Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. Jesus himself claims that the third person of the Trinity, the Father, is in him, and that he is in the Father (New International Version, John 14:11). Yet, many people find a disconnect between the loving Jesus and the wrathful Yahweh.
One response to this perceived inconsistency is Marcionism, a practice that accepts Jesus as the Son of a loving God, who was different than the harsh Creator of the Old Testament (Copan 20). If this is the case, that Jesus was separate from Yahweh, then clearly much of his teaching was based on falsity. Luke records that Jesus read a prophecy out of Isaiah;
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,”
and then said, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (NIV, Luke 4:16-21). Clearly, here, he identifies himself with the God of the Old Testament. If Marcion is right, then Jesus was lying. That, or this written passage was made up by its author. The implications of Marcionism are drastic. Jesus is not the fulfillment of prophecy, there are multiple gods (good and bad), one of which must be the “best” god (?), and much of the Bible is a lie.
Others have tried to make sense of the Old Testament’s record of God’s acts, many simply concluding that this God is not good at all, as proclaimed by the title of Christopher Hitchens’s book God is not Great (Copan 20). Richard Dawkins claims that:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (qtd. in Copan 21).
Dan Dennett describes this God as a “super-man” (Copan 21) with a “great appetite for praise and sacrifices” (qtd. in Copan 21). Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith, points out the absurdities of Old Testament laws, such as “stoning children for heresy” (Copan 22).
So far, conclusions have been that either 1) The evil God of the Old Testament is a separate entity than the loving God of the New Testament (Marcionism) or 2) The God of the Old Testament, regardless of whether or not he is also the God of the New Testament, is an ego-centric, wrathful, irrational bully.
One response to these perspectives, Copan points out, would be a claim echoing that of the biblical book of Job (195):
The LORD said to Job: “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” … “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? … Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox… Can anyone capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose? “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope? … Can you make a pet of it like a bird or put it on a leash for the young women in your house? … If you lay a hand on it, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! … No one is fierce enough to rouse it. Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (NIV, Job 40:1-2, 7-9, 15, 24; 41:1, 5, 8, 10-11)
Essentially, what right do creatures have to question their Creator? The One who artistically created Behemoth, possibly the hippopotamus or elephant (“Job” 753), as well as humans, who controls Leviathan, or “evil political powers” (“Was This Fire-Breathing Dragon Real?” 754)–what right could we have to ask why he does what he does? God “has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (NIV, Ecclesiastes 3:11).
For many people, this is not a sufficient response. Paul Copan, in Is God a Moral Monster? : Making Sense of the Old Testament God, combats “the-Old-Testament-God-is-evil” claims by presenting a new perspective on God’s behavior. Some of the points he focuses on are: 1) God’s apparent “need” for praise and his jealousy, 2) God’s request that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, 3) Irrational laws given in the Old Testament, and 4) God’s apparent xenophobic commands for the Israelites to make war on foreigners.
First, Copan points out that pride is thinking more highly of oneself than one deserves and that humility is being realistic about one’s strengths and weaknesses (28). In light of these definitions, God is not prideful in outlining his accomplishments, as he did in the book of Job. God has an accurate view of himself as Creator. Moreover, praise naturally flows out of enjoyment. When a person derives pleasure from a work of art or a culinary dish, they automatically praise it in their hearts, and often the praise comes out of their mouths, and urges others to also seek, enjoy, and praise that object of value (Copan 31). Copan points out that, often, “God isn’t the one commanding us to praise him. Typically, fellow creatures are spontaneously calling on one another to do so” (31). Even so, if God does command us to praise him, it is for good reason. Copan explains that humans are “naturally religious creatures” and are constantly looking for something to worship (30). God knows that the other things we seek to worship on this earth will not satisfy, so he commands that we worship him alone. God’s commands and human nature are not in conflict–God gives us commands because he, as Creator, knows how we work and how we will be most satisfied (39). Copan uses an analogy of marriage; it is entirely appropriate for a man to be jealous for his wife, to desire that she refrain from having a similar relationship with any other man, so that the intimacy of that unique relationship can be preserved (39). If a husband shrugs it off when he finds out his wife is sleeping around with other men, he probably does not care for her all that much. Similarly, God cares for us, so he does care that we attend to him only.
Second, Copan addresses the issue of God’s command to Abraham to “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering” (NIV, Genesis 22:1). One response to this passage is that, if the command was simply a test, it was an evil and unnecessary thing to request. Agnostic author Bart Ehrman says, “The idea that suffering comes as a test from God simply to see if his followers will obey” is horrible (qtd. in Copan 43). Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard believed that “God’s command to Abraham suspended typical ethical obligations” (Copan 43). So then, God arbitrarily changes what is considered right and wrong? No. Copan explains that God never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac (47), but used the command and the response of obedience as a foreshadowing of his own sacrifice of his own beloved son, Jesus (48). Abraham’s obedience showed that he trusted and feared God, and God responded by saying, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” and providing “a ram [to be] sacrificed… instead of his son” (NIV, Genesis 22:12-13). As God provided the ram for the burnt offering, he also provided his one and only son, Jesus, as the offering for the sins of the world.
Third, Copan explains that the seemingly irrational commands given in the Old Testament were created for the Israelites based on their current worldview, in order to gradually lead them toward God’s ideal. God set his ideals in place at the beginning of creation, but Adam and Eve disobeyed and their heirs continued to ignore his original plan, so God set these new rules in expectation of a future covenant (Copan 59). God met the Israelites halfway amongst the culture they were submerged in; the practices he commanded were much more humane compared to those of mainstream pagans (Copan 61). For example, in Deuteronomy, it is commanded that, after a trial in which a person is found guilty, the prosecutor beat the guilty person no more than forty times (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). Why would a loving God command violence? Well, he is also a just God. This system of justice was much less gruesome than that of others in Ancient Near Eastern Culture. For one thing, the beatings were limited. In the Code of Hammurabi, punishments included having various body part’s cut off or “being dragged around a field by cattle” (Copan 93). Specifically, the Code of Hammurabi condemned thieves to death, whereas the Old Testament law commanded “double compensation for the loss” as stated in Exodus 22:4 (Copan 93). Egyptian law allowed a person to be beaten one hundred times minimum, two hundred times maximum, whereas Old Testament law limited beatings to no more than forty (Copan 93).
But what about those Old Testament laws that do command the death penalty? For example, it is stated that “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head” (Leviticus 20:9). Death sentences are also given to blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, and “stubborn and rebellious” children (Lev. 24:1-14, Num. 15:32-36, Deut. 21:18-21). That seems pretty harsh! Yet Copan explains that these harsh punishments were assigned to those who defiantly opposed God’s commands, “to be sobering reminders of what God expected” (90). Moreover, the rebellious child described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 would likely “have had a profoundly destructive effect on the family and the wider community… The son… would inevitably squander his inheritance when his father died; he would likely bring ruin to his present and future family” (Copan 91). The rebellious attitude of the heart was a serious offense.
What about the seemingly sexist undertones of Old Testament law? When mothers give birth to baby girls they are considered ceremonially unclean for twice as long as they are when they give birth to baby boys (Lev. 12:2-5). Some have interpreted this as a claim that women are less “clean” than men. Leviticus 22:13 makes reference to a girl returning to “her father’s house” (NIV). Why not her “father and mother’s house”? Women were also not allowed to be priests. These are just a few of the places where it seems that men are presented as superior to women. In response, Copan first returns to the claim that temporary laws were set to move the Israelites toward the original ideal set at Creation, which is, in this case, men and women existing in equality (102). In the beginning, God proclaims that “it is not good for the man to be alone” and that he will “make a helper suitable for him” (NIV, Genesis 2:18). This word “helper,” or “ezer,” is also used to describe God in the Psalms (Ps. 10:14, 30:10, 54:4) and does not connote inferiority (Copan 103-104). Soon after the author recounts the creation of male and female, the mandate is given that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (NIV, Genesis 2:24). This passage also suggests that man and woman are equal, for, how or why would a person become one with something inferior to their own self? Moreover, one biblical author states, “I am my lover’s and my lover is mine” (Song of Songs 6:3), suggesting that they submit to one another in a relationship of mutuality. Proverbs 31 describes the ideal woman of strong character–this surely combats the idea that women are not valuable.
Let’s look at Copan’s responses to a couple of specific cases: purity rituals and exclusion from the priesthood. First, Copan explains that, during a birth, the mother would bleed a large amount, causing her to be unclean due to her contact with blood. When baby girls were born, they would also bleed, presumably doubling the level of uncleanness (whereas baby boys did not bleed at their birth), requiring double the time period of cleansing (Copan 106). Second, Copan points out that a lot of men were excluded from the priesthood as well, namely, those who did not descend from Levi and Aaron (Copan 108). A significant reason that women were excluded from the priesthood, Copan says, is to distinguish the Israelite religion from that of the pagans. Pagan temples often included practices such as temple sex, with animals, women, and/or men, meant to increase fertility (Copan 108). Having a male-only priesthood maintained the distinction between pure worship and the sacredness of sex within marriage (Copan 109). Additionally, it should be noted that the priesthood was offered to all people, through God’s mandate, “you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (NIV, Exodus 19:6). God never deemed women unworthy of priestly roles. In fact, the Old Testament does record a few women acting in priestly roles. Copan points out “Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4-5, esp. 4:4), and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14)” as being “teachers, judges, and prophetesses” (109).
Finally, God commands the Israelites to “Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you” (NIV, Deut. 20:17). What does God have against these people, and is it worth killing them? Let’s look at the second part of this command, “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God” (NIV, Deut. 20:18). God wanted to prevent the Israelites from participating in idolatry, which, as we already discussed, would not fulfill them. What “detestable things” did they do? Copan points out that the Canaanites engaged in “incest… adultery (temple sex), bestiality, homosexual acts (also temple sex), and child sacrifice,” as explained in Leviticus 18:20-30 (Copan 159). Moreover, the “bloodlust and violence of the Canaanite deities” influenced the Canaanites culturally (Copan 159). Archaeologist William Albright comments on the Canaanite goddess Anath, who “waded in [blood] up to her knees–nay, up to her neck,” who adorned herself with severed body parts and “washed her hands in human gore” (qtd. in Copan 159). One practice that imaged these gods was “ripping open pregnant women” (Copan 162). These people committed appalling sexual and violent acts in the name of religion, and God would not stand for his creation being abused for so long.
He did, in fact, give them quite a long grace period. Copan writes that God waited “about 430 years because ‘the sin of the Amorite… has not yet reached its limit’ (Gen. 15:16 NET)” (Copan 159). God considered them “irredeemable, beyond the point of no moral and spiritual return” (Copan 161). They continually rejected God, despite his revealing himself to them, which can be inferred from Rahab’s admission, “We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt… When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below” (NIV, Joshua 2:10-11). Rahab herself repented and was spared (Josh. 2:14). Copan presents the argument that “a straightforward peace pact could have been available to any Canaanite city” (180). The option was available for the Canaanites to turn to Yahweh and be spared, but many of them remained defiant. Even so, Richard Hess argues that “the Canaanites targeted for destruction were political leaders and their armies rather than noncombatants” (Copan 175). Copan likens the terminology of utter destruction to that used in reference to sports; “Just as we might say that a sports team ‘blew their opponents away’ or ‘slaughtered’ or ‘annihilated’ them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day” (171).
God is not simply out to get non-Israelites, but is executing judgment on unrepentant sinners. There are many areas of Scripture that discuss the mixing of Israelites with other nations, for example, Moses’s marriage to “a dark-skinned Cushite/Ethiopian (Num. 12:1)” (Copan 163). Copan points out that God even commands, in Leviticus 19:34 (163), “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.” God even hoped to redeem them, as Copan asserts, “These nations… will one day be incorporate into the people of God” (187), as shown by Psalm 87:
“I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me— Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush— and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’” Indeed, of Zion it will be said, “This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her.” The LORD will write in the register of the peoples: “This one was born in Zion.” (NIV, Ps. 87:4-6)
Copan also makes the point that many battles were actually defensive responses to attacks on the Israelites. For example,
“the Amalekites attacked the traveling Israelites (Exod. 17:8); the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some Israelites (Num. 21:1), the Amorite king Sihon refused Israel’s peaceful overtures and attacked instead (Num. 21:21-32; Deut. 2:26-30)…” (Copan 179)
Copan ultimately argues that God had justified reasons in his law-giving and wrathful acts.
Let’s look a little deeper into God’s acts of judgment (the flood of Noah’s time, the wars of Israel on other nations, such as Canaan). In King’s Cross, Timothy Keller points out that anger is a natural byproduct of love; “If you see people destroying themselves or destroying other people and you don’t get mad, it’s because you don’t care… If God is loving and good, he must be angry at evil–angry enough to do something about it” (Keller 177). In the Old Testament, this looks like punishing evildoers through Israel’s offensive or defensive attack or natural disasters. This is actually paralleled in the New Testament! Have you heard of a Nazarene called “Jesus”? The New Testament seems to not present God judging nations the same way he did in the Old Testament–this is because God, instead, delivered the punishment to himself. Keller explains that “A god without wrath has no need to go to the cross and suffer incredible agony to save you” (177). God’s wrath is exhibited through his anger at evil, the perversion and destruction of his good creation, first through punishing perpetrators who have crossed the line of no return, then by sending his Son to take the punishment once and for all.
Still, what about the Jesus who counsels his followers to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39)? Well, he might not be as passive and “peaceful” as we have thought, or at least, not in the same way we have traditionally thought. Robert Barron, in And Now I See: A Theology of Transformation, explains that cultural customs made it so that turning one’s left cheek to a person made it impossible for them to strike you a second time, asserting your “refusal to cooperate with the injustice that the aggressor perpetrates” (232). He says that what Jesus was really saying was, “If someone demeans you and violently affirms his superiority… position yourself in such a way that he cannot continue to do so” (Barron 232). Jesus never said that his followers should let themselves be slapped around or walked upon, but he wanted them to resist. In the Old Testament, this resistance looked like defending themselves from wicked idolators, and, only very occasionally, attacking them on the Father’s command. Moreover, does anyone remember Jesus saying something about bringing a sword..?
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’” (Matthew 10:34-36)
Perhaps Jesus didn’t mean a literal “sword,” but he certainly didn’t expect his presence to result in complete harmony. He knew that his judgment of sin in the world (especially hypocrisy, see Matt. 7:3-5) would cause some to hate, and persecute, him and those who followed him. When Jesus entered the temple one day and “found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money,” he “made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, ‘Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!’” (NIV, John 2:14-16). He expressed righteous anger toward people whose hearts were turned away from him and his Father. Violence, rejection of the true God, and judgment each took place during Jesus’s time, just as it did during the time before Jesus was born of Mary into our world.
In conclusion, the God of the Old Testament, who is recorded as having committed atrocious acts and giving irrational laws, had good reason for doing so, which can be found by looking deeper into the historical context. Jesus, the Son of this God, is also full of love and wrath, which go hand-in-hand. We must recognize that Jesus’s death was required precisely because of God’s wrath, and understand that for him to be truly righteous and loving, God must punish injustice.
References
Barron, Robert. And Now I See: a Theology of Transformation. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998. Print.
Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? : Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011. Print.
“Job.” New International Version Quest Study Bible, Revised. Ed. Phyllis Ten Elshof. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. 705-756.
Keller, Timothy. King’s Cross: the Story of the World in the life of Jesus. New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2011. Print.
“Was This Fire-Breathing Dragon Real?” New International Version Quest Study Bible, Revised. Ed. Phyllis Ten Elshof. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. 754.
• • •
Originally submitted in 2013 for a course in Theology at Westmont College.
• • •
Featured Photo by Cate Bligh on Unsplash.
Comments