Authors Christopher
Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard
Dawkins are fond of arguing against the existence of the Christian God by referring to the so-called "evil," "horrid," or "murderous" acts committed by God, especially in the Old Testament(OT) narratives.
In their minds, if God did exist and He was good or loving, He wouldn't carry out such deeds as 1) the killing of "innocent" children 2) the destruction of entire towns; groups 3) or even allow His only Son, Jesus Christ, to be murdered on a cross as payment for mankind's sins.
In what has now become an infamous quote, Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, holds nothing back when expressing his feelings toward the God of the Old Testament:
"Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindicative, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (1)
I freely concede that there are passages throughout the Bible that are difficult to understand and even offensive to the sensitive reader. Many of these passages can be better understood when one is willing to consider: 1) the verses in their context 2) the time period, culture, and society in which they took place 3) God's absolute holiness which logically demands absolute justice 4) and the bigger picture put forth by God in the Bible.
My purpose here, however, is not to explain the supposed hostile passages cited by Bible critics, but to simply demonstrate that the following argument, of which I have entitled, "The Cosmic Monster" Argument, is fruitless:
1) The God of the Bible kills or orders killing, but claims to be loving.
2)A loving God wouldn't kill or demand killing.
3) Therefore, the Christian God doesn't exist.
Why the Argument Fails
1) If the God of the Bible exists, He is the Author and Giver of life; therefore, He alone has the right to take life when He deems it necessary or appropriate.
2) This argument utterly fails to invalidate the existence of a Creator God. At best, it calls His character into question, however, it does nothing to adequately explain away the available evidence for God's existence. Examples would be the origin of the universe, complexity throughout nature's design, our conscience, finely-tuned universe, and the resurrection of Jesus, etc. If one's desire is to disprove the existence of God, deal with the evidence.
3) Calling God names or insulting Him is merely ad hominen argumentation and does nothing to call His existence into question. This only serves to verify that God is not well thought of by the arguer.
4) No matter how morally reprehensible God's actions may appear, remember
that the most important question is, "Is this true?" If so, we must deal
with it, like it or not.
In an article entitled, "Is the Old Testament Ethical?," Apologist Christopher Wright explains why he believes the answer is yes:
6) Jesus affirmed the OT Teachings- Jesus accepted the truth and ethical validity of the OT ("the Scriptures") in His own life, mission, and teaching. His sayings do not contradict or criticize the OT teachings, but deepen its demands or correct distorted popular inferences. "Love your neighbor" meant, "Hate your enemy" to many in Jesus' day, even though the OT never says any such thing! Jesus reminded His listeners that the same chapter (Lv 19) also says, "Love the alien as yourself," extending this to include "Love your enemy," Jesus affirmed and strengthened the OT ethic.
7) The Old Testament narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved- We assume wrongly that if a story is in Scripture it must be "what God wanted." But biblical narrators dealt with the real world and described it as it was, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity. We shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval. OT stories often challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and patience in continually working out His purpose through such morally compromised people and to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides.
8) Let's take a look at a common "atrocity" God is often attacked for, The conquest of Canaan must be understood for what it was
- This event, rightly, is troubling to sensitive readers. We can't ignore its horror, but some perspectives can help us evaluate it ethically.
- It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel's history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy kings or military rivals.
- We must allow for the exaggerated language of warfare. Israel, like other ancient East nations whose documents we possess, had a rhetoric of war that often exceeded reality.
- It was an act of God's justice and punishment on a morally degraded society. The conquest shouldn't be portrayed as random genocide or ethnic cleansing. The wickedness of Canaanite society was anticipated (Gn. 15:16) and described in moral and social terms (Lv. 18:24; 20:23; Dt 9:5; 12:29-31). This interpretation is accepted in the NT (Heb 11:31 speaks of the Canaanites as "those who disobeyed," implying awareness of choosing to persist in sin- as the Bible affirms of all human beings). There's a huge moral difference between violence that's arbitrary and violence inflicted within the moral framework of punishment (this is true in human society as much as in divine perspective). It doesn't make it "nice," but it changes the ethical evaluation significantly.
God threatened to do the same to Israel- and He did. In the conquest God used Israel as the agent of punishment on the Canaanites. God warned Israel that if they behaved like the Canaanites, He would treat them as His enemy in the same way and inflict the same punishment on them using other nations (Lv 26:17; Dt 28:25-68). In the course of Israel's long history in OT times, God repeatedly did so, demonstrating His moral consistency in international justice. It wasn't a matter of favoritism. If anything, Israel's status as God's chosen people, the OT argues, exposed them more to God's judgment and historical punishment than the Canaanites who experienced the conquest. Those choosing to live as God's enemies eventually face His judgment. Not popular, but no less true.
- The conquest anticipated the final judgment. Like the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, the story of Canaan's conquest stands in Scripture as a prototypical narrative, or one that foreshadows what is to come for those societies and individuals who decide to be enemies of God.
An eye for an eye is remarkably humane
Unfortunately this phrase sums up for many what OT law and ethics are all about. Even then they misunderstood that this expression- almost certainly metaphorical, not literal- wasn't a license for unlimited vengeance but precisely the opposite: it established the fundamental legal principle of proportionality; that is, punishment mustn't exceed the gravity of the offense. The rest of OT law, when compared with law codes from contemporary ancient societies (Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite), shows a remarkable humanitarian concern, especially for the socially weak, poor, and marginalized (the classic trio of "the widow, the orphan, and the alien"). Israel's laws operated with ethical priorities of human life above material property and of human needs over legal rights. Not surprisingly, then Jesus (who clearly endorsed the same priorities) could affirm that He had no intention of abolishing the Law and the Prophets, but rather fulfilling them. (2)
Conclusion
When examining and judging the actions of God throughout the Bible, it is necessary to exercise a measure of humility. If the God of the Bible exists, and there is good reason to believe He does, then we must accept the fact that we are subject to Him and His plans.
God gave us life, a free will so that we could walk our own path, and provided a way for those who desire it to spend eternity with Him. These verses, although extremely familiar, still stand true as the day they were penned:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:16-17, NKJV, Emphasis mine).
If I am honest, I freely concede that I struggle sometimes with some of God's actions in the past and present, however, I am willing to accept that His ways are higher than my own because I have good evidence to believe so.
The media named New Atheists fail to explain away the God of the Bible by calling Him names and passing judgment upon His actions, but the greater tragedy lies in the fact that they fail to see all that is golden in the Bible's message because of some seemingly unwanted pebbles.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross
Resources:
1) Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 31.
2) Christopher Wright, Is the Old Testament Ethical?, The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 116-117, Emphasis Mine.
