Tag Archive for: Old Testament

Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament

Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?

By Ryan Leasure

Richard Dawkins’ famous quote just about sums up how skeptics view the God of the Old Testament. He retorts:

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.1

Whew. Other than his obvious thesaurus skills, we notice that Dawkins takes great offense at God’s behavior in the Old Testament. He scorns Scripture’s portrayal of slavery and the poor treatment of women, but it’s the Canaanite invasion that attracts most of his contempt. For example, he uses words such as bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, racist, infanticidal, and genocidal to make his point loud and clear.

But this raises an obvious question. Did God really command genocide? Did he really order Israel to wipe the Canaanites from the face of the earth? Some texts seem to suggest this:

“So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the LORD God of Israel commanded.” — Joshua 10:40

“Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.” — Joshua 6:21

It certainly looks like genocide. But as I’ll argue in a minute, I’m persuaded something other than genocide is going on here.

Joshua’s Claims vs. Reality

I’m persuaded something else is going on because several times Joshua makes claims that they “utterly destroyed” the Canaanites and “left none alive,” yet we read shortly thereafter that several survivors remain. Let me give you a few examples:

Joshua’s Claim: In Joshua 10, he says they left “no survivors” and “destroyed everything that breathed” in “the entire land” and “put all the inhabitants to the sword.”

Reality: Judges 1 states several times that Israel had failed to conquer the entire land of Canaan and couldn’t drive out all the inhabitants.

On the one hand, Joshua tells us that they left “no survivors.” On the other hand, Judges 1 tells us multiple times that Israel failed to drive out all the Canaanites.

Joshua’s Claim: Josh 10:39 says “every person” in Debir was “utterly destroyed.”

Reality: Josh 11:21 states that later, Joshua “utterly destroyed” Anakites in Debir.

Again, Joshua says they “utterly destroyed every person” in Debir. But the very next chapter, we read of survivors in Debir who Joshua “utterly destroyed” again.

Joshua’s Claims: In Joshua 11:21, he tells us the Anakites were “cut off” and “utterly destroyed” in Hebron.

Reality: A few chapters later in Joshua 15:13-14, we read that “Caleb “drove out” the Anakites from Hebron.

Once again, Joshua claims utter destruction while a few chapters later, he tells us that Caleb drove out the same people group he just “utterly destroyed.”

Just as the LORD had commanded

Certainly, Joshua’s claims and reality appear to contradict one another. Yet we read on multiple occasions that Joshua did just as God had commanded. Consider these two examples:

Joshua captured all the cities of these kings, and all their kings, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. — Joshua 11:12

They struck every man with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. They left no one who breathed. Just as the LORD had commanded Moses his servant… he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses. — Joshua 11:14-15

I’ve listed several examples where God commanded Joshua to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites. We’ve also seen that Joshua was faithful to do just as the LORD had commanded. Yet, we read several instances where survivors remain.

What is going on here?

God didn’t Mean Literal Genocide

As a quick caveat, I’m a biblical inerrantist. I’m not someone to play “fast and loose” with the text. Yet I’m persuaded that Joshua didn’t intend for us to interpret the “utterly destroy” language literally.

How could he if in Joshua 11 he tells us that they “utterly destroyed” the Anakites in Hebron, and then just a few chapters later in Joshua 15, he tells us that Caleb “drove out” those same Anakites in the same Hebron?

Would Joshua really be that irresponsible with his reporting? It’s doubtful. After all, God made it clear elsewhere that “utterly destroy” didn’t mean complete annihilation.

Consider Deuteronomy 7:2-4:

And when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction…you shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they will turn away your sons from following me to serve other gods.

Now, wait a second. God ordered them to devote the Canaanites to complete destruction, but then he forbids them from intermarrying with them. How could they intermarry with people they had completely obliterated?

It seems obvious that whatever “utterly destroy” means, it doesn’t mean genocide.

“Utterly Destroy” was Common Hyperbolic Rhetoric

Just recently, the Golden State Warriors defeated the Portland Trail Blazers by 22 points. As I read various ESPN articles and listened to different radio shows, I heard commentators say things like the Warriors “annihilated” or “killed” the Trail Blazers. And shockingly, nobody called them out for lying. You see, this is how people talk nowadays with respect to athletic competitions. We speak in hyperbolic terms.

In the same way, military leaders during Joshua’s day used to speak in exaggerated terms. They would regularly make claims that they “utterly destroyed” their enemies and left “no survivors.” In reality, they defeated their enemies but didn’t commit them to genocide. Yet nobody was calling them liars because this was how military leaders communicated back then. Consider these examples:2

King Mesha of Moab (840 BC) reported that the Northern Kingdom of Israel “has utterly perished for always.” — In truth, Israel was around long enough to be taken into exile one hundred years later.

Tuthmosis III of Egypt (1500 BC) declared that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those now not existent.” — Actually, Mitanni continued to fight for another two hundred years.

Merneptah of Egypt (1230 BC) bragged “Israel is wasted, his seed is not.” — Guess who is still around today?

When Moses or Joshua spoke in exaggerated ways, they were simply adopting the common hyperbolic rhetoric that all ancient Near Eastern military leaders used. Everyone reading the accounts would have understood it that way, just like we understand hyperbolic sports language.

Drive them Out, Not Genocide

It seems that God’s desire was for Israel to drive out — or dispossess — the Canaanites from the land, not to commit them to genocide. Truth is, “driving out” language is used far more frequently with respect to the Canaanites than “utterly destroy” language.3

We saw earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 that God ordered Israel to commit the Canaanites to “complete destruction,” and then he ordered them not to intermarry with the Canaanites afterwards. These dual commands only make sense if the “complete destruction” means to drive them out, rather than annihilating them altogether.

On another occasion, God threatens to “destroy” Israel for their disobedience, but this destruction did not mean genocide. It meant driving them away from the promised land. Consider Deuteronomy 28:63-64

And the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in destroying you. You shall be plucked off the land… And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other.

Here is a clear example where “destroying” really meant driving them out of the land. With this in mind, we can be confident that this was God’s purpose in issuing the “utterly destroy” commands.

Did they Really Commit Women and Children to Genocide?

As I’ve argued above, the stock language of “kill everything that’s alive” was hyperbolic language and really meant “driving out” the Canaanites. This means, the Israelites never slaughtered women or children in their conquests. They simply defeated the various Canaanite armies as they infiltrated the promised land.

After all, God had instructed Israel to always offer peace before attacking anyone (Deut. 20:10) which would have given women and children time to flee before any battle ensued. Unfortunately, almost nobody took them up on the offer (Josh. 11:19).

Furthermore, it appears that most of their battles occurred at military strongholds — like Jericho and AI — away from the populated civilian countrysides. Archeology digs suggest that Jericho housed roughly one hundred soldiers with no civilians,4 which explains how Israel could march around it seven times in one day. Rahab and maybe another female or two worked in the tavern to take care of travelers passing through.

Rahab, who turned from paganism, also serves as a great example that ethnic cleansing is not the goal of these conquests. The goal was to rid the area of the pagan influence that could easily lead Israel astray from worshipping Yahweh.

Why Drive Out the Canaanites?

In Genesis 15:16, God told Abraham that he would give the land to the Israelites after four hundred years of slavery in Egypt because the “sins of the Amorites (Canaanites) was not yet complete. That is, God wouldn’t drive them out yet, because it wouldn’t be justified. But after hundreds of years of wickedness, the Canaanites would be ripe for judgment.

What did they do that prompted this judgment exactly? While they were notorious for temple prostitution, incest, and bestiality, perhaps their worst crime was their practice of child sacrifice. It was their ritual practice to burn their children alive on the god Molech.

Skeptics often ask why God doesn’t stop evil. Well, here is a clear example where he does, but they still find fault nonetheless.

Ultimately, God wanted to establish the nation of Israel in the land free of pagan influence to provide a context for the coming Messiah. Yes, Israel defeated these Canaanite armies, but the ultimate goal was to be a blessing to all the nations (Gen. 12:3). And that blessing would come through the person of Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the law and die as the once for all sacrifice for the sins of the world.

*For more on this topic, check out Paul Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster?

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wFn2mK

/by
The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

,

By Ryan Leasure

Most readers of the Bible affirm that the New Testament unequivocally proclaims the deity of Christ. It’s hard to read texts such as John 1:1-4, John 8:58, Romans 9:5, or Hebrews 1:8, and come to any different conclusion. This clarity is why the Council of Nicea (AD 325) affirmed that the Son shares the exact same nature with the Father. That is to say, from the earliest times, the church affirmed the full deity of Christ, and rightly so.

Yet the Jewish expectation was for a human Messiah. After all, the Christ, according to the Old Testament, would come from the human line of David. Wouldn’t it make sense that the Messiah would be human as well?

Be that as it may, while the Old Testament predicts a future human Messiah, I believe it tells us to expect a divine Messiah as well. And to demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight four different texts — two from the Psalms and two from the prophets.

Psalm 45:6-7

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has set you above your companions.

Notice a few key points. First, this Psalm is a wedding song and is addressed to a Davidic son who is about to take his bride.

Second, the psalmist addresses this song specifically to “the king” (v. 1) and at the same time calls him “God” (v. 6). That is, this Davidic son is both “king” and “God.”

Third, his description of this king is so superfluous — most excellent of men (v. 2), mighty one (v. 3), majestically rides forth in victory (v. 4), the nations fall at your feet (v.5), reigning eternally (v. 6), and nations will praise you forever and ever (v. 17) — that this cannot be a predictor of any mere human king.

Fourth, while the psalmist declares that this king is God in verse 6, in verse 7, he refers to his God. In other words, another person exists, beyond this king, who is also God. It seems the psalmist is planting Trinitarian seeds in this text.

And finally, the author of Hebrews applies this text specifically to Jesus. In Hebrews 1, the author declares the superiority of Jesus to the angels and then drives his point home in verse 8, “But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews emphatically states that it’s the Son who is the eternally reigning God described in Psalm 45.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

This psalm of David is the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. Jesus, striving to make a point to his contemporaries, references it in Mark 12:35-37 by asking:

Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son?

Jesus wanted his audience to understand the implications of David’s words. How could David refer to the Messiah as his Lord? Wasn’t the Messiah David’s future son? This claim — suggesting the son is greater and more authoritative than David — would no doubt have shocked the Jewish audience who always showed deference to the Father over the son.

Furthermore, notice, under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), David distinguishes between LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai). That is, even though the Messiah would be Lord, there is another who is also LORD.

And finally, it was unthinkable, from a Jewish perspective, that a mere human could sit at YHWH’s right hand and rule from a position of authority. Make no bones about it. David said his Son would be divine.

Isaiah 9:6-7

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

Here are a few key points to consider: First, Isaiah exuberantly declares that this son — the one who will reign on David’s throne (an obvious reference to the Messiah) will be called “Mighty God.”

Second, Isaiah tells us that this son will reign eternally when he calls him “Everlasting Father” and tells us that he will uphold his kingdom of “justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

Third, the phrase “Everlasting Father” need not throw you off. No such Trinitarian terms existed at this point in redemption history. Rather, the term Father should be understood as one who provides (Job 29:16), guards (Isa. 22:11), and guides (2 Kgs. 2:21). By giving the Messiah the label of “Everlasting Father,” it was just one more way to declare his deity.

Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Who is this son of man — this human-like figure who also has divine-like qualities? Daniel says he’ll come on the clouds of heaven which is always an expression to deity (Ps. 97:2; Isa. 19:1). This son of man will have all authority, glory, and sovereign power. All the nations will worship him, and his kingdom will last forever! Nobody can read this text and conclude that this Son of Man was not a divine figure.

Interestingly, during Jesus’ arrest, the Jewish leaders interrogated him by asking who he claimed to be. Here is Mark’s description of the conversation:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy.” — Mark 14:61-64

Truth be told, “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite title for himself. And here in Mark 12, Jesus most certainly claims to be the divine son of man figure in Daniel 7. We know this is the case because the high priest tore his clothes and accused Jesus of blasphemy.

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

Yes, the Messiah would come from the line of David. And yes, he would be human. But based on these four texts, we can confidently assert that the Old Testament also predicts a divine Messiah. And, of course, this is what we find in the New Testament. Jesus, while human, was fully divine as well.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2CGqRLJ

/by
Answering Two Common Objections To The Author Of Life Argument

Answering Two Common Objections To The Author Of Life Argument

,

By Evan Minton 

When atheists accuse God of being immoral, they usually point to nasty Old Testament accounts like the conquest of Canaan, God sicking two female bears on a group of youths for harassing Elisha, or destroying humanity in a massive flood (Genesis 6-9). In addition to various other considerations regarding these specific incidences, one factor I always bring up is that God does no wrong in ending the life of an individual human being. Why? Because He is the author of life and therefore He can take life as He sees fit. It’s wrong for humans to kill humans because we aren’t the Author Of Life. The Author Of Life can take life. If you didn’t give life, it isn’t yours to take. It is God’s prerogative as God to decide when the date of our death is.

How Skeptics Typically Respond To This

Two common responses from the skeptic are typically raised against this as reductio ad absurdum arguments. First, they’ll say, if giving someone life entails that you have the prerogative to take that life, then this would entail that parents have the right to kill their children since parents gave their children life. Second, they’ll say something like “If a scientist were able to create a living thing in the lab, your logic would entail that the scientist would have the right to kill that living thing.” Professor Utonium could smother the PowerPuff Girls in their sleep. Dr. Frankenstein could kill his monster. Yet we intuitively recoil at such an idea. This suggests that there’s something wrong with the argument.

The Problem With These Responses: The Fallacy Of The False Analogy

The problem with these responses is that it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. As far as parents and children go, parents only give their offspring life insofar as they come together in sexual union, and the mother allows the child to grow to full term before giving birth. Yet, my mother did not create any of her eggs, and my father didn’t create any of their sperm. Secondly, they wouldn’t exist unless their parents likewise came together in sexual union and so on. Ultimately there would be no sexual reproductive process if the universe weren’t created and finely tuned for life. As I recently told an atheist on Twitter “Parents and having sex and conceiving VS. God creating life is comparing apples to oranges. Create a living, breathing spirit by the word of your mouth; then we’ll talk about whether you can kill it.” The point is that God is the ULTIMATE creator of all things (Genesis 1, John 1:1-3) and sustains everything’s existence moment by moment (Colossians 1:17). While my mother and father certainly participated in my creation, they didn’t and couldn’t have done it apart from the will of God. Eve recognized this when she gave birth to her firstborn son Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” (Genesis 4:1)

Regarding the lab creation, again, the major key difference between God taking life and you taking the life of your lab experiment is that God is the supreme Creator of literally everything (as I’ve just said). There wouldn’t be anything if God had decided not to make the universe. Even if you could make life in a lab, you wouldn’t be the ultimate source of life. It reminds me of that joke in which scientists tell God that they create lifelike He can, and when they scoop up a pile of dirt to do so, God responds with “Hey! Hands off! Get your own dirt!”

Is The Argument Ad-Hoc? 

Recently when debating this issue on Twitter, an atheist accused The Author-Of Life argument as being “ad-hoc.” The ad hoc fallacy occurs when you make up an explanation just to save your belief from being refuted. In this case, the Twitter atheist accused me of making up this God-Has-Sovereignty-Over-Life-And-Death position just to avoid the conclusion that God did something wrong in sicking the bears on Elisha’s harassers or exterminating the Canaanites.

However, this charge would only stand if that were my reason for making the proposal, but it isn’t. The church has long held that God is sovereign over life and death precisely because He is the source of all life. This isn’t something I or other contemporary apologists came up with to get God off the hook. Only if this position on God’s sovereignty over life were invented solely with the purpose of answering God-Is-Immoral arguments would the charge of the ad hoc fallacy stand. I asked this person “Can you show me historical evidence that any of the church fathers or the Rabbis that preceded the rise of Christianity held to the view that God has sovereignty over life and death SPECIFICALLY to answer objections like the Elisha bears incident?” He denied that he could and ultimately said that it was unprovable. I told him he ought to refrain from making unprovable assertions in the future.

In Conclusion 

The attempts of the skeptic to make a murderer out of God fail.

“The Lord giveth and The Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of The Lord!” – Job 21:1 (KJV)

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O4YPML

/by

How do we know God exists? Is the Old Testament binding?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Some say there’s no evidence for God, we can’t see him, we can’t use any type of scientific test to prove he exists, so how can we know this? Frank answer that question and then dives deep to answer questions related to the differences between the Old and the New Testament, Evil, the Canaanite Genocide and is the Old Testament binding on today’s believers.

 

 

/by
The Divine Council

Reflecting On “The Divine Council”

By Evan Minton

Recently, I read Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm: Recovering The Supernatural Worldview Of The Bible.  I mentally wrestled with his prospect of “the divine council”. Heiser talks about this in this lecture as well btw.

Sometimes I do a soliloquy or write out my thought process when there is subject matter or information that I need to digest, especially if I find that subject matter new or troubling. That is what this blog post is all about.

In the first chapter, Heiser introduces us to “The Divine Council” worldview of The Bible, which is what he based his doctoral dissertation on. The key passage examined is Psalm 82. Heiser’s proposal seems to be that the Jews viewed angels and demons as lesser “gods” (lowercase g) which were subservient to the supreme God; Yahweh. Heiser rightly points out that Psalm 82 must be referring to angelic beings because all other interpretations have fatal flaws. To interpret the second usage of elohim (the Hebrew translated as God and gods) as referring to other persons of the Trinity entails that God The Father is judging the Son and The Holy Spirit for corruption. This is blasphemy. To interpret them as being Jewish leaders doesn’t work either as there is no biblical or extra-biblical evidence that the Jews ever ruled nations outside of Israel (which is what Psalm 82 says the “gods/elohim” did, and did so in a corrupt manner). The only alternative candidates are other supernatural entities.

First of all, I really have no issue with the word “god(s)” being referred to super powerful, supernatural entities. After all, it has traditionally been understood that 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referring to Satan (“The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers”). Elohim, according to Heiser simply refers to some supernatural spirits. Yahweh is an Elohim, but not all Elohim are YWWH. There’s only one Maximally Great Being. For the ancient Israelite, Elohim was like our modern term “Spirit”. We would say God is a “Spirit”, but not all “spirits” are God. There’s The HOLY Spirit, and then there are evil spirits. But certainly, Satan is not on the same level as God. He’s not as powerful as God, not as knowledgeable, and he’s not everywhere present.

To refer to angels and demons as elohim (i.e supernatural, immaterial entities) isn’t theologically objectionable. Just as I wouldn’t object to saying “God is a spirit” and “Satan is a spirit”. If the Hebrew term “elohim” simply carried the same connotations as “spirit”, then to say that there are many gods wouldn’t violate traditional monotheism anymore than saying there are many spirits. There’s only one God (capital G) even though there are many gods (lower case g). There are many spirits, even though there’s only one Great Spirit.

Should “god” Be Taken As A Metaphor?

On the other hand, Heiser’s position seems to open the door for Mormonism. As he himself pointed out, Elohim was applied to Samuel in 1 Samuel 28 when Saul had the medium call upon Samuel’s spirit. If Elohim even applies to the souls of deceased humans, doesn’t that mean that humans become divine upon death? Perhaps angels and demons could be considered “gods” with a lowercase g, but only in a metaphorical sense and divinity proper should not be ascribed to them. Doesn’t it open the door to the Mormon contention that we become gods after we die, that we become divine if the lesser elohim literally posess the property of divinity. There’s only one supernatural entity that literally possesses the attribute of divinity, and that’s YHWH: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There can be many elohim (gods), but there can only be one divine Elohim (God). There are many spirits, but there is only one Great Spirit (YHWH).

Perhaps, then, Psalm 82:1 should be properly translated as “God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the spirits.” or we can take the text at its face value meaning and ascribe the term “gods” as a metaphor. This could possibly be the reason why the NIV places the second rendering of elohim in quotation marks.

What About The Mockery Of Idols?

In the book of Isaiah, Yahweh mocks the idols that people bow to. In the book of Isaiah is where we find the most repeated assertions from God that He is the only God that there is.

“This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God beside me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:6–8, NIV)

After proclaiming the glory, and majesty and power of the Lord Almighty, the prophet turns his attention toward the idols that Israel is so prone to worship. He reminds them of the shame of idol worship.

“All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame. Who shapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit nothing? People who do that will be put to shame; such craftsmen are only human beings. Let them all come together and take their stand; they will be brought down to terror and shame. The blacksmith takes a tool and works with it in the coals; he shapes an idol with hammers, he forges it with the might of his arm. He gets hungry and loses his strength; he drinks no water and grows faint. The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine. He cut down cedars or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is used as fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, ‘Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.’ From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, ‘Save me! You are my god!’ They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, ‘Half of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, ‘Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?'” – Isaiah 44:9-20

The implication of Yahweh’s mockery is that the reason it is supremely stupid to make idols and worship them is that they are nothing but man-made objects. God essentially says “Look, you chop down a tree, use part of the wood to warm yourself and cook food, and you use what’s left to make yourself a deity? How stupid could you possibly be?” In Isaiah 46, God says of the idols “They [humans) lift it to their shoulders and carry it;  they set it [the idol] up in its place, and there it stands. From that spot, it cannot move. Even though someone cries out to it, it cannot answer;  it cannot save them from their troubles.” (verse 7). Now, I could perhaps understand it if we say that behind every idol, there is a demon, or perhaps that every idol of wood and stone is inhabited by some demonic spirit. But here, God seems to be denying the idols of any real existence or power at all! He says they cannot move. He says they cannot speak. He says they cannot answer when spoken to, or save people from their troubles. If demon spirits were really behind the idols, Yahweh’s mockery here makes no sense. Certainly, a demon could answer back when spoken to. Demons can certainly move. After all, the book of Job says that when Satan stood before God and God asked him where he had been, he responded “From roaming about the Earth. From going back and forth on it” (see Job 1:6-7).

I don’t know how to reconcile Michael Heiser’s divine council view with the text of Isaiah. It’s one thing to say that demons are, in some sense “gods” and that they are lesser gods than Yahweh, and that they are the ones worshipped by idolaters, but how do we account for the fact that in Isaiah 44-46, Yahweh treats the idols like they don’t even exist? As though they are simply man-made objects and figments of man’s imagination?

The apostle Paul seemed to have been divided on this issue himself, for in 1 Corinthians 8:4 he says that an idol is really nothing at all, using a proclamation of monotheism to justify his claim “For we know that there is no God but one”, so the Corinthians shouldn’t worry about eating meat sacrificed to one. But elsewhere, he seems to say that behind every idol is a demonic spirit, which obviously wouldn’t be “nothing”, (see 1 Corinthians 10:20).

So is an idol a non-existent entity or a demonic one? Either would be consistent with monotheism (there is only one Maximally Great Being). Deuteronomy 32:16-17 also seems to imply that demonic spirits are behind idols. Deuteronomy 32:16–17 states, “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations, they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded” (ESV).

Perhaps Paul meant that they are “nothing at all” in a hyperbolic term, to denote the powerlessness demons have in comparison with the power Yahweh has. It would be like saying to someone who lost a position of great influence or fame “You are nothing now”. It’s possible that this is what Yahweh was doing in Isaiah 44-46. Not that they are literally nothing or powerless, but that they are in comparison to Yawheh. You can’t even begin to compare finite power with infinite power.

It could also be the case that some idols are inhabited by demonic spirits while others aren’t inhabited at all, and it’s these latter that Isaiah 44-46 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 refer to.

CONCLUSION 

This blog post was written immediately after I read the first two chapters of Heiser’s book.

This concluding section, however, was written a week after the fact.

After wrestling with this concept in my mind for a week, I’ve come to this conclusion. I think Heiser’s proposal is a powerful one, and it explains much. It doesn’t threaten monotheism as I first thought. It might entail Henotheism at worst. However, although Heiser never explains it like this (these are my own words), it appears that for the ancients “elohim” carried the same meaning as what we might call “a spirit” to be an “elohim” simply meant to be a powerful, immaterial, supernatural entity. Certainly, Yahweh, angels, demons, and even deceased humans would fall under this definition. We would consider all four categories “spirits”. The ancients would consider all four “elohim”. There is only one Ultimate Supreme Elohim. There is only one Maximally Great Spirit. That is Yahweh (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). All others are lesser elohim/gods/spirits.

Michael Heiser’s proposal explains much of The Bible’s teaching on the unseen realm.
I think the idea of the pagan gods being demons is very credible. Not only does 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, and Deuteronomy 32 say that (and the nearly universal agreement that 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referring to Satan), but when you think about why the angels rebelled against God in the first place, it makes sense. Satan wanted to be God, and part of being God is receiving worship. When tempting Jesus in the wilderness in Matthew 4, Satan said he would give him all the kingdoms of the Earth if only He would worship him. It’s plausible to think that demons would desire worship, and ergo, plant it in the minds of human beings to build statues dedicated to them and then bow. It is part of the demonic mindset to get what properly belongs to God alone.

Isaiah 44 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 appear to be denying that the “gods” have any real existence at all at face value, but when you interpret these passages in light of the rest of scripture, this interpretation fails. The Bible is quite clear that false gods/idols are demonic entities. So what do we make of the denial passages? I think the most plausible interpretation is that of hyperbolic language. Even today, when we want to belittle someone to the most severe extent possible, we would say “You are nothing! NOTHING! You’re nobody!” Of course, the one who says this doesn’t think he’s talking to an imaginary person. Rather, he’s speaking as though he’s making an ontological denial in order to demote that person’s status or worth. If someone is a nobody, they are of no significance. It makes sense to call the gods/demons/idols “nothing at all” since all of their great-making properties are pitiful when compared to the Maximally Great Being (i.e Yahweh). God and Paul are simply belittling the demons. Compared to Him, they are nothing.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EIhcU2

/by
God Behaving Badly

God Behaving Badly? – Destruction of the Canaanites

By Timothy Fox

This is the second article in my series God Behaving Badly? where I address passages of the Bible where God seems to do some immoral things. In the introductory article, I discussed what it means for an action to be immoral, that it goes against some moral code. However, I argued that God is the best explanation of an objective moral code, so to call something really wrong is actually to provide evidence for God’s existence.

But still, this does not resolve some of the more troubling passages of the Old Testament. God commits and commands some actions that seem to contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. So we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites.

Destruction of the Canaanites

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out the Canaanites living in a certain region (Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18): “you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (7:2), “do not leave alive anything that breathes” (20:16). And Israel obeyed. How could a good and loving God possibly command something like this?

King of the Universe

We first must understand who God is. God is not just another ruler of some earthly kingdom. God is Creator of all things and King of the Universe. He gives life and he can take life whenever he wants, however he wants.

Furthermore, there are times that we think it is justified for humans to take another’s life, like in self-defense, to protect others, or in a just war. A general can order his troops to attack and kill enemy combatants. So was God morally justified in destroying the Canaanites?

Judgment, Not Genocide

The Bible is clear that God did not arbitrarily order Israel to kill the Canaanites. They were evil. God told the Israelites “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut. 9:5, emphasis mine). And while the Canaanites committed many wicked acts, I think only one example would suffice: child sacrifice. They would burn their children alive in a fiery furnace as a sacrifice to the god Molech. Just that one act alone would be justification for their complete annihilation.

The irony is that many skeptics question why God doesn’t prevent great evils in the world. But here we have an example of God eradicating a wicked culture, and yet skeptics complain about it!

God did not act impulsively or arbitrarily when he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites. He was judging the wicked. And He even imposed harsh judgment upon his own people, Israel, when they partook of the same wicked actions of the nations surrounding them. After all, one of the reasons God gave for destroying the Canaanites was so Israel would not adopt their evil practices (Deut. 7:3-4; 20:18).

But surely they weren’t all bad, right? Recall the account of Abraham bargaining with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). God played along, knowing that Abraham could not find ten righteous in the cities, and God also knew that the Canaanites were completely and utterly evil. So he commanded them to be destroyed.

Occupy Promised Land

God did not command the Israelites to destroy every Canaanite on earth, only the ones living in the land he was giving to Israel (Deut. 7:1; 20:16). It is definitely possible that many Canaanites fled their cities once they saw the Israelites coming and only the defiant who remained to fight were killed.

What About the Children?

This is extremely hard to comprehend and I admit that it does trouble me. How could a loving God command the Israelites to kill innocent children? Now, it is possible that every child was evacuated from the land. But still, God gave the command to kill them. How do we make sense of this?

As stated above, God gives life, and he can take it however and whenever he wishes. No one is guaranteed a long, peaceful life and to die of old age in one’s sleep. And a child’s quick death by the edge of a sword would be much more merciful than being burned alive as a sacrifice to Molech, wouldn’t it? Plus, what if God knew that if these children were to grow up, they would be just as wicked and depraved as their parents? I strongly believe that young children who die are saved by God’s grace and will inherit eternal life, which is infinitely greater than being raised in the wicked culture of the Canaanites. Thus, God was actually showing these children mercy and calling them home to himself.[1]

God Is Patient and Merciful

God does not enjoy the death of the wicked but patiently waits for us to repent of our sins (Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9). Yet, he will only permit evil for so long until he finally passes judgment. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to cease their wickedness. But when their evil reached its peak, then God had the Israelites destroy them (Gen. 15:16).

Conclusion

God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites is a difficult passage to comprehend. But as creator and king of the universe, God has the right to give and take life as he pleases. This was not an act of genocide but divine judgment, as the Canaanites were a thoroughly wicked people. God is patient and merciful, always willing to show mercy and forgive our sins.

Now, if you are not convinced by any of these arguments and believe the destruction of the Canaanites was an immoral act, what moral standard are you judging God by? You cannot call any action truly evil unless an objective moral standard exists, and the best explanation for objective morals and duties is God. But if you choose to reject objective morality instead, then there was nothing wrong with God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites.

As for me, I choose to trust that an all-knowing, all-loving, morally perfect God always does what is best for mankind, even if I cannot always understand it.

For a further discussion of the destruction of the Canaanites, see:

Tim Stratton: TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

Clay Jones: http://www.clayjones.net/category/canaanites/

William Lane Craig:

Paul Copan has a different take on the Canaanite destruction. He argues that the passages are hyperbolic, which some disagree with, such as Clay Jones. But his books on the topic are still worth exploring:

[1] In case you’re wondering, this in NO WAY justifies infanticide. This was a unique incident in history in which Israel was a theocracy and directly commanded by God to carry out these actions.

This blog was originally published by FreeThinkingMinistries.com here: http://freethinkingministries.com/god-behaving-badly-destruction-of-the-canaanites/

/by
% Common Answers Kids God

God Behaving Badly? – Introduction

By Timothy Fox

“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.”

– Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Christians maintain that God is all-good, all-loving, and the ultimate standard of morality. However, many atheists hold the opposite view of God, evidenced by Dawkins’ infamous rant above. They claim that God is a moral monster who committed or commanded many immoral actions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.

The purpose of this series, God Behaving Badly? is to respond to these claims. But before examining any specific instances of God’s supposed immoral behavior, we first need to define what we mean by immoral.

Objective vs. Subjective Morality

For an action to be called immoral, it must be contrary to some moral code. So what is this moral code that the atheist is accusing God of breaking? If it is his own personal opinion on how people should act, then who cares what the atheist thinks? It’s tantamount to him saying “I don’t like what God did in the Old Testament.” Well, so what? That’s your opinion.

This is known as subjective morality, meaning that every person, or group of people, decides for him- or herself what is right or wrong. I have my moral code, you have your moral code, and there’s no way of judging between them. But is that really how morality works? No. There are certain actions that are really right or wrong for everyone. For example, it is truly good to love and care for a little child and it is truly evil to harm and abuse her. This applies to all people at all times. And this is what is known as objective morality.

Grand Moral Authority

But where does this moral code come from and why must we follow it? We know that human laws come from a human authority, like a ruler or government. And an objective moral law that binds every human being across all of the time requires a grand moral authority who rules over everyone and everything: God.

God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Behaviors that align with God’s nature or commands are good and actions that contradict them are evil. This is how we determine right and wrong. So for an atheist to accuse someone of performing a truly immoral act, he is actually providing evidence for God’s existence.

Conclusion

To complain that God has committed immoral acts is also to admit there is an objective moral law. But God is the best explanation of objective morality. Therefore, calling certain actions truly immoral actually provides evidence for God’s existence.

However, a skeptic may instead argue that God has done things in the Old Testament that contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. Then we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason for it. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites, which will be the subject of my next article.

 

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on The Mentionables blog.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AA2dwp

/by
Genocide God

Genocide and the God of the Old Testament

By JC Lamont

Many people take issue with the idea that God commanded the Jewish nation to initiate war against the Canaanites, ordering them to wipe them out and take their land for their own. Not only have some people rejected Christianity over this, but it has even spurred some Christians to leave the faith. Are the critics of the Old Testament and Christianity in general correct when they accuse God of genocide and of slaughtering those who don’t worship Him? How do we as apologists reconcile the God of love with an alleged religious bigot and racist ethnic cleanser?

In researching my book, Prophecy of the Heir, a literary apologetics novel that spans the entire Old Testament through angelic and demonic eyes, I discovered what I believe is a sound defense for God’s actions, which I hope will help those who struggle with this subject matter.

1. 400 Years to Repent

In Genesis 15:13 and 16, when God promises Abraham that He will give the land of Canaan to his descendants, He informs him that it will not take place for another 400 years because their sins “do not yet warrant their destruction.”

What sins was God referring to? History indicates that child sacrifice was rampant in Canaan. Years later, when the Israelites were in the land and began worshipping false gods, it was not until they started sacrificing their children that God sent the Babylonians to take them captive. When it comes to the murder of the innocents, God does not spare even His own people. Why should it come as a surprise then that He would punish the Canaanites for the same crime?

We don’t hear of complaints against God concerning the destruction of Nineveh, the people of whom were given only 3 days to repent, because they were spared due to “turn(ing) from their evil ways and stop(ping) all their violence (Jonah 3:7-10). Note that it doesn’t say they destroyed their idols, or converted to worship of Yahweh. It merely states they were spared judgment for halting their violence. They were never threatened punishment for worshiping false gods.

Why did God give the Canaanites so long to repent? Evidently, He had no desire to wipe them out, and hoped that future generations would stop the violent atrocities learned from their parents. And it should be noted that he warned Abraham that during those 400 years, He would allow His own people to be enslaved (subjected to maltreatment, labor death-camp conditions, and infanticide). It should be noted the similarities in the life of Christ, that God loved those “who were yet sinners” so much that He would allow His own Son to suffer in the hope that mankind would repent.

2. Prophet

Nineveh had the prophet Jonah to warn them, but whom did the Canaanites have? In the heart of Canaan was the city Salem, and its king was Melchizedek, a priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). Though we know little of Melchizedek, many biblical historians have speculated that He was Noah’s son Shem. If this is the case, the Canaanites were contemporaries with one who had lived in the pre-flood world, who witness firsthand the atrocities of the Nephilim and God’s punishment against the violence that had saturated the world. But regardless of who he was, as king, it is inconceivable that He had little influence in the Canaanite cities surrounding his own, and as the first known priest of God, it is equally doubtful that he did not exhort the peoples around him to forsake violence and child-sacrifice, and to turn to God.

3. Sodom and Gomorrah

Whereas Nineveh was a city that was spared God’s judgment, Sodom and Gomorrah were not. As Sodom and Gomorrah were part of Canaan, why were they not given the same 400 years to repent as the rest of Canaan? In Genesis 18:20-21, God tells Abraham, “I have heard a great outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. I am going down to see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to know.”

Many critics are quick to point out that this “flagrant sin” was homosexuality, and that this passage is proof of God’s homophobia. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah due to homosexuality. In fact, Ezekiel 16:49-50 cites exactly why God destroyed these cities: “Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.”

Though “detestable sins” is not specific (and other translations use the word abominations), the only mention of homosexual behavior in connection to Sodom was the attempted homosexual gang-rape of the two angels searching for enough righteous people in the cities to spare them from judgment. And once again, nowhere in the list of their sins was the worship of false gods.

So why were these cities not given the same 400 years to repent? Perhaps He feared their “flagrant sins” would hold more sway over the other Canaanite cities than Melchizedek’s influence. By eliminating them, He intervened in the course of human history and stacked the odds in the favor of Canaanite repenting.

4. Fire and Brimstone versus War

Would people take as much issue with God if he specifically mentioned He was punishing the Canaanites for child-sacrifice, and had “rained down fire and brimstone” on them rather than using war as his tool of judgment?

It is very possible they would not, and Moses even accosts the Israelites about just that in Deuteronomy 9:4-6: “After the LORD your God has done this for you (given you the land of Canaan), don’t say in your hearts, ‘The LORD has given us this land because we are such good people!’ No, it is because of the wickedness of the other nations that he is pushing them out of your way. It is not because you are so good or have such integrity that you are about to occupy their land. The LORD your God will drive these nations out ahead of you only because of their wickedness, and to fulfill the oath he swore to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You must recognize that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land because you are good, for you are not—you are a stubborn people. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people.”

5. Prisoners of War

As an aside, I would like to briefly mention God’s treatment of war when not as a course of punishment but as an inevitable action of mankind. In 2 Kings 6:22, an army that had repeatedly raided towns and villages of Israel, killing men, women, and children, sought to kill the prophet Elisha. When they were apprehended, the King of Israel asked Elisha if they should be executed. The prophet’s response? “Of course not!” Elisha replied. “Do we kill prisoners of war? Give them food and drink and send them home again to their master.”

In closing, I hope to have shown reasonable evidence that the destruction of the Canaanites had nothing to do with religious bigotry or ethnic cleansing, and that at every turn, God sought ways to spare them as He did with Nineveh, Sodom, and Gomorrah.

Christian Apologetics Alliance BLOG Banner

[Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance Here]

Resources for Greater Impact: 

OTNTDVD_with_Shadow

Old Testament God vs. New Testament God

[Mp4 Download]

[DVD]

[Mp3 Download]

/by

Is God’s Jealousy a Negative Attribute?

By Brian Chilton.

The Bible attributes several attributes to God. Many of the more popular attributes are God’s love, holiness, and grace. Any serious theologian will know the four core “omni” attributes: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (all-presence), and omnibenevolence (all-loving). While these attributes are all positive, many critics pinpoint another attribute of God as being greatly problematic: God’s jealousy.

Critics charge that jealousy is a bad trait to hold. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins claims that God breaks “into a monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god.”[1]Paul Copan notes that “Oprah Winfrey said that she was turned off to the Christian faith when she heard a preacher affirm that God is jealous.”[2] Jealousy is condemned for the human being. One of the Ten Commandments states that a person should not “covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17).[3] Thus, jealousy seems to be a negative trait. But wait! Doesn’t the Bible claim that God is jealous? It does.

The Bible states at least 13 times that God is jealous for His people. For instance, Moses notes that “the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). Later in Deuteronomy, God says, “They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation” (Deuteronomy 32:21).

What do we make of this? Jealousy seems to be a negative trait. The Bible presents God as jealous. Therefore, it would seem that God holds negative traits. One is left with three options: 1) One could claim that God holds negative attributes meaning that He is not completely perfect; 2) One could claim that the Bible is erred in its presentation of God; 3) One could claim that our understanding of God’s jealousy could be misunderstood.

The first option demerits the Bible’s presentation of God as valid. If God exists, then God must be a maximally great Being. If the God of the Bible is not a maximally great Being, then the God of the Bible is not really the God of the universe at all.

The second option devalues the Bible, the Word of God. The New Testament writers extracted their understanding of God from the Old Testament. Therefore, if the Old Testament is erred in its presentation of God, then that would carry over into the New Testament. This causes a serious problem for the believer. If we cannot accept the presentation of God in the Bible, then can we accept the God of the Bible?

The third option is best. Our understanding of God’s jealousy must be defined. There must be some misunderstanding that we hold as it pertains to the idea of divine jealousy. In fact, the third option is the only real valid option on the table. When one honestly evaluates God’s jealousy, the person comes to the understanding that God’s jealousy is actually rooted in love. Thus, God’s jealousy becomes a positive trait for three reasons.

God’s jealousy over His people is positive as it relates to God’s passion.

God has a passion for His people. Let’s go back to the passage in Deuteronomy. We all know that Scripture is often taken out of context. Placing Deuteronomy 4:24 in context, one will find that Moses was addressing the issue of the peoples’ covenant with God. God had already blessed the people immensely. God brought them out of slavery. God was about to bring them to a special place prepared for them. God was going to build a great nation out of them. However, the people kept cheating on God. God poured out His love to the nation. He was eventually going to bring the Chosen Messiah, the Savior of the world, in their midst. But they kept cheating on God. Moses says in Deuteronomy 4:23, “Take care, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you.”

The marriage analogy is often used to describe God’s jealous passion for His people. Paul Copan rightly notes that “A wife who doesn’t get jealous and angry when another woman is flirting with her husband isn’t really all that committed to the marriage relationship. A marriage without the potential for jealousy when an intruder threatens isn’t much of a marriage.”[4] God had a passion for His people. While Dawkins may think that God’s jealousy is a negative attribute due to the peoples’ “flirting with other gods,” it should be remembered that idolatry is adultery against God.[5] Thus, God’s jealousy is rooted in His love.

God’s jealousy over His people is positive because it relates to God’s purpose.

God’s jealousy is also rooted in His purpose. Wayne Grudem defines God’s jealousy by “God continually seeks to protect his own honor.”[6] Critics may charge, “See! God only concerns Himself with His own glory and elevated role. This means that God is not humble.” But not so fast. Let’s put this in perspective.

Human jealousy is wrong because one covets something that he/she holds no claim in holding. It is wrong for me to covet my neighbor’s car because I hold no claim to the car. In like manner, human pride is bad because it elevates a person’s position higher than what the person possesses. I can think all day that I am the President of the United States. I can walk around like a peacock telling everyone about my successful presidency. The reality is, however, that I am not the President and will most likely never be. But what if someone who holds the office claims to be President? Right now, the President of the United States of America is Barack Obama. Regardless of your thoughts of him and his presidency, let’s ask: is it wrong for Obama to claim to be President? Is it wrong for him to demand respect for his position? Is it wrong for him to do presidential things? No. Why? It is because he is the President. Is it, therefore, wrong for God to call Himself God and to expect to be treated like God? No. Why? It is because He is God. Paul Copan rightly notes, “Is God proud? No, he has a realistic view of himself, not a false or exaggerated one. God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, which makes him worthy of worship.”[7]

Simply put: it is not wrong for God to be jealous over His purpose and glory. Such purpose and glory belongs to God and God alone.

God’s jealousy over His people is positive because it relates to the human protection.

I am a big brother. My sister is about 7-years-younger than I. Big brothers normally have a protective instinct. I most certainly do. My sister is a loving, free-spirited woman who always sees the good. I, in contrast, see the world the way it really is. My son is much like my sister. I find that my protective juices flow overtime being a parent. Without guidance, it would be easy for my son to take the wrong path as the first shiny, attractive thing gets his attention. As a parent, it is my job to help keep him on the right track. I have a jealous love for my son because I want what’s best for him.

God’s jealousy works in much the same way. God’s jealous love is actually for the benefit, not the detriment, of human protection. God is omniscient. That means that God knows all things. God is also omnisapient, meaning that God possesses all wisdom. Going back to Copan, he notes, “God seeks to protect his creatures from profound self-harm. We can deeply damage ourselves by running after gods made in our own image. God’s jealousy is other-centered.”[8] I agree wholeheartedly with Copan’s assessment. God’s jealousy is actually for the greater human good.

Conclusion

God’s jealousy is not the same as human jealousy. The difference primarily lies in authority. It is wrong for people to be jealous over something that someone else holds because they hold no true claim to such thing. God, in contrast, having the greatest, supreme authority and power is completely justified in being jealous over His people. His jealousy is actually rooted in His love, purpose, and even human protection. Thus, God’s jealousy is not a negative attribute. It is actually a gloriously positive one.

© August 22, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Sources Cited

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 243.

[2] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 34.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from theEnglish Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

[4] Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, 35.

[5] See the book of Hosea for a full treatment of this analogy.

[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 205.

[7] Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, 28.

[8] Ibid., 40.

Resources for Greater Impact:

/by

Keeping the Slaughter of Canaan in Context

By Shannon Byrd

Are the conquest narratives in the Old Testament any different from what we are currently viewing with ISIS throughout the Middle East and Europe? Questions like this often come up in discussing the existence of objective moral values and duties and their proper grounding. When God is posited as the grounding of morality, the objector usually brings up some obscure OT text that he or she thinks will demonstrate that God has a warped sense of morality and it is usually in this context that the conquest narratives are brought up.

False Distinction

One reason this problem has persisted is that many Christians aren’t comfortable with God judging people; they draw a distinction in their minds between the God of the OT and the non-violent, peaceful Jesus of the NT. However, this distinction is an artificial one, Jesus regularly denounced others and threatened judgment. He took a whip and drove moneychangers out of the temple (Jn 2:15). Never mind what he said in Matthew 18, “. . . whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” So this distinction between God in the OT and Christ in the NT falls flat on death ears. Christ didn’t downplay the texts depicting judgment and for modern Christians doing so actually skews the image of Christ.

The Bible is Literally True

We’ve all hear this before, “Either the bible is literally true, or it’s literally false.” I remember agreeing with statements like this as a kid growing up in church; it sounded pious, but I didn’t know any better at the time. Many critics of Christianity as well as pastors have little to no understanding of biblical hermeneutics. Just because everything in Scripture is true, does not mean it is literally true. What am I saying? If we take everything in Scripture to be literally true, then tree’s sing,(1 Chr 16:33; Ps 96:12), Christ is a door (Jn 10:7), YahWeh flies in the sky on Cherubs (2 Sam 22:11), and Elihu’s heart jumped out of his chest (Job 37:1). Clearly everyone understands these texts to be figures of speech and aren’t to be taken literally; they were consciously exaggerated by the author for the sake of effect. Taken literally, these passages sound like a Harry Potter novel.

The statement “either the bible is literally all true, or it’s literally all false,” is also a logical fallacy. Just because some passages of Scripture are literally true, it doesn’t follow that all passages are literally true. So, not only is thinking in this manner hermeneutically flawed, it’s logically flawed as well. There we have it, two solid reasons to reject a rigid literal only interpretation.

Additionally, there are good textual reasons not to take the conquest accounts literal. K Lawson Younger Jr. notes that the accounts in Joshua 9-12 are figurative and utilize what he calls a “transmission code,” which is a commonly stylized and frequently hyperbolic method of recording history.[1]

It is clear that from within the book of Joshua itself, the text indicates that it isn’t to be taken literally. Consider the text of Joshua 10:20, ”It came about when Joshua and the sons of Israel had finished slaying them with a very great slaughter, until they weredestroyed, and the survivors who remained of them had entered the fortified cities.” If they were slaughtered and destroyed then there shouldn’t have been any survivors.

One of the best examples of why we should regard the text as hyperbolic occurs in Joshua 8.

v. 16, And all the people who were in the city were called together to pursue them, and they pursued Joshua and were drawn away from the city.

v. 17, So not a man was left in Ai or Bethel who had not gone out after Israel, and they left the city unguarded and pursued Israel.

v. 22, The others came out from the city to encounter them, so that they were trapped in the midst of Israel, some on this side and some on that side: and they slew them until no one was left of those who survived or escaped.

v. 24, Now when Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field in the wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them were fallen by the edge of the sword until they were destroyed, then all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword.

Taken literally, this block of scripture would be manifestly nonsensical. If there were no survivors or fugitives remaining in Ai, who did the Israelites pursue?

Joshua also exaggerates numbers:

v. 25, all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000—all the people of Ai.

Yet earlier the spies Joshua sent in prior to the battle for Ai make the remark:

Do not let all the people go up; only about two or three thousand men need to go up to Ai; do not make all the people toil up there, for they are few (Josh 7:3).

Clearly these texts aren’t meant to be literal, something else is going on and the hagiographic hyperbolic interpretation fits best and takes the passages that appear at face value to be nonsensical and interprets them within a flexible framework, just as other Near Eastern texts were understood at the time. A great deal of the narratives that contain troop numbers and or casualties mentioned are exaggerated for added effect. This was common during that period.

           

The Canaanites Were Innocent

Often times it’s assumed by many that the Canaanites were the victims of a terrible crime against humanity. “They were attacked and massacred for no reason at all,” I’ve heard some say—but is this true? Scripture presents a different story; the Canaanites were called wicked (Deut 9:5). What were they guilty of? Moses listed all the occultic practices of the Canaanites; they did “detestable things,” “practiced witchcraft,” and sacrificed their children to Baal via fire. Moreover, the Canaanites practiced bestiality—disgusting—this is why it is mentioned in Leviticus 18; God did not want the Israelites practicing this as the Gentile nations around them had done. “Not good enough evidence,” the skeptic might say, “the authors were biased and looking for a reason to fight the Canaanites.” To be sure, no one is without bias, but did the author accurately report what the Canaanites were doing? Extra-biblical evidence corroborates what the OT reports of them. In the Canaanite epic poem The Baal Cycle, we learn: “Mightiest Baal hears; He makes love with a heifer in the outback, A cow in the field of Death’s Realm . . . He lies with her seventy times seven, Mounts eighty times eight; [She conceives and bears a boy].” I think the evidence speaks for itself; Canaanite sexual practices are well documented.

“Utterly Destroy”

In Joshua 6-12, it is reported that Joshua “utterly destroyed” multiple cities and peoples. It is unlikely that whoever finalized the form of Joshua intended it to convey that the Canaanites were exterminated at God’s command. Joshua was intended as a literary component consisting of Deuteronomy, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. It is best to interpret it as preceded by Deuteronomy and succeeded by Judges. Given Judges is literarily linked to Joshua, the book presents a different story; it starts with the presumption that the Canaanites are still present in the land. So, Joshua on the surface seems to show that the Canaanites had been “utterly destroyed” yet Judges assumes they are not. In Joshua specific locations are mentioned where Joshua exterminated everyone (Hebron 10:36; Debir 10:38; Hillcountry Negev and western foothills 10:40). Yet, in the first chapter of Judges, it’s affirmed they couldn’t drive the Canaanites out from these very cities (Debir v.11; Hebron v.10; western foothills v. 9). Moreover, Joshua reports that he took the “whole land,” (Josh 11:23) whereas God makes a statement in Judges that presupposes Joshua did not take the whole land (2:21-23).

This tension can even be seen within Joshua itself, “It came about when Joshua and the sons of Israel had finished slaying them with a very great slaughter, until they were destroyed, and the survivors who remained of them had entered the fortified cities,” So, Joshua destroyed them yet they had survivors? What is going on? It seems to me, Joshua occurs in a literary genre that allows for the language of “utterly destroy” to be immediately followed up by a narrative stating the Canaanites were not “utterly destroyed.” So, put simply, Joshua appears to be highly stylized hyperbole whereas Judges appears to be more like down to earth history. This means Joshua is used to teach theological points rather than give a detailed account of history as it happened. Additionally, this sort of hyperbole was very common in Near Eastern conquest accounts and wasn’t understood as literal.

Some Innocents Were Killed

Given that the interpretation of Joshua presented here, the critic might still argue that some Canaanites were still killed including innocent children. I fully admit that this is possible. Is this a defendable position? My view is if we can coherently defend that if human beings on exceptionally rare occasions can kill innocents for some greater purpose or some greater good, then we have an even better reason for God issuing such a command.

First, humans kill innocents all the time for the sake of a greater good. Consider this scenario: a plane headed for Washington D.C. is reportedly hijacked. A terrorist has control of the aircraft and is headed for the White House, where thousands are gathered. The Air Force intercepts the plane and the fighter pilot is faced with a choice; he can either let the plane hit its intended target, killing thousands and potentially the leaders of the executive branch of government to include the president, or he can shoot the aircraft down and kill everyone on board to include the terrorists, men, women, and children. Is it coherent for this pilot in this extremely rare circumstance to kill innocent human beings? Most would say yes, he would be rational in making such a decision.

This pilot is armed with counterfactual knowledge and knows that if he does not shoot the plane down, more lives will be lost. Like the pilot, God knows counterfactuals as well. He knows not only what will occur, but also what would occur given different circumstances, and he knows this infallibly, whereas humans do not. So, is it coherent that God could command the killing of innocent human beings? My answer is yes. God may know that permitting the killing of some innocent Canaanites might have prevented future and greater loss of life or even greater apostasy by Israel leading to more spiritual death. The point is, if we as humans can rationally justify killing innocents in rare circumstances, and do so with hypothetical knowledge, then we have no grounds to criticize God, who does so, and is omniscient.

* Please read this related article from my colleague, Tim Stratton, shining additional light on the subject of the Canaanite Objection.

[1] K. Lawson Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).

/by