I write often on my blog about contradictions (or well things that I think are contradictory:P) and do this perhaps to the frustration of some of my readers. I realize this and am thinking of writing a bit more constructive stuff:) as while being critical is a good thing when it is aimed for getting a better understanding of certain issues, once this aim is lost it can yield bad character traits such as haughtiness, bitterness, not to mention a divisive spirit. And I think I am guilty of this.
That doesnt mean I plan on sticking my head in the sand as there are real contradictions, not only in our life of faith but also in the text of the Bible, that need to be confronted, the question just is in what way. In the past I often resorted to apologetics, I held to certain ideas and the text had to conform to these, naturally I felt like I was conforming to the text but when looking back dont think that was the case.
This is however not something that can just be turned off, we all operate from a paradigm that has been formed over the years and cant approach a situation without any presuppositions. But I do think that realizing our own paradigm can make us more aware of our own biases and assist in approaching the text in a more balanced way.
A while ago while discussing one of those contradictions, it being the discrepancy between the first chapters of Genesis and modern cosmology, a friend pointed me towards an amazing footnote in R. Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man, in which he dealt with contradictions, here it is:
One of the thirteen rules for interpreting the Torah is the contradiction between two verses and their harmonization by a third verse. Therefore, it is not for naught that the Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 56:8 [cited in Rashi in on Gen. 22:12]) informs us that after the angel told Abraham, “Lay not they hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him” (Gen 22:12), Abraham arose and asked: Yesterday You told me “Take now, thy son, thine only son…and offer him there for a burnt-offering” (Gen 22:2), etc., etc. – i.e., the exalted drama of the Akedah, of the binding of Isaac, is reflected not only in the act of self-sacrifice on the part of the father and the son and in the offering up of Isaac as a sacrifice on the altar, but also in the struggle taking place within Abraham’s soul. For it seemed to him as though the words of God were contradictory, heaven forbid; nevertheless, he overcame the pangs and torments of contradiction, rose up early in the morning and saddled his ass. When the angel appeared to him and revealed to him the third verse which harmonized the two contradictory verses, then Abraham rose up and questioned.
And he continues by relating the following story:
I once heard from my father [R. Moses Soloveitchik] in the name of our great master, R. Hayyim of Brisk [R. Soloveitchik's paternal grandfather], that as long as the third harmonizing verse had not yet been revealed, Abraham had no right to question God’s word, and for this reason he contained himself until the end of the epic. The pangs of consciousness of the man of God and the towering and awesome strength of his self-restraint shine forth here in a clear and pure light. [1]
I found this very inspiring and think it exemplifies an appropriate humility in dealing with contradictions. Though this is not easy, especially not for us western readers, who are not used to contradictions remaining unsolved.
And needless to say, a critical attitude is good but at the same time it should know its own boundaries and when appropriate remain silent before Him Who is above all comprehension.
—————————————————————-
[1] R. Joseph Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: JPS, 1983), p. 143
Daniel, that was very inspiring. Thank you especially for sharing that quote. It is particularly comforting to realize that people have had to deal with tension and crisis in faith even as early as Abraham.
Daniel:
Beautiful words from Soloveitchik. Thank you for sharing.
Derek Leman
I don’t want to be a kill-joy but the example taken from Genesis Rabba isn’t an example of a real contradiction. A real contradiction occurs if the same thing is both affirmed and denied at the same time and under the same respect. In the case of the Binding of Isaac the affirmation however was “yesterday” and the denial “today”. So there was no real contradiction, because of the difference in time. Abraham would have faced a real contradiction if he had been commanded: “Take now, thy son,..&c, and take not now, thy son,..&c”. If that — per impossibile, I would say — had happened Abraham no longer had been able to respond properly to the commandment, because of simply not knowing what to do.
It is an essential aspect of the flowing nature of time that things which are incompatible and contradictory to be actual at the same time, can be actual one after the other. If that weren’t possible there could be no movement or change.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the post, because of the real problematic addressed by it, which is that we are not always able to harmonize Scripture.