Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #2

I will continue my examination God’s command to slay entire nations. Yesterday I responded to the defenses that suggested this never actually happened, that either God was exaggerating, or that He was incorrectly attributed as the source of those commands when, in fact, they came from man. I generally dismissed these arguments, but I do find the next two categories of defense far more compelling. Today, I will look at the defenses that say that such a slaughter is justified. Here are two examples of this argument:

  1. God has every right to take life, and to use whatever means He chooses, be it a flood, a meteorite, or the armies of His chosen nation.
  2. The destruction of the evil is karmic. “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.” These nations were evil and had caused violence, even upon the innocent, and so they reaped the consequence of violence, even against their innocents.

I think this is a credible position, and it brings to light some interesting realizations. It helps me to recognize that I, and I think many others, are accepting of terrible things happening as a result of karma, or nature, or some sort of cosmic law. If people reap destruction by foolishly testing the forces of nature, it is still just as tragic, but we don’t typically blame the passionless and impersonal hurricane, tornado, or force of gravity for it. The laws of human morality simply do not apply to those forces of nature. Where we struggle, though, is when that force of nature becomes personalized in the form of God.

Christians do believe that there is such a cosmic force of justice which is laid at the very foundation of nature, and which gives the wicked their due, but we also believe that that cosmic force is one and the same as God. And even though we separate that God as being of an entirely different order from ourselves, we still see Him as a person, and we subconsciously apply our own morals and emotions onto Him. We are not supposed to kill the family of our bitter enemy, so we feel that neither should a person-like God.

I do believe that this point of conflict depends on one’s conception of exactly who and what God is. The less that God falls under the category of “just another person,” the more we stop applying the rules of “just another person” to Him.

However, that does still leave a point of discomfort with the passages where God orders the destruction of the Canaanites. Even if we come to view God as being of a separate order that the laws of human morality do not apply to, that is not the case for the Israelite soldiers who actually carried out the slaughter. When God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, when He sent the flood in the time of Noah, surely there were many innocents that died, but at least God carried out those actions by His own hand. Or maybe it was the earth that carried out those actions based on the designs God had laid at its foundation. But for the wars between the Israelites and the Canaanites, it was men with swords that carried out the destruction, and that is a much harder pill to swallow.

Of course, we also bestow our governments with the freedom to carry out great acts of destruction that we feel the common humanity should not wield, and then those governments employ our own populace as soldiers to carry out that task. So, to some degree we are already allowing for the act of destruction to be delegated from a higher authority to the common man. We even allow for the fact that even a moral war is sure to have collateral damage and destroy some of the innocent.

Summary)

I’ve been on one side of this argument and then the other, and in the end, I am still left divided. On the one hand, I really do think these defenses of God’s commands have a solid foundation. They are logical, and they point out that these passages are similar to other acts of destruction that we accept, such as the destruction caused by nature and a justified war.

However, even if I accept these arguments intellectually, I still feel an unease about the whole thing. Some of that might be due to a fundamental misconception I have of who and what God really is, but I don’t think that accounts for all of it. I believe the remaining unease comes when I shift from thinking of the destruction of an entire nation to thinking of the individual destruction of a single innocent. At the macro level I can see the downfall of a corrupt nation which serves the greater good, but at the micro level I see an innocent baby being killed. Let us see tomorrow if the third defense for God’s commands can help me here.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #1

Yesterday I shared some of the common defenses to criticisms of God commanding the destruction of innocents in the Old Testament. I divided those defenses into three categories, and I would like to respond to each of those categories one at a time, explaining what I find convincing or unconvincing about them. Today, I will look at the first category, which was defenses that say that God never actually commanded such a slaughter. Here are two examples of this argument:

  1. God is exaggerating. If I say my favorite sports team “murdered” the other team in last night’s game I’m using the exact same sort of hyperbole. We never do read a verse describing the actual slaying of children, it was only the enemy army that was killed.
  2. This was the work of man, not God. Either corrupt leaders claimed to do this under God’s command, or translators misattributed these messages to God when it was really called for by man.

I wanted to start with these arguments because, frankly, I find them particularly unhelpful. That isn’t me saying that these claims are false, for all I know they could be completely valid, I’m just saying they are only conjecture and that they dodge the real issue.

Personally, it does not bother me to say that the Bible is the word of God…seen through a human lens. I am fine with acknowledging that it has several different versions of the same stories, not all of the details agree with one another, there is the possibility of human malfeasance and error, and some cultural nuances are lost on most of today’s readers. Because of all this, it is possible that when I read a passage, I am not actually getting the pure intention with which it was originally spoken.

But I think it is a dangerous to make oneself judge over which parts are genuinely from God and which parts should be cut out of our faith. To those that say that these passages are misinterpreted, or misattributed, or misunderstood, my reply is, “well, you may be exactly right…but what if God really did say this?”

If your testimony is dependent upon a particular reading of the Bible, and at some point you learn that your reading is false, does that mean that you no longer believe? If we can only accept God with the understanding that He did not order the destruction of these Canaanite nations, then must we reject Him if actually He did make that order? Is that the same conditional faith that we wish to inspire in others? To put their whole hearts and trust in God…well, as long as He didn’t order the destruction of the Canaanites?

Speaking for myself, I don’t know whether God really commanded the slaughter of innocents, but I seek to maintain my faith in Him regardless of whether He did or not. I seek to be able to trust in Him no matter if I understand His reasons or not. To that end, I choose to interpret these difficult passages as literal and accurate, so that I may work my heart into a place of believing no matter what.

Summary)

To be clear, I’m not saying that it is worthless to learn the evidence that lays behind these sorts of claims. I’m all for educating people to the fact that God may not have really commanded this thing. As long as that is not the end of the discussion, as long as there follows: “but even if He really did say to slaughter every man, woman, and child, I am still at peace because…”

Which is exactly what I hope to establish as I pursue this study. Thus, tomorrow I will continue by responding to the defenses that are designed to maintain faith in God regardless of Him ordering such a destruction.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Common Defenses

Yesterday I shared some of the most challenging verses related to God in the Old Testament. I’ll repeat one of those passages here to keep it fresh in mind.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

That God is commanding the slaughter of an entire people, particularly its innocents and infants, is quite concerning. Many apologists have given reasons for why this this action is justified, or why the harshness is actually an act of mercy, or why the whole thing never actually happened. Here is a brief summary of some those arguments, each grouped into their category:

This Never Actually Happened)

  1. God is exaggerating. If I say my team “murdered” the other team in last night’s game, I’m using the exact same sort of hyperbole. We never read a verse describing the actual slaying of children, it was only the enemy army that was killed.
  2. This was the work of man, not God. Either corrupt leaders claimed to do this under God’s command, or translators misattributed these messages to God when it was really called for by man.

The Slaughter is Justified)

  1. God has every right to take life, and to use whatever means He chooses, be it a flood, a meteorite, or the armies of His chosen nation.
  2. The destruction of the evil is karmic. “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.” These nations were evil and had caused violence upon the innocent, and so they reaped the consequence of violence, even against their innocents.

The Harshness is an Act of Mercy)

  1. From the eternal perspective, death is simply an awakening from a painful dream into glory.
  2. When a nation becomes truly depraved, their own children suffer most. Some of these children were already being killed in pagan sacrifices, and those that lived were fixed on a path of corruption. Cutting this misery short was an act of mercy.

Looking over these, some of the arguments are compelling, and I think there is a decent chance that they are correct, but some of them I am far less persuaded by. Over the next few posts, I will address these points in a little more detail. In doing so, I will seek to give the critic his fair due, pointing out the flaws in the ones I find unconvincing and expressing any unease that still remains even after acknowledging the more credible arguments. I will not be irrational in my criticism, though, fairly noting every argument that does sway me towards being more convinced.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Setting the Stage

Before I can begin any discussion, I need to reference the verses that are the most controversial in the Old Testament account. Here are three passages that include God’s mandate that Israel kill every member of the nations that had earned His disfavor.

And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them (Deuteronomy 7:2).

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

God does not hold back in these commands of war. The destruction that He calls for is total and absolute. A divine mandate to destroy is already enough to cause the modern reader to raise an eyebrow, but I think there is a specific aspect to this that is even more distressing than the rest. It is the destruction of the innocents. Slaying enemy soldiers in battle is one thing, but the verses from 1 Samuel specifically call out the slaughter of the infant, who obviously would have been incapable of doing any wrong. Why would God command the death of one such as that?

That is the aspect that I must grapple with as I move forward with this study. To be clear, I do not have to rely on imagination to discuss what is troubling in these passages, they are difficult for me personally. Thus, exploring the issue will also be an exploration of my own faith and conscience.

Tomorrow I will introduce the criticisms and defenses of God that have already been made, and then we will go into greater detail on each point, as well as on my own interpretations and conclusions.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – My Intentions

The Old Testament’s Reputation)

I have been doing a verse-by-verse study of the Old Testament for a few years now. My progress has been slow, I’ve only made it through Genesis and a little more than half of Exodus, but I have been thoroughly enjoying the journey. All of my life this has been my favorite portion of the scriptures. The stories are mythical, like fairy tales, and the lessons are learned by seeing things symbolically.

I am, of course, aware that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for the Old Testament. For many Christians, the book is a stumbling block. They don’t like the God who is portrayed in its passages and prefer to dismiss it as irrelevant now that we have the New Testament. Atheists, too, find fodder for criticizing the Judeo-Christian faiths as having a God that they say is punitive and cruel.

A Need for Analysis)

Perhaps most controversial are the passages where the Israelites are commanded to lay waste to the Canaanites, being ordered to even slay their young. I think most Christians that I know today find these passages difficult, evidenced by how they either ignore their existence or try to make excuses for them. Of course, if something has to be ignored or excused, it is because the criticisms against it strike a chord in the heart of those who would defend it.

In this study, I would like to look at these verses and consider what the appropriate response to them should be. I will include some of the criticisms and defenses that have already been made on this subject, but I will leave it to the reader to explore those arguments in depth if so inclined. I will try to point out ways that the critic might be judging God unfairly, but I will also caution the believer against dismissing difficult interpretations that could be valid. I hope to give due consideration to the entire picture, and to perhaps gain some insight on how we believe and how we ought to.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Unknowable Author

Pure Creation)

John 1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, which Word was apparently an animating and creating figure, by whom all created things were created. Of course, that would mean plants and animals and people, but even more fundamentally, if minerals and atoms and forces of nature are created things, then they were created by this Word also.

Thus, the Word would be neither mineral nor atomic nor natural, but instead an immaterial, uncreated being that has always been. The Word would have created all things, but not been made up of those things itself. It would have made this world, but would not be contained within this world. And the world, by measuring itself, would never find the Word, only clues that it existed somewhere “out there.”

The closest analogue that we have to this sort of creation is when a person composes a story, a song, or some other conceptual thing. The making of something physical like a bridge or a building would not be the same, because that requires using pre-created elements that are composed of the same sort of matter that we are. So, too, the physical book and the ink that forms the notes on the page are not the same, only the idea that is the story or the song itself. These are the things that are pure creations, things that are not made of the same stuff that we are, things that we exist entirely outside of. They are ours, they are of us, but they are also distinct from us.

The Author Becomes a Character)

However, John 1 goes on to tell us, “and the Word was made flesh.” Though the Word was uncreated, existing outside all the material universe, yet it entered into that universe. The author became a character within His own story, meeting and knowing the different protagonists and the antagonists, and influencing them along their way.

We once again have an analogue to this, for we also imbue our conceptual creations with the imprint of our own selves. For example, many authors will conceive of a story by imagining themselves in a particular situation, and then will write their own simulated words and thoughts and feelings within that context. The story itself is an idea, but the author, himself, is an idea within that idea. A love song will draw on the real-world longing and heartbreak of its composer, a conceptual reflection of the heart of the one that sings it. It has often been noted that all art is in some way an expression of its creator, which means the creator is recreated to some degree within it.

The Unknowableness of God)

But who could say that the imprint of the creator is the full creator? The story and the song capture only a single projected dimension of the creator. They do not capture the full person. They cannot. For once again, they are not made of the same stuff that the creator is made of. They cannot have his flesh, his blood, or his evolving states of mind after he first created them.

And so, too, it must be with the Word. For the Word was not a man, but the Word projected a single dimension of itself down into manhood. What we see in Jesus Christ does give us a glimpse at God, but it as flattened and narrow a view of God as the opinions and ideas in a story are a flattened and narrow view of their author.

You are right now receiving my ideas in this post, but think how much separation there is from these ideas to the actual, full me. Think of how much you still do not know about who and what and how I am. How insufficient these words would be to recreate me in the flesh. And then consider that these flat, limited ideas are to me as Jesus Christ is to God.

Thus, if you ever feel that you lack a full conception of God, is it any wonder why? We may know abstractly that He is our creator and that He is good and that He is worthy of our obedience, but none of us can really know Him at all, and we never will in this mortal life. The magnitude of God’s being is beyond incomprehensible. It could not be told in all the space and time of this entire universe because, after all, this entire universe is but an idea within His mind.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God and Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah

I have already reviewed the account of the Lord’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in my standard scripture study, but the story has been on my mind lately and I wanted to address a few points about it in greater detail. All the verses I will be discussing can be found in Genesis 18-19.

God’s “Haggle”)

What first prompted my thoughts on this story was hearing a celebrity give it as evidence of God’s capriciousness, an example of Him being so petty and heartless that He would bargain and haggle over the lives of His children before destroying them. This is, of course, in reference to Abraham petitioning the Lord if He would spare the city for fifty souls, then forty-five, then forty, etc.

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

So, let me first point out that these accusations are obvious falsehoods, completely misrepresenting the story as it is written. God did not haggle or bargain over how many people it would take for Him to spare the city and He never changed His position on the matter. Abraham’s position changed, but not God’s.

The first thing to note is that God never brought numbers into the matter. He simply expressed His judgment, which was to destroy the city, no numbers attached whatsoever, and it was only Abraham who brought up the idea of sparing the city if a particular number of righteous people lived there.

Abraham wanted to know whether God would have spared the city for 50 righteous, and God assures that He would have… but there just aren’t 50. Abraham wanted to know if God would have spared the city for 45 righteous, and once again God indeed would have… but there just aren’t 45. And so on and so on, until Abraham reaches his own personal limit for mercy: 10 righteous souls to spare the city.

That Abraham presses the matter no further than 10 seems to suggest that he, himself, could not condone sparing the city for any less righteous than that. Even he felt it was justified to lose nine or eight righteous, if it meant that such a terrible evil could be blotted from the earth. And, once again, God shows that His mercy extends as far as Abraham could ever hope for. God, too, would have spared the city for 10 righteous…but there just aren’t 10.

When I read the account in Genesis 18, it is not about God and Abraham haggling, it is about Abraham not yet fully trusting God, and him exploring the limits of God’s mercy until he is convinced that God’s judgment is worthy of his trust. God had pronounced judgment, but Abraham wasn’t able to trust that judgment until he was convinced that God came to that determination by due prudence and fairness, and God indulged Abraham’s tests because He wanted to earn Abraham’s trust.

Thus, there is no haggling going on in this story and no changing of God’s mind. God was simply allowing Abraham to double-check His calculations so that Abraham could begin to learn to trust the Lord’s decisions.

God’s Mercy

And, as it turns out, not only was God as prudent and merciful towards Sodom and Gomorrah as Abraham, He was even more so. For after there were not even 10 righteous in the city Abraham would have surrendered any good souls to their destruction, but God would not. God shows us in this story that He cares for even the individual righteous soul, the 1 over the 99. Thus, while He was determined to destroy the city, first He sendt two angels to draw Lot and his family out of the midst of it.

In the records we have, Abraham never beseeched the Lord for the life of his nephew, Lot, even though he knew that Lot lived in the path of destruction. Abraham seems to have been ready to let his own kin die as a justified sacrifice for this destruction of evil. It was only because God was more good than Abraham that Lot and his family were spared.

A Lesson for Abraham)

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice the righteous for the greater good returns again later in his story. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, we do not see a moment of hesitation in Abraham’s response. He forthrightly makes preparation, goes to the place of sacrifice, binds his son, and raises the knife to take the lad’s life. Abraham knew that his son was good, but as with Sodom and Gomorrah, he was willing to sacrifice that good to fulfill the demands of the Lord. But then, as with Sodom and Gomorrah, God intervened to save the good and provide another way.

I wonder whether Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac was, in part, a way for God to teach Abraham a lesson that He had tried to teach with Sodom and Gomorrah, but which hadn’t fully clicked yet. I wonder whether Abraham was too quick to believe in the God that would sacrifice good to destroy evil. I wonder if God temporarily assumed that role when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so that He could then dispel that illusion from Abraham once-and-for-all. I wonder if one of God’s lessons to Abraham in that moment was “Stop seeing me as the God of sacrifice, the God of taking, the God of destroying evil. See me as the God of saving, the God that brings back, the God of redemption!”

This is, of course, pure speculation. I don’t claim to know that this was the subtext to Abraham’s trial, or even if it’s likely. It is simply something that I wonder about. At the very least, it does stand out to me that we have no account of Abraham pleading for Lot’s life nor Isaac’s, and yet God saved them both. Whatever else those facts mean, surely they mean that these stories show God’s mercy, not wrath. They show His care, not indifference. They show His compassion, not brutishness. They show that God is a God who can be trusted when He declares His judgment because He has already analyzed the situation more than we ever could, and He cares for the innocent more than we ever would.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A God of Vengeance

God’s Devastation of Egypt)

In my scripture studies I have been making my way through the early chapters of Exodus, in which we read the story of God sending His plagues against the people of Egypt, afflicting them until finally they let the Israelites go. Recently I noted how these chapters show the side of God that is a God of vengeance. It has stood out to me a great deal just how vicious God’s breaking of Pharaoh and the Egyptians was.

God began the whole affair by summoning forth the blood of the innocent Israelite babes thrown into the river, symbolizing that He was about to require the same blood of the Egyptian people. He then procedurally and strategically took from the Egyptians their comfort, their health, their wealth, their sacred animals, and their safety. He announced that He had propped the entire nation up for the express purpose of beating it down in the sight of all the world. When finally He brought His death upon them, He made sure to take someone from each and every household, ensuring that all of the Egyptians had their hearts broken in the very same night.

One cannot seriously meditate on this story without being moved by the absolute devastation God inflicted upon those people. And more meaningful than the size of the devastation was just how methodical and purposeful it all was. God really knew just how, where, and when to intimidate, to apply pressure, and to break.

A Guilty Heart)

Personally, seeing this view of God does not disturb me. I have always understood and been comfortable with the view that God is to be trusted by the righteous, but feared by the wicked. I know that God endeavors to save the sinner, for He saved me. But before my time of repentance He stood against me and afflicted me, and never did I resent Him for that. I have come to see that the nature of my sins is that they inevitably lead to hurting others, especially those that I love most, and in those moments I am absolutely deserving of God’s judgment and punishment.

Granted, God hasn’t visited me with so great of curses as He did the Egyptians, but neither have I killed thousands of innocent babes as they did. I know that some people struggle with the magnitude of God’s punishments in the Old Testament, but when I read the accounts that are given I do not see that He did anything that was unwarranted. Yes, He smote Sodom and Gomorrah, and Egypt, and the various nations who possessed the land of Canaan, but we also know that they were given to all manner of cruelty and perversion. Many of them worshipped pagan gods which demanded horrifying and barbaric practices, such as the sacrifice of living children!

A Lost Perspective)

The fact is, if we struggle to understand the good in a God who uses great power in attacking the wicked and defending the righteous, it is only because we live a life that is so safe and secure that we cannot fathom the horrors of darkness that God has historically stood against.

In general, as a people today we have no firsthand knowledge of what it is like to live without a powerful government to protect us, or to spend our entire life as a slave to another, or to have no welfare support if we become sick or injured, or to be surrounded by a culture that doesn’t believe in the basic dignity of every person, or to be at the mercy of wild animals and natural elements, or to have the necessity of doing hard labor all day just to have enough food and shelter to survive, or to be constantly be at risk of being slaughtered by a roaming army. Some of the most unfortunate among us might encounter just one or two of these daily realities of ancient life, but overall we are left only to our imaginations of how such an existence must have been.

When one is as vulnerable, persecuted, and afraid as the ancient Israelites then, and only then, can one truly judge whether God’s mighty hand against the Egyptians was a good thing or not.