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

Blasphemous Anger Fantasies

A Smug Fantasy)

One of the most common fantasies is imagining someone who has upset us finally having to eat crow and admit that we were right all along. Here are the two most common forms of this fantasy:

  1. Picturing those that have wronged us having negative consequences for their own flaws. The very qualities that they used to hurt us end up hurting themselves, and it is so profound of an experience that they realize their entire life philosophy was wrong.
  2. Picturing those that doubted us watching on as we succeed in every measure where they thought we would fail. They wonder how they could have been so wrong in gauging our worth and they regret the missed opportunity to be a part of our success.

Both forms of the fantasy include the same central component of enjoyment at the groveling penitence of those that have wronged us. I have always felt intuitively that there is something wrong with entertaining this sort of fantasy. It’s too smug, too self-congratulatory, and too judgmental to be a good thing.

As I’ve thought about it further, I’ve realized there is something even deeper amiss with it, something about it that violates a fundamental commandment. It is, in fact, blasphemous.

Making Oneself God)

I’ve come to realize that this fantasy is all about making myself a god over the people that wronged me. Common elements in the fantasy are that the person who committed the offense:

  1. Comes to a recognition of his sin.
  2. Approaches me to ask forgiveness.
  3. Acknowledges that my philosophy and intentions are the correct ones.
  4. Submits unquestioningly to my perceptions of reality from that point on.

This goes far beyond just wanting to prove myself right. This is me wanting to be the very identity of rightness, the deliverer of its word, the voice of truth that the wrong-minded must surrender to. This is trying to claim godhood for myself, and ironically, I show what an unworthy and petty God I would be in the way that I imagine it.

These fantasies are more than unwise, they’re downright dangerous. They seduce us into a state of self-idolatry, which shuts ourselves off from being able to connect with the real God. To overcome the toxic effect of these fantasies we must surrender judgment and justice for those that have wronged us to God, and God alone.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Control You Give to God

The control you give God over your life
When times are good
Is the control God has to save your life
When times are evil

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 25:22

22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

One of the possible reasons I gave yesterday for why the lid on top of the ark might be called the mercy seat was that perhaps it formed a throne from which God would commune with His High Priests. Today’s verse supports that notion, as God says He will speak “from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony.”

The space above the ark was going to be a highly sanctified place, one that could bear the presence of the Lord. So far, Moses had been required to ascend to the top of the mountain to commune with the Lord, but now the area inside of the tabernacle and above the ark would be an adequate domain for the Lord also.

There is a lesson here for all of us to find holy places, areas where the noise and voices and influence of the world cease, where there is enough purity and sincerity that His voice can “commune with thee from above” and “from between.” Obviously the Lord can force His presence suddenly and powerfully, such as when He dramatically appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, but we aren’t meant to rely on such rare occurrences. We’re meant to foster an atmosphere of constant spiritual immersion, like the Israelites were going to create in the heart of the tabernacle, in the space above the mercy seat.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 25:3-7

3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,

4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair,

5 And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood,

6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,

7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.

God had just offered the Israelites the opportunity to make an optional offering, and today we learn it was to be an offering of all the valuables of the world. Precious metals, stones, cloths, animal skins, wood, oil, and spices. Some of these things are precious for symbolic reasons, such as gold which is a pure metal and does not mix with other alloys. Some are precious for aesthetic reasons, such as spices that pleased the senses. Some are precious for their rarity, such as purple cloth, which was a notoriously difficult color to get dye for.

The people are being asked to give that which is rare, functional, beautiful, and symbolic. Of course, in many cases the value of these things is arbitrary. Whatever man decides to assign his greatest value to, those are the same things that he must be willing to part with. Gold is not required because it has great value to God, but because it has great value to man.

And why must man be willing to part with the things of greatest value? Because that is how we show what our highest ideal is. If we don’t give the most to God, then He isn’t actually our highest ideal. If, for example, we retain the best for our own selves instead, then there is nothing more important to us than the self, which precludes any genuine worship of God. Sacrifice of our greatest riches is a necessity for us to engage in worship of the almighty, just as sacrifice of His own Beloved Son was a necessity for God to engage in condescension to us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:12

12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Moses is called up into the mountain again, this time for the Lord to write His laws and commandments upon tables of stone and give them to Moses. Of course, the Lord already had given His laws, at least His preliminary ones, and Moses had written them in a book, but it would seem that the Lord wanted to establish His word with something more permanent.

There is obviously symbolic significance in etching the law of God into the stone. As already mentioned, there is the permanence aspect of it. Words on a page could be torn, blotted out, smeared, stained, burned, and washed away. Ink creates its forms for a time, but negligence, misfortune, and malice can all destroy those forms. A table of stone, however, would be immune to all of the methods of defacing mentioned above. So, too, God’s law was not meant to be smeared or crumpled by the philosophies of man, but to withstand all such attacks.

Though it should be noted, tables of stone are not indestructible either. Though they may withstand much more abuse, they can still be broken, ground into dust, and eroded. God’s law is absolute and eternal, but any form of it here on Earth is subject to degradation. Every earthly attempt at permanence is ultimately in vain and ultimately mankind will always depend on the Lord to refresh His words and His law after we have all gone astray.

Though, there is a counterpoint to this that is also symbolized in the Lord carving His law into the rock. This is the Lord putting His words into nature itself, carving His principles into the very face of the mountain. This suggests to us that even if our structures and edifices to God may deteriorate and grow dim, there are infinite other chapels to Him on Earth that will never cease. His law is written right into the layers of our rock, the fibers of our trees, and the lettering of our DNA. All the Earth is secretly imprinted with Him and His word, and those truths can be drawn out by the truly observant in every age.