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

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:12-14

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

We now transition to laws of murder and capital punishment. Verses thirteen and fourteen makes a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. The description of a man not lying in wait, but having another delivered into his hand by God, is generally understood to mean killing another by happenstance, not by malice aforethought.

We will read later how a man guilty of manslaughter could still legally be executed, but there were certain cities of refuge he could retreat to where it would be illegal to kill him. Thus, he was a man with a foot in two worlds, not entirely guilty but not entirely innocent, and the law was designed to reflect that nuance. But if the man was guilty of premeditated murder, not manslaughter, then there was no question what his outcome would be, the Lord commanded that such a man should be put to death.

This covers two of the most common forms of killing, but not all. What about killing another man in self defense? Verses 18-19 of this chapter, and also verses 2-3 of the next chapter, will give some more details on lawful and unlawful killing, but nothing concrete on self-defense. From the verses in the next chapter it seems like a man might have been justified in slaying an intruder who came into his abode during the dark of knight (when murderous intent was more likely), but not during the day (when thievery was more likely).

Posted on by Abe Austin

All or Nothing- Luke 9:61-62, 2 Nephi 28:21

And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

COMMENTARY

No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God
Previously we examined the notion that we cannot follow God and indulge in our vices as well. The philosophy that we can leads to all manner of self-contradictions, not least of which is the Bible’s specific condemnation of it!
Some people try to get around this dilemma, though, by compartmentalizing their life. For them religion is an ornament on the shelf, something to add depth and dimension to the collage of their broader identity. It is a garnish to the main dish. It is living with an at-church-religious-self but also an ambitious-career-self. And because the two are separate, the ambitious-career-self does not have to answer to the expectations of the other.
The appeal of such an approach is obvious, but the simple truth is that none of us make it very long by trying to live good-ish. The above verse clearly condemns the notion of committing to God on Sunday, then looking away from Him on Monday. It is true that we play many different roles in life, but the gospel was meant to permeate them all. We should be trying to be Christ-like in how we interact with our community and our career and our friendships and our family and our side-interests, etc.

All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell
Imagine a castle wall made up of a strongly-fortified-bulwark-part, but also a gaping-hole-part. That is the effect of a compartmentalized discipleship. Are we going to hope that the enemy is kind enough to attack the strong area only? As the above verse suggests, I believe the reason why we even think that the gospel can be taken up and put back down stems from the notion that there is no enemy at all. Why bother patching the hole if there is no risk? Once again, though, which is the one entity who would be trying to convince us that there was no need to be protected?