”
In comparing the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 17:1-4 with the corresponding Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Thompson says, “The whole of vv. 1-4 is lacking in LXX for a reason that is not now clear...it seems likely that these verses were lacking in the Qumran text also.”
Bullock lists six longer passages of Jeremiah which are missing in LXX, including 17:1-5a. He states, “These omissions may be due to scribal errors...Yet some may indicate that the translator was working with a different [and perhaps earlier] version of the Hebrew text than has come to us...”
Jeremiah 17:1-4 and 15:13-14
As if this were not enough problems to deal with, there is also the almost identical wording in these two passages mentioned above by Cawly and Millard. One can view that relationship in various ways:
A. Both are original to the manuscript.
B. Jeremiah 17 is a misplaced copy of Jeremiah 15. If so, it would explain why LXX omits it altogether, as does John Bright, who calls the verses a damaged variant of 17:1-4 in his Anchor Bible translation. However, Thompson defends the current placement of 15:13-14: “Although these verses are a partial duplicate of 17:3-4, they are hardly to be regarded as simply an intrusion into the text but may be seen as a significant part of the total picture.” In a similar manner, Wiseman says, “These two verses are no insertion but essential here to show that the continued stubbornness of the people will be no match for the Babylonians...”
C. Jeremiah 15 is a misplaced copy of Jeremiah 17. This would explain why RSV uses ch. 17 to help translate ch. 15 and why NEB omits 15:13-14 in its translation. But if this is true, it raises another possibility since the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts of 15:14 actually say nothing at all about the duration of the consequences but end with “upon you” not “forever.” Thus, we have the following accurate translations of the end of 15:14, all in basic agreement with the King James Version:
“My anger burns like fire, and it will consume you.” (Living “Bible)
“My anger is blazing and fierce burning in hot judgment against you.” (The Message)
“My anger will kindle a fire that will burn against you.” (NIV)
“My anger will kindle a fire which shall burn you up.” (JB)
So if Jeremiah 17:1-4 originated with 15:13-14, it is clear that there should is no mention in the latter passage of an “everlasting” punishment at all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments