When the issue of morality is raised with atheists, they often respond by accusing the God of the Bible of being immoral. As an example, they point out that God slaughtered (or commanded the slaughter) of innocent people, women and children in the Old Testament (e.g. Deut. 7:1-2).
This is admittedly difficult, especially in light of our understanding of social justice here in 21st century America. There is no easy answer. And really, no answer will be satisfactory if one is determined to find fault with God. However, there are some things we can say here that will help us to address the challenge at hand.
The first problem is that we’re analyzing this from a human perspective. While it’s true that genocide and murder are immoral, they are only immoral because we do not have the right as mere humans to take the life of fellow humans. God, however, is the creator and originator of human life (Genesis 1:26-27), and because He has given life, He has the right to take it away (Job 1:21-22). He truly owes us no explanation (which infuriates atheists).
But contrary to the atheists’ charge, God has never arbitrarily or flippantly taken life. In Ezekiel 18:32, God says, “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies.” Peter adds that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
If God places such a high value on life, the logical question is, “What was God’s purpose for taking life in these instances?”
There are many instances in the Bible where God destroyed a nation (or people) because of its wickedness. The flood of Noah’s day and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are two examples. It’s worth noting that in both cases, the people had an opportunity to repent.
But when atheists accuse God of being a genocidal maniac, they usually have in mind the time when He commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the nations that inhabited the land of Canaan, not sparing women or even children (Deut. 7:1-2; Deut. 3:6; Josh. 6:21). What many fail to understand is that even this wasn’t without cause.
When God promised Abraham that his descendants would one day inherit the land of Canaan, He told him that “the iniquity of Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). In other words, God couldn’t justly take the land of Canaan away from the Amorites (and other nations) so long as they were a just and moral people. God’s promise to Abraham was that his descendants (Israel) would conquer Canaan when the Amorites became so wicked that judgment against them was warranted.
Along these same lines, Deuteronomy 9:5-6 says that Israel didn’t inherit the land of Canaan because of their righteousness, but “because of the wickedness of these nations.” Regarding the women, these were some of the same women who had caused the men of Israel to sin (Numbers 31:15-17).
These weren’t “innocent people” when you understand that immorality itself is a crime against the God of heaven. So God wasn’t arbitrarily wiping out nations of people. These were displays of divine justice against spiritual corruption.
These weren’t “innocent people” when you understand that immorality itself is a crime against the God of heaven. So God wasn’t arbitrarily wiping out nations of people. These were displays of divine justice against spiritual corruption.
This doesn’t quite explain the killing of the children, though, does it? This is the most challenging part of this issue, I admit. I don’t claim to have the perfect answer, but I do have an answer...
In the example of Israel’s conquering of Canaan, not only were they to utterly destroy the people, they were to tear down all the emblems of the idolatry that had plagued the land for so long (Deut. 7:5-6). This was about purging the land of its former identity so that the Israelites could have a fresh start in their mission of preserving the truth of God and bringing about the Messiah. Even though the children may have been innocent, God must have known that they would later revert to the pagan traditions of their forefathers.
And while this wasn't the reason that God commanded the slaughter of children, it is worth noting that young children would have gained immediate access to heaven.
In the example of Israel’s conquering of Canaan, not only were they to utterly destroy the people, they were to tear down all the emblems of the idolatry that had plagued the land for so long (Deut. 7:5-6). This was about purging the land of its former identity so that the Israelites could have a fresh start in their mission of preserving the truth of God and bringing about the Messiah. Even though the children may have been innocent, God must have known that they would later revert to the pagan traditions of their forefathers.
And while this wasn't the reason that God commanded the slaughter of children, it is worth noting that young children would have gained immediate access to heaven.
Some will argue that the above explanation is nothing more than a vain attempt to defend the indefensible. I admit that I begin with the belief that God is holy, righteous and therefore innocent. But let’s not kid ourselves: the atheist often begins with the belief that God is unholy, unrighteous and therefore guilty. I have seen many an atheist eagerly charge God with sin without even knowing the details of what happened or the circumstances.
God’s love, mercy and patience are on display from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, the Bible is about God’s plan to save fallen man through Jesus. “For God so loved the world…” (John 3:16). If God’s love and wisdom are so evident, and if He is sovereign, are we not going to give Him the benefit of the doubt when we struggle to understand His will?
Even when we don't understand how or why God does what He does, let us not forget that He is the Creator and we are the creation.
Even when we don't understand how or why God does what He does, let us not forget that He is the Creator and we are the creation.
Casey I just see this as a sad commentary on how believers are willing to sacrifice their own morality and humanity in deference to a god that deserves no worship or attention. If this being existed in our world it would be a despised being.
ReplyDeleteEven if you cannot explain or justify what God did 3,000 years ago, His existence isn't negated. At the most, it only means that you don't approve all of God's actions. But He is still God. He still sent Jesus to be the sacrifice for your sins - even if you don't accept this as logical. And He still offers you the gift of eternal life.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, there is much more to these texts than atheists such as yourself are willing to acknowledge. That was the point of this article. Whether you accept it or not, at least you know more (from a Christian perspective) than you did before.
And sending Jesus (or anyone) to suffer for another's bad behavior, that is immoral!
DeleteI refuse eternal life! Particularly if it is at the feet of this guy. I am good with this one thank you!
To accept the existence of a sovereign God who has the authority (and since He is the source of everything in this world, it belongs to Him - He has complete right to claim authority to dictate morals to us since we and everything else are and is His property) to dictate what will be considered right and wrong...is precisely what atheists will practically by definition of who they are (refusing to accept their position of subservience to a being who holds authentic and reasonable right to have, hold and exercise authority over them and their behavior)...will logically never accept...unless...nah...they would never accept God's right to take what is His because they don't even accept He exists.
ReplyDeleteThat whole concept you prop up right there as something to be worshiped. What about freedom? A God that feels that servitude is a necessary, to be subservient to, is god not worth any of my attention no less worship.A true loving being would hold no requirement of servitude. For one other thing since this is all mythical required thinking...The world is just not set up this way, and it would be an abomination to the world of physics as we know it if it were.
DeleteRichard, what is freedom? When you look at religious service, you see subservience and bondage. In one sense, that is true. But in another sense, it is the ultimate freedom - freedom from the bondage of sin and the fate to which I was bound apart from Christ (read Romans 6).
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious as to whether or not you're consistent in your view of dictatorship and oppression, as you understand these terms? Do you refuse submission to the government when it oversteps its perceived bounds? Do you not recognize the authority of this government given the fact that it dropped nukes on Japan and killed thousands of innocent people? What about the moral atrocities of this nation? Are you going to live in a compound somewhere and refuse to pay taxes because of these things? I doubt it.