Are questions about the Bible’s reliability all that important? Are they so serious that they warrant discussion on our website on a regular basis? Couldn’t our time be better spent on some other subject?

It certainly is true that Christians have a responsibility to consider many serious subjects. Studies regarding acceptable worship, stewardship, evangelism, church organization, etc., are all topics on which Christians should meditate frequently. However, by acknowledging that a proper understanding of these topics (and many more) rests ultimately on the authority of Scripture, then attacks on the trustworthiness of Scripture is no trivial matter. Skeptics are very well aware of the fact that if they can undermine the reliability of the Bible, then they can undermine the very foundation of Christianity. Unfortunately, with prominent positions in public schools, universities, and the media, the Bible’s critics have become much more powerful and influential in recent times, and can be heard throughout the world on radio, television, and the Internet.

In the May/June 2006 issue of _Biblical Archaeology Review_ , Michael D. Coogan wrote an article titled “Question Authority!” in which he linked the issue of authority (or lack thereof) with Bible (in)consistency.

> “The Bible says” is often regarded as decisive in contemporary debates about such issues as abortion, assisted suicide, the status of women, same-sex relations, capital punishment and war and peace. The problem is that the Bible is often inconsistent …. [T]he Bible does not speak with one voice.
>
> Just because something is written…in the Bible…doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible view or even that it’s true (2006, 32[3]:24, emp. added).

What example did Professor Coogan give to “prove” his point about the Bible’s inconsistency and unreliability? Supposedly, since the Bible teaches that God “punishes children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9),” yet also states “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Jeremiah 31:30), then “the Bible does not speak with one voice,” but is “inconsistent.” Is he right?

In reality, the Bible’s teaching on sin, suffering the consequences of sin, and bearing the guilt of one’s own sin is very consistent. Ever since Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man has suffered the consequences of sin. A person frequently suffers because of his own sins (cf. 1 Peter 4:15). Many times, however, man suffers because of the sins of his forefathers (including parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.). Today, children may suffer because a father is thrown in jail for drunk driving, and thus is unable to provide sustenance for his family. A starving civilization may suffer partially because their forefathers set in place a belief system where eating animals like cows is taboo (since the animal might be a reincarnated ancestor).

God informed the Israelites that the sin of idolatry (and the fruit of such sin) is so heinous and bitter that children (even to the third and fourth generation) would suffer as a result. The children of idolatrous parents sometimes suffered death because their parents sacrificed them to Baal (Jeremiah 19:5). Others, such as those living during the time of the judges, were afflicted time and again with poverty, disease, and slavery, because they, like their parents, “forsook the Lord and served Baal and the Ashtoreths” (Judges 2:13). It may be that even in America, the righteous remnant will suffer because of God’s decision to punish a “God-fearing nation” that presently is expunging Him and embracing sin at every turn.

But, even though innocent descendants may suffer the consequences of their forefathers’ sins, they do not “bear the guilt ” of their forefathers’ sinful actions (Ezekiel 18:20). That is, they do not inherit their parents’ sins. The Bible never suggests that children are guilty of idolatry simply because their parents were idolatrous. Children are innocent; so much so that Jesus said, “of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). Ultimately, being held responsible for sin and bearing the guilt of sin is altogether different from suffering the physical consequences of the actions of others.

In the conclusion of his article in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ , Coogan wrote: “Just because something is written…doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible view or even that it’s true ” (2006, 32[3]:24, emp. added). In reality, it is Coogan’s article that lacks truth, and it is the authority of his article (not the Bible!) that should be questioned.

Understanding the nature of God’s interaction with man is no small task. The sincere Bible student often comes across things in the biblical text that are puzzling. Others, who are perhaps somewhat less sincere, twist these initially puzzling passages “to their own destruction” (as described in 2 Peter 3:16). One such idea that has been abused is the alleged contradiction between how Jehovah dealt (and still deals) with the children of sinful people. Steve Wells, author of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, insists that there is a discrepancy in the Bible regarding this subject. He lists Exodus 20:5, which states: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” Wells then presents Ezekiel 18:20 as a contradictory verse: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself ” (Wells, 2003).

Is there a legitimate contradiction between these verses? Or, to pose the question differently, “Is there any possible way that both these statements can be true?” The fact of the matter is that both statements can be true, without a contradiction occurring. What Mr. Wells and others who twist these verses into an alleged contradiction do not recognize is that there is a difference between bearing the guilt of a parent, and suffering negative physical and emotional consequences due to that parent’s bad decisions.

It often is the case that the children of wicked people suffer terribly. Sometimes these children suffer because the parent physically or emotionally abuses them (in direct violation of Scripture; cf. Matthew 7:12; Colossians 3:21). At other times, the child suffers as a result of the parent’s irresponsible behavior. For instance, suppose a man addicted to gambling wastes his salary on gambling, instead of using it to feed his family. As a result, his children suffer hunger, shame, and poverty.

Yet, even though the children of sinful people often suffer physical consequences, they do not inherit the sin of those parents. The book of Jeremiah provides an interesting commentary on this subject. In Jeremiah 16:1-6, God told Jeremiah that the prophet should not take a wife and/or have children in the land of Israel. God explained His reasoning to Jeremiah as follows: “For thus says the Lord concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place…. ‘They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried, but they shall be as refuse on the face of the earth’ ” (16:3-4). Why was this going to happen? Wells is quick to refer to this chapter, especially verses 10 and 11 where the children of Israel pose the question, “Why has the Lord pronounced all this great disaster against us” (vs. 10)? Wells then records Jeremiah’s answer: “ ‘Because your fathers have forsaken Me,’ says the Lord” (vs. 11). Wells, however, does not cite the very next verse (12), which states: “And you have done worse than your fathers….”

These Israelites were suffering due to the sins of their fathers—and due to their own sins. Their children were going to die gruesome deaths. The skeptic is quick to seize upon this fact, and demand that any time innocent children die, it is a travesty against justice that a loving God never would permit (a fallacious idea that I have refuted elsewhere; see Butt, 2004).

Do children sometimes die horrible deaths due to their parents’ wrong decisions? Absolutely. The Israelites had adopted the practice of sacrificing their own children to a false god named Baal (Jeremiah 19:5). The iniquity of the parents, then, can be visited upon the children in the form of physical suffering. But do those children bear the guilt of that sin? Absolutely not! Ezekiel wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20, emp. added).

Notice the words soul and guilt. Does the Bible ever insinuate, for example, that a child is guilty of idolatry because his parents were idolatrous? No (read Matthew 18:3-5; Luke 18:16-17). Bearing the guilt of sin is altogether different than bearing the physical consequences of the actions of others. As is often the case, the skeptic has confused the two, and has alleged a biblical contradiction where, in fact, none exists. This is yet another example in which the allegation against the Bible fails, but “the Word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).

The argument goes something like this: (1) 1 John 4:8 indicates that “God is love;” (2) 1 Corinthians 13:4 says that “love is not jealous” (NAS); and yet (3) Exodus 20:5, along with several other passages, reveals that God is “a jealous God.” “How,” the skeptic asks, “can God be jealous when several verses say God is love and 1 Cor. says love is not jealous?” (McKinsey, 1992). Simply put, if love is not jealous, and God is love, then God logically cannot be called jealous. Or conversely, if love is not jealous, and God is jealous, then God cannot be considered loving. Right? How can these verses be anything but contradictory?The term “jealousy” most often carries a negative connotation in twenty-first-century America. We pity the man who is jealous of his coworker’s success. We frown upon families who react to a neighbor’s newly found fortune by becoming overcome with jealously. And we are perturbed to hear of a jealous husband who distrusts his wife, and questions every possible wrong action that she might make, even going so far as demanding that she never leave the house without him. Add to these feelings about jealousy what various New Testament passages have to say on the subject, and one can understand why some might sincerely question why God is described at times as “jealous.” The apostle Paul admonished the Christians in Rome to “behave properly,” and put off “strife andjealousy” (Romans 13:13, NAS). To the church at Corinth, Paul expressed concern that when he came to their city he might find them involved in such sinful things as gossip, strife, andjealousy(2 Corinthians 12:20). And, as noted above, he explicitly told them that “love is not jealous” (1 Corinthians 13:4). James also wrote about the sinfulness of jealousy, saying that where it exists “there is disorder and every evil thing” (3:16; cf. Acts 7:9). One religious writer described such jealousy as “an infantile resentment springing from unmortified covetousness, which expresses itself in envy, malice, and meanness of action” (Packer, 1973, p. 189). It seems, more often than not, that both the New Testament and the “moral code” of modern society speak of “jealousy” in a negative light.The truth is, however, sometimes jealousy can be spoken of in a good sense. The word “jealous” is translated in the Old Testament from the Hebrew wordqin’ah, and in the New Testament from the Greek wordzelos. The root idea behind both words is that of “warmth” or “heat” (Forrester, 1996). The Hebrew word for jealousy carries with it the idea of “redness of the face that accompanies strong emotion” (Feinberg, 1942, p. 429)—whether right or wrong. Depending upon the usage of the word, it can be used to represent both a good and an evil passion. Three times in 1 Corinthians, Paul used this word in a good sense to encourage his brethren to “earnestly desire (zeeloúte)” spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1,39). He obviously was not commanding the Corinthians to sin, but to do something that was good and worthwhile. Later, when writing to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul was even more direct in showing how there was such a thing as “godly jealousy.” He stated:I am jealous for you with godly jealousy.For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it (2 Corinthians 11:2-4, emp. added).Paul’s burning desire was for the church at Corinth to abide in the love of God. As a friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul used some of the strongest language possible to encourage the “bride” of Christ at Corinth to be pure and faithful.In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was notenviousof the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His stronglovefor them with anthropomorphic language. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people. Sadly, during the period of the divided kingdom, both Israel and Judah were guilty of “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:6-10). God called Israel’s idolatrous practice “adultery,” and for this reason He had “put her away and given her a certificate of divorce” (3:8). This is not the “lunatic fury of a rejected or supplanted suitor,” but a “zeal to protect a love-relationship” (Packer, p. 189). Jehovah felt for Israel “asthe most affectionate husbandcould do for his spouse, andwas jealousfor their fidelity, because he willed their invariable happiness” (Clarke, 1996, emp. added). Song of Solomon 8:6 is further proof that love and jealousy are not always opposed to each other. To her beloved, the Shulamite said: “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord” (NAS). In this passage, love and jealousy actually are paralleled to convey the same basic meaning (see Tanner, 1997, p. 158)—that (aside from one’s love for God) marital love is “the strongest, most unyielding and invincible force in human experience” (NIV Study Bible, 1985, p. 1012). In this sense, being a jealous husband or wife is agoodthing. As one commentator noted, married persons “who felt no jealousy at the intrusion of a lover or an adulterer into their home would surely be lacking in moral perception; for the exclusiveness of marriage is the essence of marriage” (Tasker, 1967, p. 106).Truly, love has a jealous side. There is a sense in which one legitimately can be jealous for what rightfully belongs to him (see Numbers 25). Such is especially true in the marriage relationship. Israel was God’s chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6). He had begun to set them apart as a special nation by blessing their “father” Abraham (Genesis 12:1ff; 17:1-27). He blessed the Israelites with much numerical growth while living in Egypt (Exodus 1:7,12,19; Deuteronomy 26:5; cf. Genesis 15:5; 46:3). He delivered them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 3-12). And, among other things, He gave them written revelation, which, if obeyed, would bring them spiritually closer to Jehovah, and even would make them physically superior to other nations, in that they would be spared from various diseases (see Exodus 15:26). Like a bird that watches over her eggs and young with jealousy, preventing other birds from entering her nest, God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (see Exodus 20:3-6; Joshua 24:14-16,19-20). Such “godly jealousy” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2) was not what Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:4.

Problem: Ezekiel says clearly God does not punish the sons for their fathers’ sins, but that “the soul who sins shall die [for its own sins].” However, inExodus 20:5we are informed that God visits “the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations.” These seem flatly contradictory.

Solution: Ezekiel is speaking of theguiltof the father’s sin never being held against the sons, but Moses was referring to theconsequencesof the fathers’ sins being passed on to their children. Unfortunately, if a father is a drunk, the children can suffer abuse and even poverty. Likewise, if a mother has contracted AIDS from drug use, then her baby may be born with AIDS. But, this does not mean that the innocent children are guilty of the sins of their parents.

Further, even if the Exodus passage implied that moral guilt was somehow also visited on the children, it would only be because they too, like their fathers, had sinned against God. Noteworthy is the fact that God only visits the iniquities of “those who hate” Him (Ex. 20:5), not those who do not (see also comments onRom. 5:12).