Contradictions in the Bible

I find it very amusing when people think they have somehow achieved something when they find contradictions in the narratives of the Bible. E.g. that somehow the fact that the gospel writers cannot agree on the number of angels present at the resurrection tomb somehow proves it couldn't have happened. Almost as (tragically) amusing as the literalistic Christians who try and create "harmonized" versions to "reconcile" the different narratives. Well, I am sure God appreciates your efforts to correct his mistakes! But that is not what I am posting about here.

The real contradictions in the Bible are the source of its most beautiful theology. When you contradict something your speak (dict) against (contra) it. In Deuteronomy 10:14-19 we have two wonderful examples of Biblical contradictions that result in meaningful practical theology.

14. To the Lord you God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

So here we have a clear statement that God is in sole possession of the whole universe both seen and unseen. This is a clear affirmation of God's universality (i.e. he is no provincial deity belonging to a local people group) and of his transcendence (i.e. otherness and difference from the concerns and world of humanity).

15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.

Yet in the very next verse this picture of a universal transcendent almighty God is contradicted by the statement that God had chosen Israel (i.e. was behaving not universally but particularly) and loved them (was allowing himself to be concerned and affected by their actions and well being). And so the Israelites are being presented with a tension that this contradiction has created. They believe both statements even though there appears to be an incompatibility between them. This tension creates an energy that pushes Israel to respond in a certain way.

16. Circumcise your hearts therefore, and do not be stiff necked any longer.

Because the universal God has chosen to be God to Israel in particular they must do two things: maintain a purity and holiness of "heart" (i.e. the inner person), and must be humble and teachable (because they will be the ones to teach the rest of the world about God).

The pattern is then repeated in 17-19:

17. For the lord you God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

Once again God's transcendence is asserted and this time also his great power. Of course, God accepts no bribes, not only because he already owns everything (vs 14), but because of his totally incorruptible character.

18. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien [foreigner], giving him food and clothing.

Wait a minute, if God is impartial, how can he take sides and defend the cause of these? Wait a minute, if God is powerful why does he have any interest in the powerless of society? Once again this contradiction creates a tension that requires action of those who know God.

19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens [foreigners] in Egypt.

And so the people of Israel are not to behave like some super race, feeling superior that God has chosen them. Instead they are to love (!!!) those who are different and vulnerable in their society reflecting the fact that their God contradicts his universality and unlimited power with a particular concern for the powerless.

Now some of you will be thinking that those contradictions are nothing of the sort. But that is only because you are used to thinking about God from the end of 2000 years of Christianity, 2000 years after God was revealed in and through Jesus Christ. From the point of view of the ancient near east when these text were given to Israel, many centuries before Christ, these contradictions are both blatant and highly surprising.

Let me know what you think :-)

[Thanks to Chris Wright, The Mission of God, p79, for this structural analysis of Deut 10:14-19!]

Mercy and Justice in Islam and Christianity

David Neff writes in December's Christianity Today (p42):

"One insight from the "Loving God and Neighbor [sic] Together" dialogue between Muslims and Christians held this July at Yale University was the difference between our understandings of love, compassion, and mercy.
"The Christian participants had been taught by Jesus that love should be indiscriminate - just as the mercy shown by the Good Samaritan was conditioned on nothing but the wounded mans need. That may not be the way we generally behave, but... it is the standard against which we measure ourselves.
"The Muslim participants startled us Christians by talking about the limits their religion brought to their compassion. Orphans, widows, and others in need through no fault of their own deserve compassion, they said. But in Islamic ethics, there was no obligation to help the person whose drunkenness or gambling or otherwise unwise behavior [sic] put them in difficulty.
"Reflecting on what I heard those Muslim leaders say, the tension was not between a generous God and a stingy God... but between mercy that was defined and conditioned by justice (the Muslim view) and justice that was conditioned and defined by mercy (the Christian view)."

Now, pardon the long quote, but isn't that seriously interesting? Our view of God radically affects the way we view ourselves and treat other people. Some questions for discussion:

1. What advantages does the Muslim view hold?
2. If you were/are a Muslim how would you differentiate between those who were deserving of mercy and those who were not (e.g. an alchoholic orphan)?
3. If you (Mulsim/Christian/other) have ever received compassion what was it about you that brought compassion from others?
4. On what grounds do we (anybody) expect God to have compassion on us?
5. If you are a Christian how do you ensure that you love indiscriminately, like your God?

Let me know what you think :)