Prophets and Sour Grapes: Wrestling with Theological Traditions in Homiletical Theology

Introduction

For several years, the movement known as Homiletical Theology (HT) has sought to recover a theological vision of preaching. As David Schnasa Jacobsen notes, preaching itself is “a way of doing theology” that takes the shape of both “practical and constructive theology by virtue of reflecting on the gospel in connection to hearers.” ¹ This view of preaching acknowledges its provisional nature. Preaching never announces a final word but always reconsiders the connections between the gospel and our context, wrestling with the implications of the interaction between them. Preachers, as homiletical theologians, are always grappling with the good gifts of Scripture and tradition, articulating provisional claims that “name gospel” in a given context. Furthermore, HT argues for visions of Scripture and tradition as themselves “unfinished.” Scripture, in this view, is not a monolithic or coherent voice, but is instead a collection of voices wrestling with theological questions that were never resolved. In the same way, what we might broadly conceive as the “theological tradition” is also an unfinished entity that may need repair. ² Thus, HT raises a series of questions about the relationship among preacher, Scripture, and tradition. How should the preacher navigate the various “theological horizons” within the Scriptures we read and the traditions we inherit? Should we reject them outright? Assent to them blindly? Or does the answer lie somewhere in-between?

The good news is that if the claims of HT are correct, then we should expect to see this wrestling occur within Scripture as well. If this is the case, perhaps one starting point would be to identify how certain parts of Scripture wrestle with the theological claims and traditions of other parts. Examining how these voices grapple with other voices—affirming, augmenting, or challenging—might suggest ways forward for our own “unfinished” homiletical task.

In this article I consider how two voices within Scripture wrestle with the tradition of transgenerational retribution. Looking at the “sour grapes” proverb that occurs in both Ezek 18:2 and Jer 31:29, I examine the disagreement between these two prophets over the truth of this theological tradition as represented in their use of this proverb. By exploring how these prophets use the proverb to speak to a particular theological tradition, and disagree on the validity of that tradition for their context, I argue their disagreement arises from the same life-giving intention: to give their audiences the means to survive their present circumstances. From this, I suggest two criteria—one theological, one ethical—that homiletical theologians may use as we wrestle with theological traditions in our constructive tasks. Whether or not a theological tradition gives our community the theological vision to make survival possible should shape our ongoing conversation with that tradition and may serve as a helpful criterion for our own theological wrestling in preaching.

The Sour Grapes Proverb and Transgenerational Retribution

The sour grapes proverb—“The parents have eaten sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge”—portrays a web of relationships, actions, and consequences. We see two groups—fathers and sons—who are joined by familial and genealogical relationships and whose actions are related by cause and effect. This causal relationship is expressed negatively: the fathers eat sour grapes and the children’s teeth are dulled; sons suffer for the acts of their fathers.

While not literally true (my teeth are not dulled when my father eats sour grapes) the proverb functions both paradigmatically and metaphorically to provide a framework for the audience to interpret their situation. The proverb posits a relationship between actors and actions, and then suggests the audience’s situation is analogous to the dynamic interactions the proverb depicts. This enlightens the audience’s understanding of their situation and encourages appropriate action. The proverb depicts an understanding of relationships and causation in the world, identifying through metaphor a reality that is truer than we may want to admit: the actions of others have consequences for others within their social web. ³ Jeremiah and Ezekiel employ the proverb to stand for one side of a theological argument about the question of transgenerational retribution. We should consider, then, what this theological view is and why it would have traction within the communities to which these prophets speak.

The belief that subsequent generations could suffer consequences for a previous generation’s actions finds expression throughout the Old Testament (OT). Recitation of the Ten Commandments in Exod 20:4-5 and Deut 5:9-10 warn that God is “a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and fourth generation … but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation.” A similar concept appears in “creedal” statements that summarize ancient Israel’s understanding God:

The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation. (Exod 34:6-7, emphasis mine) ⁴

This is not the only view of divine punishment or judgment in the OT, yet its consistent expression speaks to its prominence within Israel’s religious imagination. As such, it is easy to see how a proverb that expresses generational interrelatedness could be appropriated, and issued as a paradigmatic statement about the reality of Israel’s covenant with God. As a framework for understanding the world, this proverb holds that Israel’s covenant with God has both spatial and temporal qualities. The inter-connected nature of both Israel’s nationhood and Israel’s covenant with God means that it is not only possible, but likely, that the actions of one generation influence succeeding generations, for good or ill. Unfaithfulness that solicits God’s wrath (e.g., the sins of Manasseh) can be years in the making, delivering consequences upon future generations with little recourse to avoid punishment.

The Sour Grapes Proverb in Ezekiel and Jeremiah

Theological Traditions and Community Survival

There is no denying the differences between Ezekiel and Jeremiah’s use of the sour grapes proverb and the theological tradition of transgenerational retribution it represents. On one hand Ezekiel challenges the proverb through a lengthy rebuttal reminiscent of a legal deliberation. On the other hand, Jeremiah agrees with the proverb and the view of transgenerational retribution it puts forth. But the question remains: what do we make of this difference? How do we account for such different approaches to the question of transgenerational retribution in these, roughly contemporary, prophets? And what might this tell us about how we, as homiletical theologians, wrestle with the theological traditions we have inherited and through which we help those to whom we preach make sense of the world?

Should we conclude that Ezekiel is simply an adherent of a priestly tradition, engaged in a debate with a Deuteronomistic theological position to prove that God’s activity in history is every bit as just as the demands of the legal code God places on Israel? Or should we conclude that in his admission of the sour grapes proverb’s veracity that Jeremiah is simply one more helpless prophet in the Deuteronomistic tradition whose strict adherence to a theology of blessings and curses is no longer able to account for the lived experience of his community and so must initiate a turn to the future to “smooth out the wrinkles”?

Perhaps a way forward at this seemingly irreconcilable point is to focus, not on their specific disagreement over transgenerational retribution, but on what each of these prophets is attempting to do in their own negotiation of this theological tradition. For as different as their responses are, these prophets are united in what they attempt to do for those to whom they speak. And by considering their aims, we may gain an insight as to how we might undertake our own acts of theological negotiation in HT.

The sour grapes proverb represents each prophet’s negotiation with a tradition that seeks to give their audiences a means of surviving in the present. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel give their audiences a message that allows them to move through their present circumstances. Each prophet asserts that this new generation is not fated to live within confines created by a previous generation. Both prophets undertake an act of theological reasoning that has as its goal helping their audiences discern how they might live and act in the present. As different as they are, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah are concerned with the issue of survival.

Ezekiel finds that some in the community use the sour grapes proverb to absolve themselves of responsibility for their circumstances. If these events are the result of another’s sin, then no action or response is required on their part. Thus, the argument that the children should suffer for the sins of their ancestors is the attempted manipulation of a tradition that would release those who affirm it from any obligation of repentance or action. So long as Ezekiel’s audience can blame previous generations for their suffering, they have “no motive to change their situation or their relationship with God.” ²⁰ Ezekiel’s calling into question the proverb’s veracity is his way of challenging that claim. They can no longer profess helplessness in a cycle of retribution because there is not, and never was, such a cycle. Rather, the sufferings of Ezekiel’s audience are the result of their own sins and the avenue of release is repentance. If Ezekiel’s audience will respond in this way, they will surely live.

Likewise, Jeremiah discerns within the traditions of his community a way forward in the midst of chaos. Jeremiah does not deny the collective sins of Israel through the generations, but he does place that theological claim within a larger framework that includes the day when God will bring such a retributive cycle to an end. ²¹ If the theological position expressed through the sour grapes proverb is the only operative claim on the community, the only reasonable response would be despair. Yet Jeremiah asserts a freedom for new actions made possible by God’s promised restoration. Israel is not fated to “live in paralysis generated by decisions previously made” but live in a present that has become “an arena for new action and new possibility.” ²² Where Ezekiel’s audience attempts a manipulation of the proverb, Jeremiah’s audience borders on despair. Thus, Jeremiah announces that God will replace the theological principle that has led to their current circumstances with one that leads to a new future within his audience’s field of action.

Identifying the similar aim behind each prophet’s use of the sour grapes proverb reveals that both prophets understand what is at stake in their wrestling match with the question of transgenerational retribution: the continued survival of their respective communities in the face of tumultuous circumstances. While these prophets disagree on the proverb’s power to accurately describe their audiences’ situation, they concur that such a proverb is not helpful in providing a pathway to survival. ²³ For Ezekiel, survival means challenging the tradition so that his audience will claim their moral agency. For Jeremiah, survival means affirming the transitory status of this theological tradition in the light of God’s continued activity.

Wrestling with Theological Traditions in Homiletical Theology

So what insight might this inter-canonical disagreement concerning transgenerational retribution offer those charged with proclaiming a theological word fitting to the context? I would like to make some preliminary suggestions and raise a few questions this debate will force us to ask as we wrestle with the various theological traditions we inherit and negotiate.

First, I think it is important to note that Scripture itself contains this debate. By whatever process one claims the Christian Scripture came into existence, neither of these voices were removed during that process. The kind of wrestling with theological traditions that homiletical theology endorses is not an alien activity that one imposes on Scripture but a process intrinsic to Scripture itself. ²⁴ Thus, Scripture calls us to engage in this act of “wrestling.” We can neither take such internal variance as a sign that we should reject the tradition outright, nor can we take the position that these theological traditions are above further investigation and negotiation. And we can do our wrestling in the assurance that it is an act of faithfulness with the traditions that have shaped us and that continue to mold the theological imaginations of our congregations.

The question is not if we should engage in this wrestling, but how to wrestle with them in our practices of homiletical reasoning. What guides or criteria might we use to help us find our way? While there are several possibilities, at least one exists within the texts I have discussed. Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah make their arguments in the belief that God is about the business of providing a way forward for God’s people. Ezekiel makes an argument from his understanding that God judges everyone justly. It is because God is this way that any claim from the community that God would “fate” them in ways that gives no path forward for life would be inconsistent with God’s character. Thus, Ezekiel rejects the claim that transgenerational retribution is operative within his community. The community to which Jeremiah speaks is not manipulating a tradition to avoid responsibility, but experiencing a profound sense of despair. In such a situation, Jeremiah does not rebuke those suffering (a terrible idea, as anyone with pastoral experience knows), but comforts them with the announcement that God is going to do a new thing to remove the theological principle that is the source of their despair. In this way Jeremiah affirms the same theological assumption that guided Ezekiel’s rebuke: God is a God of life, who is about the business of providing a way forward for God’s people. In Jeremiah’s case, this will mean doing a new thing that impinges on the present, and gives new meaning and life to the actions of the community.

This connection between these two texts seems to offer us a theological “starting point” for our wrestling with theological traditions in homiletical theology. God, as one who is about the business of new creation, is a God that refuses to be God without us, and therefore is always providing a way forward for God’s people. Thus, one theological criterion for wrestling with theological traditions concerns the use of that tradition, and whether that tradition’s current utilization is consistent with the God whom we worship. If a tradition is being manipulated to avoid responsibility or if it is a source of despair because it limits the field of action in ways that lead the community to a “dead end,” this would certainly be a place to wrestle with the tradition, and call to a new way of thinking and acting. What both Ezekiel and Jeremiah show in their own wrestling is that the same theological tradition can speak different words depending on the situation at hand; they can either be a source of life or despair. They can also be used in different ways by the communities that hold them; in ways either life-giving or sinful. ²⁵ Yet these prophets testify to the reality that God is one who is always seeking to provide new life and a way forward for God’s people. And it is this assumption about God’s character that shapes how they interpret and respond to their community’s theological traditions.

This theological criterion raises a second, ethical criterion, that can serve us in our own homiletical and theological reasoning: survival. Because these prophets evaluate the tradition of transgenerational retribution in light of their belief in God as a God of life who provides a way forward for God’s people, the survival of the community becomes an important principle in their message. When the theological tradition at hand seems to be working, or is being used, in a manner that leads to the community’s death, the prophets act, either by arguing it is not operative, or that God has or will soon do something new. For Ezekiel, the theological tradition was being used in a manner that would lead to the community’s death. Because each person would be judged for their own sin, the belief by the community that they bore no responsibility for their context would only lead to more judgment. For Jeremiah, the theological tradition is a source of despair because it seems to have fated the community to its own death. If their fate has been sealed by the sin of those who came before, they have no hope for survival in any meaningful sense. In response, Jeremiah announces that God is about to do a new thing that opens up the possibility of new life, and with it the community’s survival.

From the prophets’ emphasis on survival, one question we must also ask in our own theological and homiletical reasoning is whether or not a theological tradition, in a given situation or context, is one that can help the community survive. ²⁶ Does the theological tradition in question help the community chart a way forward, or leave them where they are? Does it enliven their theological imaginations and give them “realistically imaginable” paths of faithfulness forward? Or does it restrict and limit, shrinking their ability to act as the people of God in that time and place? One can think of times when a theological tradition could be used in a manner that would lead to death or otherwise restrict our theological vision and imagination. Yet more challenging may be to name instances, like Jeremiah, when the community has inherited a tradition that in their situation would lead to their demise. In that case, the aim would be to help them rethink that theological tradition in ways that give them a path forward.

Conclusion

This article has been brief and cannot in any way claim to be exhaustive. Yet I have sought to provide a brief reflection on how those of us engaged in homiletical reasoning might wrestle with the theological traditions that are a part of our congregations and our preaching. In doing so, I have highlighted a theological criterion and an ethical criterion that can serve as starting points in our wrestling. Theologically, we can reflect on what it means that God is a God of life, who is about the business of providing a future for God’s people. This theological assumption becomes a kind of evaluative tool in our preaching and discernment. Because the same theological tradition can speak different words, or have different uses, in different contexts, this theological claim concerning God’s character can help us to decide whether or not a theological tradition is helpful in a given case. Furthermore, just as the issue of communal survival was an important point for Ezekiel and Jeremiah, we likewise can use this theme in our own wrestling with theological traditions. In doing so, we seek to discern whether a particular tradition, in a given context, can help the community chart a path forward (to survive) or if it leads us to dead ends.

These criteria are not meant to cheapen grace or otherwise dull the sharp point of judgment. Indeed, Ezekiel demonstrates how these criteria do no such thing. And in fact, using these criteria might mean we stand, as Ezekiel does, in some manner “against” the community and the way it is using a theological tradition. But when we do, like Ezekiel, it will be a judgment and discernment rooted in a theological vision of who God is, and who we are empowered through the Spirit to become.