Have you ever read the Old Testament . . . all of it?
It’s riddled with episodes of God becoming angry, God being filled with hot-boiling wrath, God changing His mind, God commanding Israel to destroy other nations — including the women and children, God creating “seemingly” crazy unreasonable laws, God allowing injustices, etc. etc.
Right?
All of this has given atheists, agnostics, and those hostile to Christianity ample ammunition to try and discredit the faith.
At the end of the 19th century, Enlightenment thinkers like Robert Ingersoll argued that the God of the Old Testament was a savage, unjust, awful Person. And that no one in their right mind could be a Christian as a result.
We have reincarnations of Ingersoll in people like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins (a.k.a. “The New Atheists”) who employ the same logic and line of reasoning in support of atheism. (Ingersoll was agnostic, but his arguments contra the Hebrew/Christian God are identical to that of Maher, Hitchens, and Dawkins.)
Paul Copan has written a new book that takes dead aim at the logic used by such people and refutes it squarely and sharply. For that reason alone I applaud him and his work. The book? Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.
While the book packs a strong academic punch, it’s written in such a way that any reader can understand it.
If the truth be told, I’ve been waiting for someone to write this book for many years.
I had the opportunity to interview Paul to give you a flavor of what his book is like. It follows.
Disclaimer: the person conducting this interview is not responsible for the various questions asked, quotes made, or implications therein. I hereby solemnly declare before God, angels, and mortals that I believe in the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, the 66 books of what we call “the Bible” or “biblical canon.” I believe that they are fully inspired, true, and reliable. I’m playing devil’s advocate in part of this interview because of what the book in question sets out to do. Continue on at your own risk.
1) What motivated you to write this book?
Old Testament ethical questions—especially that of “slavery” and “genocide” ranking at the top—have been an ongoing problem for Christians and non-Christians alike. Much misunderstanding exists about the world of the ancient Near East, confusion due to biblical translations, and the like. To make matters worse, the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so on) have recently highlighted these themes, calling God a “moral monster” or “not great.” More people are asking questions about these themes, and nothing accessible and wide-ranging was available offering succinct, biblically researched responses to these matters. So I decided to tackle these matters, first in journal-article form and then my Moral Monster book.
2) A noble and needed goal, indeed. With my next set of questions, I’m going to play Robert Ingersoll/Bill Maher/Richard Dawkins-esque “devil’s advocate.” So here goes:
Consider the following passage in the Law of Moses:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Doesn’t this make clear that the Old Testament was written by a man? Come on now. How is this consistent with a good, loving, reasonable God? If God wrote this, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a God like that. So what did God have in His mind when He authored this Law? And how does it reflect His nature? What say you?
This action was considered shameful—touching an area where only a man’s own wife is allowed to touch. Also, the man could possibly be permanently injured and thus deprived of future children. At first blush, this passage apparently requires that a woman’s hand must be cut off if she seizes the genitals of the man fighting with her husband—and scholars typically take this view.
If so, this would be the only biblical instance of punishment by mutilation; beyond this, where ancient Near Eastern laws call for bodily mutilation for various offenses, the Mosaic Law does not. The Babylonian code of Hammurabi insisted that certain crimes be punished by cutting off the tongue, breast, hand, or ear—or the accused being dragged around a field by cattle. The Law of Moses—though not ideal—presents a remarkable improvement when it comes to punishments.
This passage refers to justice. A more plausible interpretation of this passage is the punishment of depilation (“you shall shave [the hair of] her groin”), not mutilation. The word commonly translated “hand [kaph]” can refer to the “palm” of a hand or some rounded concave object like a dish, bowl, or spoon or even the arch of a foot. The commonly-used word for “hand” (yad) isn’t used here. It would be strange to cut off the “palm” of a hand!
Furthermore, in certain places in the Old Testament, the word kaph is clearly used for the pelvic area—either the concave hip socket (Gen. 32:26, 32) or the curve of the woman’s groin area: “I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles [plural: kaphot] of the lock (Songs 5:5 NIV). This language alludes back to the “locked garden” in 4:12: “You are a locked garden, my sister, my bride; you are an enclosed spring, a sealed-up fountain” (NET). Scholars generally agree that the garden language is a metaphor for a woman’s sexual organs, and its being “locked” implies her purity/virginity.
Also, in the Deuteronomy 25 text, there is no indication of physical harm to the man (as some commentators commonly assume). For those who assume a literal “hand for a hand” punishment, remember that the man’s hand hasn’t been injured or cut off (if so, then the idea of cutting off her hand would make slightly more sense). In addition, shaving hair—including pubic hair—as a humiliating punishment was practiced in Babylon and Sumer (cp. also 2 Sam. 10:4-5; Isa. 7:20). This isn’t mutilation for mutilation, but humiliation for humiliation.
In addition, the specific Hebrew verb-form (qal) has a milder connotation than the stronger, intensified verb-form (piel), meaning “cut off” or “(physically) sever [qatsats]” Whenever it appears in this milder form (Jer. 9:26; 25:23; 49:32), it means “clip/cut/shave [hair].” There’s just no linguistic reason to translate the weaker verb form (“shave”) as a stronger form (i.e., amputation). In this particular case, we’re talking about the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair. In short, the woman’s punishment is public humiliation for publicly humiliating the man—something still very severe and for which no mercy was to be shown. From a textual point of view, the superior view is clearly the “shaving” view, not the mutilation view.
Is this an ideal punishment for all time? Not at all! However, it does stand out in marked contrast to the severe and excessive mutilation punishments common in the ANE (ancient Near Eastern). In fact, in Middle Assyrian laws (around 1100 BC) present a similar scenario—though with far more drastic consequences. If a woman in a quarrel injured a man’s testicle, her finger would be cut off. If the other testicle was injured, both of her eyes would be gouged out. Again, even if Deuteronomy 25 were dealing with an actual mutilation punishment, this would be (a) the only such punishment in the Mosaic Law and (b) a dramatic contrast to the frequent mutilation punishments in the rest of the ANE.
3) A similar question. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” Whhhhaaaa? What’s the point of this? How does this reflect God’s nature?
Not only do specific kinds of food, clothing, planting, and sexual relations in their respective “spheres” serve as a picture of Israel’s set-apartness from the nations. The distinction between clean and unclean animals in particular symbolizes how Israelites were to act in relationship to their neighbor as well as to God. In the language of Leviticus, animals symbolize what God required from his people. For example, note the parallels between the kinds of animals offered in sacrifices in Leviticus 1, 3, and 23 (“without blemish”—including no crushed testicles— which resulted in a “pleasing aroma to the Lord”) and the priest who is to be “without defect/blemish” (Leviticus 21:18-24), including no crushed testicles.
There is a connection between the kinds of animals that are permitted/forbidden to be eaten and the kind of people God wants Israel to be in its relationships. The theme of (un)cleanness in Leviticus and Deuteronomy not only symbolizes creation’s orderliness with everything in its own sphere. (So, unclean animals represent a lack of wholeness or integrity in not belonging to their own “sphere.”) Yet something more is going on: animals that are unclean appear to be either (a) predatory animals or (b) “vulnerable” animals (defective in appearance or characteristics). This has a parallel to human relationships.
I can’t go into much more detail here, but perhaps that helps.
4) There are a number of instances in the Old Testament where God commands Israel to slay other nations, not sparing the women, children, or livestock. Is this not a heinous, horrific thing to command, let alone carry out? And doesn’t it contradict the teachings of Jesus regarding loving your enemy, forgiveness, etc. Here are two examples:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 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. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
Your book dedicates several chapters to treating this thorny topic. Can you give us a peek summary into what you have to say about it?
I can’t go into detail on this, but here are some of the highlights:
- The language of the consecrated ban (herem) includes stereotypical language: “all,” “young and old,” and “man and woman.” The ban could be carried out even if women and children weren’t present.
- So far as we can see, biblical herem was carried out in particular military or combatant settings (with “cities” and military “kings”). It turns out that the sweeping language of the ban is directed at combatants.
- The ban-language allows and hopes for exceptions (e.g., Rahab); it isn’t absolute.
- The destruction-language of ANE (ancient Near Eastern) warfare (and the OT) is clearly exaggerated. So groupings of Canaanite peoples that apparently were “totally destroyed” still happened to be hanging around when all was said and done (e.g., Judges 1). This is true with the Amalekites in 1 Sam. 15; though it seems like Saul wiped out all the Amalekites (except for King Agag, whom Samuel finished off), an Amalekite army is still around after this point (1 Sam. 30), and David’s men end up chasing them, with 400 escaping.
- The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite religion, not Canaanites per se—a point worthy of elaboration.
- The preservation of Rahab and her family indicates that consecration to the ban wasn’t absolute and irreversible. God had given ample indications of his power and greatness, and the Canaanites could have submitted to the one true God who trumped Egypt’s and Canaan’s gods, sparing their own lives.
- The biblical text suggests that peace treaties could be made with Canaanite cities if they chose to, but none (except Gibeon) did so (Joshua 11:19).
- We read many references to “driving out” the Canaanites. To clear away the land for habitation didn’t require killing; civilians fled when their military strongholds were destroyed and soldiers were no longer capable of protecting them.
- From the start, certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were subjected to forced labor—not annihilation (Judges 1:19, 21, 27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Joshua 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; cp. Psalm 106:34-35). This was another indication that the ban wasn’t absolute.
- Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deuteronomy 7 and 20), which means that Moses’s language is also an example of ANE exaggeration—not intended to be literal, all-encompassing extermination of the Canaanites.
- The archaeological evidence nicely supports the biblical text; both of these point to minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel’s gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance there.
5) The Old Testament is full of laws about cleanliness. Certain foods are unclean. A woman who is menstruating is unclean. Touching a dead body makes a person unclean. You treat this thoroughly in your book. But really: How can someone make sense of this except to think that a human being wrote these laws? How in the cat hair do they reflect God’s nature?
God meets people where they are. God does not speak entirely independently of culture, but very often through culture with its particular cultural symbols/taboos people are familiar with. Also, God takes into account the human condition—the fallenness of ancient Near Eastern social/moral structures—and works with them. God permits divorce, for example, because of the hardness of human hearts, not because this is the moral ideal (cp. Matt. 19:8). One of the points I hammer home in the book is that when you compare the Law of Moses to the other law codes in the ancient Near East, Israel’s is far more humanizing and morally elevated than the rest. When it comes to laws regarding servitude, punishments, the equality of persons before the law (including kings), and the like, Israel’s laws are quite astonishing.
6) Devil’s Advocate Questions Over (Sigh of relief): What has the reaction been to the book thus far? What would you like it to be?
The response to the book has been remarkable. Several prominent blogs have highlighted it as “the best defense of Old Testament ethics.” Scot McKnight at Patheos.com has done a series on my book, and I continue to be interviewed on radio programs and by prominent bloggers. I am regularly speaking on this topic of Old Testament ethics—including a lecture next week at Tyndale University in Toronto.
10) Christopher J.H. Wright has written a book entitled The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith, which you mention in your book. I’m not familiar with this work. How does your book compare and contrast with this title?
Christopher Wright gives more of an overview of the loving character of God in the Old Testament while focusing the troubling passages of Canaanite/warfare texts. Wright offers a helpful context of showing concern for the salvation of all nations—including the Canaanites—as well and that such warfare was unique and unrepeatable. But his work does not deal with the range of Old Testament ethical challenges that my book attempts to do.
Thanks Paul. I am so glad you wrote this book, and I glowingly recommend it to everyone. If it were up to me, this book would be in the top 10 on Amazon. Perhaps we can help push it up in that direction.
Order the book from Amazon in paperback
Order the book from Amazon on Kindle
Introducing an Incredible Designer
I find responses like Copan’s to the challenge of Old Testament conceptions of God and genocide problematic. In my view it does not take the ethical implications seriously enough, does not adequately address the violence and genocide in the biblical text (while also often pointing fingers at other religious texts for the same, such as the Qur’an), and fails to wrestle adequately with the archaeological data related to Evangelical assumptions about the interpretation of the text. In my view Philip Jenkins in his Laying Down the Swords: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (HarperOne, 2012) does a far better job. Approaches like Copan’s will satisfy many Evangelicals already predisposed to simple answers, but it will hardly satisfy skeptics or others in our pluralistic world.
In order to understand the God of the old testament, you need to understand the covenant that existed between God and His people during that time.
Not having this knowledge, will leave one believing God has a serious case of schizophrenia.
I totally agree with what you are saying about the method that we preach will vary from person to person. I like to think of it in the old terms of Jesus showed “grace” to the humble, and used “law” on the proud.
Hi, Frank.
Your question seems to me to be a distraction. But in answer to it, no I did not send the review to Copan before I put it up on my website. I’ve no doubt that he’s seen it. Of course, if I were publishing this in print somewhere, such as in a scholarly journal or with a book publisher, I certainly would have sent it to him first. And although it is a courtesy among scholars to send critical materials before publication, I’m not sure it’s a common one. Regardless, I know of no scholar who does this prior to the publication of a blog post. That’s the beauty of the internet. Errors are easily acknowledged and corrected with the click of a few buttons. If I’ve offered any straw man arguments, I welcome corrections, which I’ll publicly acknowledge on my website before correcting in my review. You’ve read his book. So tell me? Have I misrepresented him anywhere?
That’s precisely why at the outset of my review, I encouraged all readers to read my review alongside Copan’s book, “to check my work.” If I have misrepresented him on any particular point, it was most certainly unintentional, but it seems to me that you’re implying I have done so, or at least distracting attention from the exhaustive and substantive criticisms I’ve made of his very clear arguments by making this your “one simple question.”
The fact is, his arguments are very clear, and very easily refuted. And as it happens, “my personal opinion” on Copan’s arguments is fairly representative of the broad scholarly consensus on these texts. Don’t read that as an appeal to the consensus; I’ve made the arguments. But one of the fundamental problems with Copan’s book is he doesn’t engage serious critical scholarship. The New Atheists are relatively easy targets. But when it comes to the work of actual Bible scholars, Copan only uses conservative Evangelicals, and doesn’t engage the work of many critical scholars, and when he does only poor ones at that. He does, however, not infrequently use the work of critical scholars selectively and misleadingly, to support positions the opposite of which are held by the very sources he’s citing, which he also fails to mention. And while it has yet to be substantiated that I’ve engaged in straw man argumentation, I’ve shown several cases where Copan has done just that.
Anyway, more to the point, I’d love to hear your thoughts on my actual criticisms of Copan’s clear arguments. My hope is that you’ll come to see you’ve backed the wrong horse, because I see the kind of work Copan has done to be very destructive to the church, as I’ve articulated in the review in numerous places.
Blessings,
T
Thom: Not a distraction at all. It goes right to the issue of etiquette and courtesy when interacting with someone you disagree with in public. Especially given the kind of over-the-top rhetoric your using in your charges about his book. This to me is a larger concern than the book or the critique (see the post I sent you in my initial comment).
I’ll take the time to read your critique after you send it to Copan and get a response from him.
In short, I’ve read the book and his findings are attested by many scholars, and my own investigation into the same matters. But as you know, scholars disagree about virtually *everything*. So anyone can make the charges you make about any controversial book and point to people who side with you. I agree with Scot McKnight that if anything, he doesn’t go far and deep enough into the issues he treats.
That’s the most I can give to this subject as my time is very limited, and I’m engaged in the present posts. Post dealing with issues that I’m far more burdened about. So let’s leave it there for now.
Caring more about etiquette and courtesy than truth seems a misstep. Especially for any disciple of Jesus who, let’s face it, never asked permission to lob a stinging critique or insult at the religious authorities of his day.
Doesn’t the “scholars disagree about virtually *everything*” argument preclude any meaningful investigation into the truth of Thom’s argument? Or Copan’s book? Or anything, really?
The “I don’t have time for this” argument is kinda weird, too.
Charismanglican: It doesn’t appear that you’ve ever commented on this blog before. I beg your pardon, but no ever said they cared more about courtesy than truth. As I’ve stated here … https://www.frankviola.org/2010/08/30/misrepresentations/ … I don’t believe that writing a scathing critique of a book without going to the author *first* is intellectually honest. And frankly, I’m disinterested in reading such critiques.
As for the matter of time, I have a close friend in the ICU unit (day 12), preparing for an upcoming trip, just launched a new blog, and receive countless numbers of requests each week to read someone’s book, critique, blog, article, etc. Sorry if that sounds “weird” to you, but my standard of sorting things out is necessary as I can’t do it all. And with respect to critiques, it encourages people to go to the authors they are critiquing first before blasting them on a blog. “Treat others the way you want to be treated if you were standing in their shoes,” so said our Lord (with some paraphrase).
What I stated regarding Copan having being invited to respond first was fair. And I stand by it.
This will be my last reply on this thread. No time for an ongoing debate.
Oh, and I like your handle. Charismatic Anglicans are the best kinds. John Wimber did some great work in that area in the past. Love and miss him.
Our Christ is magnificent enough to save 100% of His human creation.
Frank,
Copan’s book is not the scholarly triumph you seem to think it is. It is riddled with errors, distortions, selective use of sources, mistranslations of Hebrew, blatant misreadings of the text, and so forth. Not only does Copan not understand ancient Israelite culture (not at all), he has an unconscionably jaundiced view of broader ancient Near Eastern cultures, which he also doesn’t understand. Copan engages in incessant pseudo-scholarhip, and I’m very sad that he’s pulling the wool over the eyes of so many unsuspecting but very well meaning Christians. I’ve reviewed his book, and the review is available on my website. I hope you’re able to take the time to see why Copan’s book is an obfuscation of the truth that is more harmful than helpful to the church. By the way, I’m a Christian.
All the best,
T
Hello Thom. thanks for commenting and offering your personal opinion on Copan’s book.
I have one simple question: What did Mr. Copan say in his response to your critique?
You *did* send it to him before publishing it … right? (See https://www.frankviola.org/2010/08/30/misrepresentations/ for the reason for my question.)
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” ~ H. Richard Niebuhr
Frank, could you please explain the above statement which you quoted in this blog?
Thanks!
Arlene: Niebuhr was describing the gospel that liberal theology proclaims.
Thanks for this, Frank!
I find it strange that we are so into man burning in hell forever and ever. Hades…place of the dead. Sheol..place of the dead. Gehanna…a pit where burning took place outside of Jerusalem…where the fire has gone out. The closest we have to the thought of hell is the lake of fire. And is it real? Revelation describes “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head, or the enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads, and the beast with ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name and resembled a leopard but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion…” We could make it real I guess.
No, I’m not a universalist. I do believe in restoration. Scripture is pretty clear on that. Judgement is real. Is it forever and ever(which is redundant)? The fire of God is real. But the judgment and fire of God brings purified gold. The law brought judgment and restoration. Jesus died to restore…and if we believe He accomplished that how could we believe in the eternal separation of some? I find it strange that believers totally ignore scriptures like these below…
Matt: 17: 11 And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, (21) whom the heavens must receive [dechomai, “accept, receive, take”] until the times of the restitution [“restoration”–NASB] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
2 Cor 5: (18) And all things are of God, who has reconciled US to himself by Jesus Christ and has given to US the ministry of reconciliation; (19) to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, not imputing THEIR trespasses unto THEM; and has committed unto US the word of reconciliation. (20) Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be YE reconciled to God.”
Isaiah 45:(23) I have sworn by Myself [God’s vow], the Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. (24) They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, and all who were angry at Him shall be put to shame. (25) In the Lord all the offspring of Israel will be justified, and will glory.”
Phil 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Cor 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order.
1 John 2:2 “and He Himself is the propitiation [covering] for our sins; and not only ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
Col 1:16 (16) “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions–all things have been created by Him and for Him. . . . (20) and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
Once upon a time, when I thought I didn’t believe in God, faced with my own mortality, my first (and what I thought would be my last) words were, “Oh my God!”
In terms of eternity, we can only choose from what is available, while it’s available, in this life. Because God created us to be free moral agents, He totally accepts and respects our willful and knowing decision to accept or to reject His only Way to salvation. However, after this life, when the choices are no longer on the table, there has to be an eternal place where our eternal souls must continue existing with the reward or consequence to our earthly decision. Since I don’t subscribe to the notion of annihilation, there are only two final yet eternal destinations I know of.
The essence of Hell is eternal separation from God. God is pure and holy. If He receives sin into His presence, His holiness is compromised.
Therefore those who don’t want God’s answer for human sin (Jesus’ sacrifice) will be gathered together forever. However, this won’t be a fun party. Just think how humans will act with no conscience, no law enforcement, and no moral restraint whatsoever. Now that’s Hell!
Great post. What you said about presenting the gospel is the key issue. I’d like to see more dialogue on that question in the blogopshere. It would be a lot more productive than what’s being argued about now. Another case of missing the main point.
took me a while to get through that – loved the interview. Is the book fairly scholarly? Because it sounds interesting but I have little patience for academic works, my time is limited.
Charlie: No, very readable.
In regards to the fourth question,
Information found in Genesis Chapter 6 and things related to “Sons of God,” Genesis 6:2,4 “ben ‘elohiym” in Hebrew, and Nephilim would be very relevant and useful. The gene pool problem that existed had to be wiped away, hence the flood. Only Noah and his family were “perfect in their generations,” Genesis 6:9. However, the Nephilim were still around after the flood somehow, Genesis 6:4 “in those days and after that.” Thus, it makes sense that this contamination of genes had to be destroyed since the creatures were evil and beyond saving and redemption since they were not even human. More information like this would also further show good evidence towards Gods commands.
I don’t think they are stupid – they’re too clever for that – but I do think it’s dishonest for some significant leaders I have met to have private views very different from the ones they are willing to preach publicly. I hope that’s not judgemental, as I’m simply speaking from experience, and thus I hope non-offensive, though we’ve seen in the example of Julian Assange that truth-spillers can cause offence. Oh, and if you don’t like him, didn’t Jesus get in trouble with Pharisees for much the same?
It just makes me sad that in protecting their ‘ministry’ and ‘success’ has come before honesty about their views on this, which in turn is preventing others from ‘fessing up and allowing an open debate. I’m not pre-judging the answer, simply saying that in the current climate there can be no answer people can honestly believe because the only option has already been dictated.
Frank,
Look forward to reading “Is God A Moral Monster” by Paul.
As one who debates atheists, agnostics, and skeptics for the past few years, the “moral dilema” argument put forth by the atheist is the most persuasive in influencing people away from faith in God, according to scholars. Actually, it is a huge source of confusion causing unbelief for many believers if truth be known.
It goes like this, If God is so good, and He is in control, and He is Omniscent, and He is foreknowing.
Then why did He, and why does He, allow evil?
Since there is so much evil in the world (seemingly more evil than good) and it influences so many people to evil (most), how could a good God ban people to hell for all of eternity.
Knowing most of the arguments pro and con and having argued them at length.
Does Paul address this head on in his new book or offer any new conclusive insights?
@Frank
Sorry, I didn’t mean to insinuate that Mr. Sweet doesn’t believe in hell in the afterlife. I did understand that he does from listening. I was disagreeing with the point he made early on about there being hell on earth due to the misery/consequences of sin. From what I’ve read in scripture hell is primarily described as a place revealed in the afterlife. Even with the following two verses being exceptions I still don’t see that we can scripturally say that hell is an earthly experience.
The tongue is set on fire by hell. (Jam 3:6)
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves! (Mat 23:15)
Heaven is described as a place also rather than a positive state on earth. Eternal life is the wonderful experience of Christ from here to eternity.
The church is thought of as a place more so than a people but many who call it a place believe that it is a people. Likewise I am seeing more and more people refer to heaven and hell as experiences sometimes in addition to being places. So just like I don’t see church as being a place when referred to in scripture I don’t see heaven and hell being earthly experiences in scripture either.
MAR: Heavenly places is the biblical term. And the Bible is very clear that heavenly places can be accessed now just as in the future and that one day it will overtake the earth. (See http://https://www.frankviola.org/frometernitytohere/ for details.) There’s no question that consequences for sin are experienced here and now, just as in the future. The Bible teaches this also. That’s what Len was speaking of in the early part of the talk. I have no problem with that idea as it’s correct.
I have to say I agree with an earlier commenter who said we have adopted a more pagan vision of hell. My understanding of hell is that it is separation from God. It’s as simple and terrible as that.
Think about it. We say all the time that the Creation reflects God; James says everything good and perfect comes from God. Just for a moment try to imagine being in a place with no light, no life, nothing that reflects or even hints of God, but at the same time remembering in the most base terms that you once did have access to this light, this love, this beauty, but you will never again experience anything that provides even a sliver of joy or pleasure. That’s hell.
Thanks again for the levelheaded discussion, Frank. I appreciate it. I’m a little frustrated with the interview, only because…if these explanations are true, doesn’t it mean that we have woefully poor translations? How on earth is the average Bible reader supposed to see these things when there is NOTHING in our translations to even hint at these kinds of interpretations? I’m not criticizing these interpretations or the interview. On the topic of hell, for example–why couldn’t Jesus’ hell be translated as “the Jerusalem dump” instead of something that associate with Dante’s inferno?
Mike: Since the Bible was written so long ago and in a different culture, it does require some understanding of the language, the times, and the culture. A good translation can’t even bring us to that. Scripture wasn’t written in a vacuum. So it does require some research to understand authorial intent. Thankfully there are tools available to help with this. It’s principally why I wrote this book as well http://www.ptmin.org/untold
kb, I don’t get how someone with a disability would be offended by Paul’s answer. He said “Is this an ideal punishment for all time? Not at all!” I think your comment about many people not really believing in orthodoxy but saying they do is much more likely to offend. It can be taken to mean that you believe people who honestly think the bible is reliable are either stupid to believe such a thing or dishonest just to be accepted. I’d say that’s pretty judgmental and offensive.
The bible does not portray *uni*versalism in any way, but it *does* portray *re*versalism. (Mt 7:21-23; Lk13:22-30; Lk 18:9-14). “Rather than the other…”
I guess my point is that a person with a disability might be justified in taking offence at his answer, and that there might be something in his ‘reflexes’ that actually points to a deeper problem.
But the wider issue (as I’ve tried to explore in a quick post here) is that I honestly don’t believe as many people as say they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture actually do, but that it’s become something they have to say in order to be heard on anything else.
And this is a problem, because it means people spend a lot of time working out complicated and convoluted ways of remaining ‘orthodox’, while they actually believe something rather different, which they can’t openly say.
I listened to the Leonard Sweet podcast you recommended.
I can’t agree with the presentation of Hell as a metaphor for living with the consequences of sin. I’ve heard some others talk of Hell in a similar way that Leonard does. They have the idea of sin being its own punishment and/or that the consequences of sin are hell/can be called hell. In our terms we could say that but in scripture I see no basis to think that heaven and hell are earthly experiences.
While the personal earthly consequences of sin are dire, thinking that they are their own punishment falls terribly short. “Love does no harm to a neighbor.” God hates sin because it harms us & others. The consequences of sin effect more people than just the one who committed the act.
Here is an example: If I killed a man who was a father and a husband the man’s family would suffer from the consequences of my sin on earth far more than I could. No matter how broken I am over sin, how severely the law punishes me, or how miserable my life gets it would not measure up to the impact MY SIN has on the man’s entire family. I would be just one man suffering the consequences for my own sin while they are multiple people suffering the consequences for what I’ve done to them and even future generations of their family would be impacted by my sin.
While the idea of “sin is its own punishment” is true to some degree it simply falls short of justice. Every time I’ve heard someone talk about it the focus is always on the one committing the sin. Sin harms more than just the person who sins. So as intellectual and right as it can sound I think the general concept is selfish and turns a blind eye to love (considering others). I can certainly see how the consequences of sin can last over a life time.
To bring this back around to what your post was about here is an excellent quote
“God is worth knowing because of who He is. God is worth loving because of who He is. This God is worth knowing even if there was no hell.” ~ Wayne Jacobsen
MAR: Perhaps you didn’t hear Len’s entire podcast or you did, but filtered it through one thing he said early on. He believes that there is a hell in the afterlife. His earlier comment that we make our own hell here (due to the consequences of our actions) doesn’t overturn that. So you’re comment isn’t really a response to Len, but to others who hold the idea that there is no hell in the afterlife.
Frank, Re hell: All you say and think is fine if you have considered all or at least many of the viewpoints truly, not judging issues from traditions that you and many others you have agreed on before. You do neither God nor man any good by treating the issue as trivial or contemptible.
What if God is showing us a new thing now, making clear His intentions and purposes in all this?
“the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ’ are affected very much by the truth about Hell, Hades, Gehenna and Sheol – all commonly thought of as “Hell”. It is vital to preach truth, not tradition.
Don: Never said it was trivial. But to go beyond what I said in the tweets (in blue) and engage in speculation has nothing to do with exploring, experiencing, and revealing the riches of Jesus Christ. And is a distraction. “Jesus Manifesto” and “From Eternity to Here” unravel that last statement and put it into perspective. There was a time when I was consumed with pursuing all kinds of “its” and “things” — but then I discovered HIM and it wrecked my life. Knowing about HIM and knowing HIM are two very different things. In the archives there’s a post called “Deep Ecclesiology.” It’s my journey and testimony and it will shed light on my statement. Maybe someone can find the link and post it in a comment. Can’t get to it at the moment.
Frank,
I’m really glad you stepped into this discussion. It seems many people in the housechurch/organic church /freedom in Christ / type movements are particularly being swayed by anything that sounds “less religious” to them – and distancing themselves from a Biblical view of God and hell and so forth. There is a “false freedom” thing going on, and since you are looked on as one of the “freedom fighters” of our day, I truly appreciate your willingness to take a stance here for there are many who are listening.
Heather
Heather: Thanks for your excellent comment. What’s frustrating to me is that people are calling EVERYTHING “organic church” now. I’m seriously considering creating a brand new term for what I mean when I’m speaking about a church life experience that maps to New Testament principles.
The departure from orthodoxy is in fact a trend in both the organized church and some expressions outside of it, as you point out. I’ve never actually met a group like that, but I know they exist as I find people claiming such on the Internet.
Thankfully, most churches that meet outside the organized church that I’ve observed, know, and meet on my travels are fully orthodox in their beliefs. But “house church” is a very wide canvas, and there are all types in it. As I’ve said in other places, un-organized church (in whatever form it takes) is just as diverse as the organized church. Neither is monolithic.
Really appreciate the encouragement. 🙂
Thank you for this post. It is not our points, and how we love them. As you bring out so well in you blogs and you books, it is not a doctrine, it is not a creed, not even the law. It is as Jesus says in John 5:39 -40″You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, it is these that bear witness of me, and you are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life.” Though we may never understand all things, especially the Old Testament. Our heart cry is as Paul, “Oh to KNOW HIM!’. Thank you my friend for I know this your heart cry.
Frank,
Thanks for encouraging us to do our homework. I was excommunicated in 1980 from one of those “Discipleship” movements and it took me 13 years to come to grips with it and trust again. This is the best advise for all of us regardless of where we are on our pilgrimage.
Frank, this is a great post. I think you nailed it by pointing out that the hell debate has been with us for a very long time, no one has solved it in bringing a consensus on the details (just like the second coming debate), but few have answered the more basic questions about the Old Testament portrait of God. It’s kind of like trying to answer speculative questions about the details of Mars before resolving the question about how to get resources from our own planet. Understanding the Old Testament God is a much more important discussion to have. What you said about presenting the gospel and the Jude quote was brilliant. Thanks again.
I know this is off the point, but I am really not sure we have properly understood the concept of Hell. We have, I fear, adopted more of a pagan view of Hell than the original Judeo/Christian one. (Perhaps someone should write a book about Pagan Christianity!!) Further to that, I can’t help thinking that if we can look forward to meeting Abraham, a pre-Jewish, monotheistic Iraqi chieftain, in the after (or after-after) life, we can probably expect to meet a few other unlikely characters.
I was thinking about this really. The answer that I came up with was that God is very different than we think He is. He IS the God in the Old Testament that did things that we wouldn’t think He would do. He also is the righteous God so anything that He does is 100% according to His righteousness and IS righteous.
How do we reconcile this? The only way is to realize that God, who is the all-knowing creator of the universe, is different than the God we put in a box in our head. This wonderful God deserves our life-long study and musing so that we get to know who He is in a personal and intimate way. Our journey to know God never ends. It’s a lifelong pursuit that requires us to love the Lord above all else so that we spend time with Him in prayer and in His word in order to begin to get to know him.
What do you think? Is God different than how most people envision Him? I believe He is. And He’s awesome.
Joe: We know God in the Person of Jesus Christ. He’s the express image. And yes, many do not really know Him. He’s an untamed Lion who will ever break out of our systems and concepts. Paul’s book does a good job in reconciling some of this. I recommend it.
Frank,
This is on of my top 5 favorite topics so far on your blog. A merry heart does good like a medicine! I laughed for at least 5 min.
Ha, I truly appreciate (love) your going straight for the atheist’s favorite Scripture of all time. (Deuteronomy 25: 11-12.) Being one who has been confronted with the actual situation (in a past life) in a bar fight, I would have been highly upset hadn’t the wife jumped in and offered a “hand!” I used to ride in an outlaw biker club. But I digress.
This one (Deuteronomy 20: 16-17) gets thrown around quite often in debate sites with atheist/agnostic/skeptics with particular relish and satisfaction, along with the common refrain: “How could you serve such a mean, hateful, judgemental, god like that?”
I’ve always thought that, reasonable, logical, people with critical thinking skills would be wise to study what the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite was up to that made God so angry in the first place. Knowing what they did convinced me that God was not only right, but I didn’t want to spend eternity with that bunch either.
I read something about hell lately:
“Hitchens helps us understand the psychology of atheism, which is often based not on inability to believe but unwillingness to believe. That is why the atheist embraces the scientific way of knowledge as the only way, not because this is necessary to operate his cell phone or iPod, but because this is how he can deny the supernatural, on the basis that it doesn’t show up on any labratory experiments.
The atheist basically wants to shut himself off from God, and this helps us see why heaven is not closed to atheists. Nor is hell the fiery pit into which atheists are flung for their misdeeds. Heaven is God’s domain, where He is eternally present, Hell is where God is eternally absent. God doesn’t reject the atheist; the atheist rejects God. God doesn’t dispatch the atheist to hell; the atheist wishes to close his eyes and heart to God and God reluctantly grants him his wish.”
“What’s So Great About Christianity”, Dinesh DeSouza, page 290.
Dawkins doesn’t believe God exists but calls him a monster. Hello…
“I reject ATHEISM because it has ‘NOTHING’ to offer”
– Pete
Frank – simply an outrageously excellent statement about hell – when we finish exploring with people the IMMENSITY of the grace and mercy of God, then maybe we can tackle something (that really isn’t our business to dissect) like the subject of hell. I’m with you – it is undeniable that it exists and that it is undesirable…the rest has to be left up to God – not our business to explore it, make people fear it or bring people to Jesus as a means of escaping it – the Holy Spirit draws people to the awesomeness of who are God is – until we bend the knee to our Savior and not just fall into the waiting arms of a firefighter to get us out of a rough patch, we’ve got this whole “good news” thing wrong…excellent post…
If you are a preacher of the gospel of Christ, the existence of a real hell should not be left out of His gospel.
rdugall – I am with you on the immensity of the grace and mercy of our heavenly Father, however I don’t believe Frank was advocating not ever addressing hell in our witnessing, bur rather a sensitivity to God’s Spirit as to when, if necessary it should be brought up. For instance, when contrasting the unfathomable riches of God’s grace to the rightness of God’s judgment on unrepentance, we see even more the richness of His grace toward those who will believe. And there are some out there who need the message of what hell is so as to understand what they are to be saved from. As a believer, I still fear hell, not for me but for my unbeleiving friends. Being able to discuss both sides of this issue I have to be more useful in witnessing when the question comes up about God’s justice. I could go on, but I hope I made myself clear enough on this…
I think Paul’s final point to the opening question has a lot of merit. He writes:
“Is this an ideal punishment for all time? Not at all! However, it does stand out in marked contrast to the severe and excessive mutilation punishments common in the ANE (ancient Near Eastern). In fact, in Middle Assyrian laws (around 1100 BC) present a similar scenario—though with far more drastic consequences. If a woman in a quarrel injured a man’s testicle, her finger would be cut off. If the other testicle was injured, both of her eyes would be gouged out. Again, even if Deuteronomy 25 were dealing with an actual mutilation punishment, this would be (a) the only such punishment in the Mosaic Law and (b) a dramatic contrast to the frequent mutilation punishments in the rest of the ANE.”
Excellent take. Your point about the practical of where the question of hell leads is a new but important one. I’m not seeing that at all in the discussion. The Jude text is one I never saw before. I really appreciated this.
This statement was just awesome!
“Here’s my concluding statement on hell: When I’m finished exploring and declaring the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ with my brothers and sisters, I’ll get around to dissecting the anatomy of hell.”
Outstanding post. Perhaps the best theological approach to this issue that I’ve seen.
A soundbyte from Erwin Mcmanus resonates with me: “God is for you… but he will not stop you if you insist on choosing hell.”
I’m worried by his response to the ‘crushed testicles.’ The ‘wounded and vulnerable/defective’ axis would suggest that those who are disabled should be excluded:
It seems to be a very long and convoluted way to get round things so that we can still pretend that we have no problem with scripture being ‘perfect’… My serious question is this: are we doing that because we truly believe it, or because we cannot countenance the flak we would get and exclusion we would suffer if we suggested different?
I think this impacts on the hell argument. I honestly believe there are some who are defending their position not out of a theological integrity, but out of a fear of being excluded from the safety and security of back-slapping orthodox comfort if they did speak their minds.
KB: I’m not sure that Paul’s argument on that question is the best or that it’s even accurate. Nonetheless, his book is great and he addresses many issues in a superb even-handed way. On the other hand, I’m quite surprised that you would take this small snippet out of the entire post and come to some of the conclusions you did. I saw your blog post and I certainly don’t fit into your description, and I don’t think Paul does either. As I’ve written in my books, much of the Old Testament laws are types and shadows pointing us to Jesus Christ and the spiritual principles of the ekklesia (Col. 2, Heb. 7-11, etc.). And they aren’t in any way, shape, or form to be seen as keeping disabled people from being in the church. (Not sure where you got that from, bro 🙂 I agree with your last statement. Though we should never judge the motives of others. So I’m not sure who specifically would fit into that.
That hit a little too hard, but it was timely. I was getting wrapped up in it all. Thank you not only for presenting a balanced voice, but a voice of calm reasoning. When you said, “When I’m finished exploring and declaring the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ with my brothers and sisters, I’ll get around to dissecting the anatomy of hell,” it struck a chord; a sentiment wholeheartedly shared.
Thank You.
This is great. Too many times people take the Bible out of context without the background to really know what is being stated. I find it interesting that we both blogged about the Old Testament today. My post is God Still Moves Mountains Today. Thanks for a wonderful post. I know I’ll be coming back for referrence many times to this. 🙂
Thanks for posting. Thanks for making your views so clear. Thanks for the interview with Copan. I look forward to reading his book.
Complex information filled with essential context understandings… God is way beyond our ability to fully comprehend, non the less, He has provided ample instructions for what He is Desiring from us… A Comment that is often used in our circles is: “God is the only one who is able to Judge Perfectly & Righteously, in the context of Eternal Expectancies, therefore will leave that to Him & we will focus our energies on what he has asked of us… To Love One Another.”
Frank, thanks for sharing your view of Hell and the deeper question that must be answered: Who is this God that we follow? Many people like to take an extreme view, but I enjoyed your balanced presentation. Plus, you didn’t bash anyone’s view, as most people enjoy doing nowadays. 🙂