Christians talk a lot about love. Indeed throughout the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, we find a lot of space given to the notion of God’s love. The most often quoted verse in the Bible is John 3: 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Christians are convinced that God loves everyone. Well most Christians anyway. Calvinists don’t believe that God loves everyone and that God’s love is reserved for the elect, those chosen by God before the foundation of the world. Most people, at some time or the other, will be told that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life.
Certainly a God of love is a great idea, but unfortunately when we take time to carefully read the Bible we do find a God of love, but the God of love pales when compared to the God of wrath, judgment, hate, and fury.
While a case can be made from the New Testament for the God of love, when it comes to the Old Testament the God of love is largely absent. I’ve often wondered if some Christians secretly wish that the Old Testament had never been written? Their case for God being a God of love is much easier to make without the Old Testament. But the Old Testament is central to the Christian faith and it is the God of the Old Testament that I want to spend most of the rest of this post talking about.
When I read the Old Testament I see a God that any sane human being should fear.
From the very first pages of the Bible we see a God that hates sin and has little tolerance for the foibles and faults of humans.
According to the Bible, God created Adam and Eve and gave them one command to obey, don’t eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So what did Adam and Eve do? They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How did God respond to their transgression? He cursed them and condemned them to death. Not only that, but every human being after Adam and Eve are also cursed and condemned to death.
Someday all of us will die and according to the Bible we will die because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit.
A piece of fruit? Yes a piece of fruit.
God so hated their transgression that he cursed every human being that would ever live on the face of the earth. This God is one not to be trifled with and one that we should fear.
Adam and Eve had two sons named Cain and Abel. I’m sure you know the story well. What I want to focus on is Cain killing Abel. After Cain killed Abel God cursed him and put a mark on him. As a boy I was taught that the mark God put on Cain was that he made him black. Again, a God to be feared.
Six chapters into the book of Genesis we find that God is already sick and tired of the human race. God is so upset that he wishes he hadn’t created humans. How did God deal with the sin and rebellion of the human race? He killed everyone, save 8 people. Think about this for a moment. God killed men, women, children, and unborn babies. Kind of hard to make a pro-life case for this God. Again, a God to be feared.
Throughout the Bible God commands his chosen people to slaughter others. Anyone who got in the way of the Israelites or refused to worship the true living God, God commanded that they be killed. Even among God’s chosen people God had no tolerance for disobedience. When God had Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt he got upset over their lack of faith and obedience. So what did God do? He made them wander in the wilderness for 40 years and for those over the age of 20 he killed them before they entered the Promised Land. Again, a God to be feared.
From Genesis to Malachi the message is clear, mess with God and you die. The Old Testament God is a God to be feared.
It should come as no surprise that some people decide that there are two Gods in the Bible, the Old Testament God in the New Testament God.(personally I think there are multiple gods in the Bible) These people rightly understand that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are incompatible. Christians have spent 2,000 years trying to make the Old Testament God and the New Testament God compatible. Perhaps God has a split personality and that explains the difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God.
But even in the New Testament there are events that tell us that the God of love has a real mean streak.
What are we to make of the death of Jesus on the cross? According to the substitutionary atonement theory, Jesus died on the cross for other people. The Arminian says Jesus died for everyone and the Calvinist says Jesus died for some people, but regardless of the breadth of the atonement, Jesus suffered a painful, awful death on the cross.
Who punished Jesus on the cross? None other than his father, the wrathful God of the Old Testament. God the father poured out his wrath on his son ultimately killing him.
Think about this for a moment. Think about a father brutally killing his son because of what someone else did. Would we think such a man to be worthy of our admiration or our love? I think not.
The death of Christ on the cross at the hands of his father is a poignant reminder that God hates sin and those who do it. In fact, if it wasn’t for the atoning work of Jesus and Jesus standing as our go between, God would pour out his wrath on us right this moment. This is a God to be feared.
In the book of Acts we are told a story about two people who told a lie. Ananias and Sapphira lied about selling some property and God killed them on the spot. The Bible says that great fear came upon the people. I too would fear a God willing to kill over the price paid for a piece of property.
And then there’s the book of Revelation. From start to finish, the book of Revelation is all about God killing and destroying. God uses the most deplorable methods possible to prove that he is the meanest, baddest son of a bitch in the universe. I’m surprised that a movie has not been made about the book of Revelation. This movie would make Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ look like a G rated kids flick.
While many Christians want to focus on the good stuff found in the Bible, things like love and forgiveness, we must not forget that far bigger than God being a God of love is the fact that God is a God of wrath and he should be feared.
Hundreds of times in the Bible we are told to fear God. In the churches I grew up in, the college I went to, and in my own ministry, the wrathful God, the sin hating God, the violent God, played a prominent part. It should come as no surprise then that I had a healthy fear of God. In my mind God always seemed to be lurking in the shadows waiting for me to stumble and fall so he could chastise me or kill me.
I am sure that some readers of this blog will suggest that I have a warped view of the Christian God. I contend however, that those who preach up the love of God at the expense of the wrathful God are giving people a truncated view of the God of the Bible. Most of what we read in the Bible reveals a God of wrath not a God of love.
The conclusion I come to is this. I find little about the God of the Bible that is worthy of emulation. Why would anyone want to be like the God of the Bible?
Of course many Christians have learned to compartmentalize the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Yes they are aware of the Old Testament God of wrath but they prefer the New Testament God of love. The Old Testament God is kept in reserve, only to be trotted out for raining judgment upon homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, Barack Obama, and Democrats.
Fortunately, the God of the Bible does not exist. Imagine what the world would be like if the God of the Old Testament existed? I can only imagine that few of us would escape the death penalty. Even Christians would likely be killed by the God who hates sin and those who do it. If the God of love really existed one would think that the world would be in much better shape and that peace and goodwill would fill the land.
If you’re Christian, I ask you, how do you reconcile the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? If you used to be a Christian, did the Bible picture of God play a part in your de-conversion? If you are a liberal Christian who focuses on the love of God, how do you square your belief with the fact that most of the Bible talks about a God of wrath rather than a God of love?
For me personally, one of the reasons I left the Christian faith was because I could no longer square my view of what God should be with what the Bible said he was. When I stopped believing the fear went away.
What about you? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
The God of the Bible didn’t sound like a very good father to me. He didn’t sound kind, long-suffering, wise. You know that scene at the end of Bridget Jones’ Diary where the guy reads her diary? He reads how much she hated him, etc. So’s she’s upset that he’s read that and left her. It turns out he read it, was mature and insightful enough to see that it was rubbish-and bought her a new diary.
Is there anywhere in the Old Testament where it says the Messiah’s coming would be in two stages? I could be wrong but I think it just said that the Messiah would come; not, as in the case of Jesus, that he would come, go back to heaven, then come again.
You can shoehorn almost anything into the OT if you try hard enough, but I have never heard someone preach on how the OT clearly explains both. It can only be seen through “the lens of the NT” is how that is usually taught, with OT verses selected higgledy piggledy from all over.
The OT doesn’t have any mention of the two stage second coming and I am not sure the NT does either. The rapture is inferred from Scripture…
If Jesus is a fulfillment of OT prophecy then that would be a significant discrepancy. I’ll have to re-read ‘Why the Jews Rejected Jesus.’
Sorta correct. Except OT sin was adultery, NT sin was lustful thinking. OT god kills, NT god won’t let you perish so the flames can lick on you forever.
I can sum up how I feel about these very important points, my friend, with a quote from one of my heroes, Dr Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Bible is undoubtedly the most unpleasant character in all of Fiction”.
That says it all…
Why does any other god who requires child sacrifice come in for much revulsion and scorn by Christians (like Moloch in the OT, who required passing children thru the fire); but bible God wanting it, with his own son as the sacrifice no less, is commended and thanked. “Yay, God kills his kid and I’m no longer responsible for my bad behavior!” It seems Jesus had a pretty rough weekend there at the end, but is knowing you’ll be alive again in 3 days, perfectly healthy, really a sacrifice? If Jesus had gone to Auschwitz with his wife, a couple kids, and his parents, and had them all jerked away from him to be brutally murdered; then he got worked to death for the 6 years of the war, only to die just as the allies were in sight, with no knowledge of being resurrected in three days–now there’s a sacrifice.
And we should probably remember the history of why Mary became so prominent in the Catholic teachings. She was there to protect us of the wrath of Jesus since he was coming back with destruction in his wake. Don’t bother directly asking Jesus things in prayer, go to Mary if you need something.
so, if blacks were the descendants of cain, and yet only 8 people were on the ark, then who among the 8 was black?
not that logic is a strong suit of fundamentalists, but i was curious what pretzel logic and mental back-flips cover over that issue, or if it ever came up in your experience.
Yes, if Noah’s family was white, then where did all these dang blacks, mexicans and chinamen come from? ;-p
Good question, one that was never asked. I remember street preaching in Washington, DC with some men from Peter Ruckman’s school. They told me there was no need to witness to black people because they didn’t have a soul.
The de-conversion ball started rolling when I started asking questions. You know, the 11th commandment — THOU SHALL NOT ASK QUESTIONS. I mostly just wanted to know why…why, for example, does the OT God say Ya’ll don’t b killin anyone…umm, except for that group and this one and also homosexuals and murderers, kill them. And people claiming to be bible “scholars” picking out random verses to justify their claims–yeah, god said don’t kill but then later on he gives provisions for certain things to justify killing. But of course when I had a teacher talking herself in circles I merely had to have faith that this god that speaks out of both corners of his mouth LOVES me. And if I didn’t believe and have faith I had a great big sin problem.
That attitude, constant proof texting, being told I’m crazy, and asking questions being dubbed as “a lack of faith” made me see things far differently. Thankfully.
I finally gave up the Church and gave up god because I was so tired of being afraid. I was–but still am–afraid of hell. I was afraid because I married a non-Christian, even though we loved each other very much. I was afraid because we got divorced, because something happened in his life that made him hate everything in it, including me. I was afraid because our daughter is not religious, or baptized, so I was afraid I was going to hell because of that. I was afraid of the country’s being attacked after 9/11, and I didn’t know how I would be able to take care of my little child and myself too, if society broke down. It dawned on me, finally, that all the fear that religions reign down on their membership is really terrorism. It is straight up religious terrorism: “If you don’t do x, you will go to hell and be tormented forever and ever and ever.” I talked to a Jew once–Jews don’t believe in hell–and he asked me, “Why would you have such a belief?!?”
But I am still afraid of hell. Many years ago, my little girl, who was only 10 at the time, said, “Mommy. I am afraid of going to hell.” And my heart just broke, because I couldn’t straight out tell her that little children don’t go to hell. Because how do I know? What infraction would send you there?
And finally one day, I was just too tired of being afraid, and something bad happened to me, and I just couldn’t deal anymore. And I said, “There is no god.” And I felt freer, somehow. But yet, I’m still afraid of hell. And so tired.
Karen,
If there be a god (full disclosure – I am atheist), it would be better than we are. I can be horribly angry with someone who has hurt me wrongfully, but I could not forcefully hold his/her hand in a candle flame for 1 minute. How can any reasonable person believe that a god, better than us, could inflict worse pain, never ending, on some one for merely not believing in it (when it hides from us to assure we have faith)?
Perhaps Bruce can make or has made posts targeted at alleviating this residual fear, which troubled me also for a long time? I too could say more, but don’t like to get too lengthy in a blog comment.
Karen, I truly feel you on the fear of Hell. I looked into the Hell concept in the Christian faith. I came out of my last bout in the church with a huge fear of Hell.
All I can say is: What a load of bs. The Jews don’t believe in Hell. They think when you die, you are DED – dead.
If there really was a Christian eternal Hell then don’t you think Biblegod would have mentioned it somewhere in the Old Testament. Well, He didn’t.
The Hell concept has reached grotesquely laughable proportions. You’ll be tortured forever and ever and ever and ever. Geez, the whole Universe will collapse in on itself in a certain number of billions of years but you are still going to be tortured even after the Universe is gone? Come on now. That is just ridiculous.
How will this torture actually occur? You have no body so you can’t really burn. You need a real body for that. Eternal separation from God? Please, sign me up since that God is a monster anyway! Oh, God will annihilate us and we will be gone but wait…that is what really happens when you die so what’s the big deal there.
These preachers should be told to get off the sadistic wagon train of fear mongering because they are mean and sick people for implanting fears like that. Keep telling yourself it is a crock and remind yourself that there is zero believability in the Hell concept. It is just a tool to make you afraid to think for yourself.
Absolutely no loving being could have a hell like the hell described by preachers and priests. There is no infraction a person could commit in their finite lifetime that would be deserving of that kind of Hell. Not even Stalin or Hitler would deserve that kind of punishment. Just plain out of proportion to anything, anyone, anywhere, could do in 70 years or less on this planet.
“The Jews don’t believe in hell. They think when you die, you are DED- dead”.
I read that and thought to myself, “Is that true?” So I did some serious research an the ‘net, reading many sites on Judaism, and came to the conclusion that, no, that is not true. Mostly, they (the Jews) believe in GanEden (the garden of Eden, also known as Paradise), Olam HaBa (the next world), and Gehenom (hell). There are just as many differing beliefs about the afterlife in Judaism as there are in Christianity, but the Jews do, to some extent, believe in an afterlife.
Michael, now you aren’t thinking like the Jews of the Old Testament times which you explicitly said we all had to view the Old Testament from their eyes. In the Old Testament times the Jews thought when you died you were dead.
I can’t amend comments. The Old TEstament only makes reference to Sheol or the grave and not to Hell.
I wasn’t commenting on the Old Testament Jews’ beliefs, I was repeating what I had read about the beliefs of modern-day Jews regarding the afterlife. You yourself said, “The Jews don’t believe in hell,” not “The Jews didn’t believe in hell.” I was just trying to point out that that is not exactly true of Jews today.
Man, I wish I had some Jewish friends whom I could ask about this, but I don’t, so I am reduced to researching their theology on the internet. Aren’t there any Jewish folks out there reading this blog who could chime in?
BTW, “Michael, now you aren’t thinking like the Jews of the Old Testament times which you explicitly said we all had to view the Old Testament from their eyes.” That’s not even a real sentence.
Hi, Karen. There’s an interesting rant in HuffPo today by Frank Schaeffer, son of 70′s fundamentalist guru Francis Schaeffer, discussing a new movie titled “Hellbound?” and the psychological “captivity” that these things like hell and punishment create in people’s minds. It’s here: http://huff.to/OuHDk2
Great post. In fact, it was this very subject that made me de-convert. Love your enemies- kill those Midianite children. The meek shall inherit the earth- show no pity when you cut off a woman’s hand. All are equal in Christ Jesus- if you give birth to a girl don’t go near a temple for 66 days. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone- kill the amalekite infants. The sabbath was made for man- stone to death the man who picked up sticks. They’re obviously incompatable. Bible study is the quickest way to atheism.
Interesting and important post, Bruce. I’d like to say simply “I don’t know and ignorance is bliss, so leave us alone in our bliss!” but that won’t do, will it?
One issue is that none of us today (21st century westerners) think and feel and live life in the same ways as the ancient middle-easterners. I do believe God deals with people where they are. But that’s not enough of an answer. (If it is, you can stop reading now.)
Also, there’s the matter of progressive revelation. God did not reveal everything about himself and his ways in the beginning. The OT reveals the concept that there is one God who is holy and righteous, and humans, as his creatures, are accountable to him for what they do with the life they have been given. But what’s in the OT is not complete. And, no, that’s not enough either.
What you’ve presented as the teaching of the OT is somewhat overstated and out of balance. There are multiple statements and actions attributed to God that show he loves and cares for people, even though they (we) fail to live up to his expectations. For example: “I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32) Also, saying things like God killed people over a piece of fruit or property is a little skewed – those incidents are about serious rebellion (not sure if there is non-serious rebellion) against God – not about a thing but the heart. And that’s really what all this wrath and judgment are about – dealing with a humanity who has revolted and thrown everything on earth out of kilter. (I think the fact we could do that is also an example of God’s love, but that’s a whole ‘nother post.) We want to believe we’re innocent but rebellion is serious. As bad as all the judging and condemning and killing was in the OT, it seems it could have (should have?) been much worse (see Acts 17:30).
The most important thing in all this for me is Jesus Christ. I’m convinced he is the God of the OT as well as the New. When you talk about “a father brutally killing his son because of what someone else did” and scott comparing Christ dying with child sacrifice, that’s a distorted picture of what happened. You make it sound like God the Father forced his helpless baby to be tortured and killed. But of course that’s not what happened. Jesus said, “No one takes it [his life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” (John 10:18) It would not have been “sacrifice” if he didn’t give his life willingly. And “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ…” (2 Corinthians 5:19) This, for me, is the greatest evidence of God’s love – all the wrath and judgment pales when compared to that.
I sure don’t claim to be able to answer all the questions. No one can. My favorite verse now (or at least the one I best live up to
) is 1 Corinthians 13:9 – “For we know in part and we prophesy in part” – we (including Paul) just don’t know it all. So I don’t expect what I’ve said to cover all your issues, but since you asked, that’s my perspective.
Michael,
It seems you are just trying to spin it–when it all boils down, the God of the bible required a bloody child sacrifice in order to be appeased. That makes him defective, like all other gods. It’s all just silly, from a far away time and a culture we don’t understand. It’s mythology, and when you start believing it really happened, that’s where the trouble starts.
“And “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ…” (2 Corinthians 5:19)” Well, that sounds pretty good. So it’s a gift to everybody? The final sacrifice needed and it covers all-they don’t have to drum up belief, do anything after that? Just accept the gift? God fixed the problem, so we can all stop worrying if we’re really going to make it to heaven? I think there’s a lot more complications if you read other parts of the Bible.
Given that salvation is not as simple as people like to portray-I think it’s darn confusing and contradictory-still God himself seems like a real meanie. What about all the suffering of even little children in this world, who’ve done nothing but be born? What about the poor little kids during the flood? Why doesn’t God ever feel sorry for anybody? Is free will valued so much more by God than the suffering of your child or grandchild? Evidently.
Your first comment really struck me, cause I think there’s a lot of truth to it-”ignorance is bliss, why not leave us to our bliss?” I felt that same way after I’d moved around some and left the cozy, little world of IFB I’d grown up in. I sometimes longed to go back to that world. I wondered what my life and thinking, etc. would have been like if I’d never moved from my hometown to other cities and states; if I’d never read all those books; if I’d married someone like me (an IFB’er from the South) instead of someone who grew up in New England who went to better schools and was a college graduate.
What did Adam and Eve do? Sin is the act not the thought. They ate a piece of fruit off a tree that God told them not to eat. That is what the text says, yes? You are importing NT theology into the text.
So your argument for God is………gee, he could have been a worse murdering son-of-a-bitch than what he was?
In what universe is love demonstrated by killing someone you supposedly love? Of course, in the case of God the Father and Jesus, it was God killing himself? (was it suicide, besides Jesus wasn’t really dead was he?)
At the time the NT church was established and for several decades afterward, all the church had was the OT. Are you saying God left them with an insufficient text?
Okay, yes they ate the fruit, the issue being “that God told them not to eat.” It was rebellion. I’m not sure what you’re referring to “importing NT theology.” If it’s the idea that sin is not just an outward act, but an inner person issue, that’s all through the OT. And I wonder why you criticize me for using NT teaching to understand the OT when you use 21st century North American ideas to explain the Bible.
He could have punished and killed more than he did.
I’m not aware of any Scripture saying that God killed Jesus. If you know of one, I’d like to see it. Even so, it’s clear that Christ did not die against his will. Again, you’re trying to make it sound like the Father forced poor little helpless Jesus to go to the cross. That dog won’t hunt. It’s a futile argument.
Insufficient text? No, but incomplete.
God had to save people from Himself by creating a Man version of Himself so that he could place Himself on the cross and die a gruesome death [but not really since He wasn't dead just in limbo] so that He could save people from Himself. This is just silly.
Why didn’t God say “Geez, did I mess up when I left that tree in the garden. I forgive you.”
You import NT theology to explain things like sin, rebellion, etc.
What does James 1:13-15 say about your notion of “sin is not just an outward act, but an inner person issue?” Even in the OT were sacrifices given for what people thought or what they did? The Bible says sin is transgression of the law. Not thinking about transgression, actual transgression.(and yes I am aware of Jesus’s command about lust in your heart. It seems to contradict most everything else the Bible says about sin)
Uh, using NT theology to interpret the OT is not the same as using 21st century ideas to explain the Bible. I hope you will think about this analogy for a moment and not use it again.(especially since you yourself are using 21st century ideas) I am not even sure if I AM using 21st century ideas. My objections are hardly new.
I get that “He could have punished and killed more than he did.” Restating it doesn’t change the fact that you are saying “So your argument for God is………gee, he could have been a worse murdering son-of-a-bitch than what he was?”
I don’t think I said Jesus was a baby (your word) or that he was forced to die. Of course, I don’t think the death of Jesus narrative is factual to start with. These narratives were written decades after the death of Jesus and I suspect his death became a lot more noble than what it was, a zealot getting executed.
Isaiah 53:4 says, if it is a prophecy about Jesus which I assume you think it is, that Jesus was smitten by God.
Do a word study on propitiation and let me know if you still think God the father didn’t pour his wrath out on Jesus. (this is a standard plank of the substitutionary atonement theory) Start with 1 John 4:10. Keep in mind two things…how God views sin and those who do it and what the purpose of the atonement was. Then ask yourself, did Jesus die from the wrath, the anger that was poured out on him? Pretty standard stuff, Michael, at least in Evangelicalism.
Here is an article on wrath in the Bible. http://marshill.com/media/christ-on-the-cross/jesus-took-our-wrath
That sin is not just outward action is all over the Old Testament. Genesis 6:5 – “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” Leviticus 19:17 – “Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart.” Deuteronomy 29:18 – “Make sure there is no man or woman, clan or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the LORD your God to go and worship the gods of those nations…” Etc., etc.
I’m familiar with and in agreement with substitutionary atonement. You put Christ’s death in the context of God being “mean.” If Jesus willingly gave himself as the substitute, then the crucifixion was not God being mean.
Using the NT to interpret the Old is legitimate, even necessary. It’s kind of like reading the last book in a trilogy – you can understand the first book better. When you use 21st century North American thinking to interpret the OT, it’s more like reading a book from a different trilogy by a different author and using it to interpret the other series. I think you are using current ideas to say God was mean when he judged and punished people in OT times and poured out his wrath on Jesus. The thinking today is that God is not holy enough and sin is not serious enough to warrant judgment and punishment or the sacrifice of Christ. 21st century North Americans want to be able to do just about anything they want without there being any spiritual consequences. Now, you can believe that way if you want, but you’re misinterpreting the Bible when you use that standard to evaluate God’s actions. If you’re going to discuss what the Bible says God did, it seems only right to include what the Bible says were his reasons. The Bible clearly reveals that God is holy and sin is serious so wrath is warranted. God’s love is that he is willing to turn that wrath away from us and be reconciled.
I’m out now for a few days. Have a good weekend.
The thought was never punished, only the act.
Actually God gave himself…an idea Christians have a hard time explaining without ending up with three gods.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I am using modern ideas. You do know I am an atheist, right? I have no thoughts concerning the Christian God since I think the Christian God is a myth. My worldview is a humanistic one.
I am well aware of what the men who wrote the Bible said were God’s reasons. Men wrote the Bible not God. At best, all we know is what the particular authors thought God would say. (yes I know you believe in inerrancy, inspiration, etc but I don’t believe these things)
When I look at the God of the Bible, I look at him anthropomorphically. If a human exhibited the same character traits and behavior as God we would lock him up and throw away the key. God’s behavior is, in every way, an affront to decent, kind, loving people. Even if I believed the Christian God existed I would not worship him. He is not worthy of worship.
Hilariously fitting for the whole ‘Jesus comin back for vengeance’:
http://i.imgur.com/9QcEG.jpg
As for killing people for “non-serious rebellion,” how about killing someone for something unbelievably trivial? “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said:
“‘Among those who approach me
I will be proved holy;
in the sight of all the people
I will be honored.’”
Aaron remained silent.”
Leviticus 10: 1-3, NIV
The next several verses talk about how the priests have to do things EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAY, or they’ll die. I’ll bet Aaron remained silent — he was probably too afraid to say anything lest God smite him right there and then.
What’s amazing to me is what you hear from those Old Testament (and New for that matter) people who were living and experiencing God’s wrath and judgement. They were in it, feeling it, seeing it, they and their loved ones going through it. Read Lamentations to see how bad it was at that time. I don’t know of any place in the Bible where one of those people complained that God was being mean and unfair. There were times they did complain against God, but it was because evil people were getting away with their evil and God was being too nice. Like Habakkuk 1:13 “Your [God's] eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous that themselves?” I think it’s important to try to understand the way the people who were actually experiencing it were dealing with it. If you’re going to analyze what God was doing, you ought to analyze what the people at the time were believing about it. They weren’t whining and bitching that God was a big old mean unfair bully. Why not?
Yeah, Lynn, just accept the gift. As far as all the suffering, that’s a difficult issue. I can’t say that I can give you an answer that will satisfy. Things that have helped me include:
). In the Bible and in my own lifetime I don’t see God micromanaging the world to make sure we all only do good things. He’s not treating us like robots but is respecting our right to choose how we behave, but as everyone knows there are always consequences (good or bad) to whatever we do. The world is not operating the way God wants it to – that whole rebellion thing in my previous post – but eventually it will.
God is not the only being who is active in the world. Not all suffering comes from him. Humans cause a lot of suffering on their own. I do believe in Satan who is really at war with God (I’m sure scott will set me straight on that though
BTW – I don’t really believe ignorance is bliss.
scarykitty, I don’t think we can deal with every troubling Biblical incident in a blog. But what those guys did was not trivial. They were basically telling God they knew a better way to do things than he did. Employers in our day won’t put up with that. Why should God?
I appreciate all your responses. Making me think.
LOL! Unfortuanately a lot of people do see it that way.
That was for JKX. I thought if I clicked the Reply under his/her post then mine would be put with his. Technology is so confusing. It must be a myth
Michael, I don’t want to try to set you straight. This life is a journey, not a destination. So I don’t think I’ve got anything figured out–the older I get, the less I feel I know. But I do remember my bible–the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, so one of the godhead seemed to feel a need for this. Jesus prayed for the cup to be taken away–someone had the power to take it away, and refused. Sounds to me like someone made someone else die (for some unknown reason–who made the rules to this game anyway? I don’t understand it!, so I don’t want to play!!) And yet various OT people and the prodigal son were just forgiven, no sacrifice or blood shed required. Why couldn’t we just do that? With my father telling me to my face that all was forgiven, rather than him remaining completely hidden, and me having to guess where I stand? Blehh, no thanks. And don’t get me started on the whole Satan thing……..;-)
Renoliz, I’m sorry, I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t said anything about the Jews’ ideas on death and Hell.
Bruce, I don’t know what else to say about sin being a matter of the heart and not just an act. I provided 3 specific, clear examples from the OT, including God’s evaluation of mankind before he punished them with the flood. You seem to be ignoring such statements. And I’ve already explained what I mean about you using modern views.
Yes, I noticed somewhere that you’re an atheist. That’s really not important in this discussion. You wrote a piece giving your explanation of what the Bible says about God, concluding that he is a mean son of a bitch. And in this discussion it doesn’t matter who you or I think wrote the Bible. The issue is just what the Bible says about God. I think you are presenting an unbalanced and therefore distorted picture of what the Bible says about God. I’m offering a different view. And you did ask for Christians to explain how we deal with it. If I saw God as you do, I would give atheism some serious consideration myself.
Scott, I was just being lighthearted with my remark about you setting me straight. And I agree about getting older and feeling like I know less. Oh, for the good old days when I knew it all!
I do believe that God the Father and God the Son (as well as the Spirit) were in complete unity when the decision was made to make the sacrifice. It wasn’t just that one of them felt a need for it and the others had to go along with it.
As far as why God can’t just say we’re forgiven and that be enough, I think it’s due to the actual nature of sin. As I said earlier, it’s rebellion or treason against God. It’s serious stuff. And it’s in us. If someone commits treason against our nation, we don’t just go, “Oh, that’s okay, you’re forgiven.” We demand justice. We demand the traitor be locked away where he can never do it again. God demands justice. In a brilliant move, he made the sacrifice himself which satisfies the need for justice. Then anyone who exercises faith gets to start over and go through the process of becoming the kind of people who won’t commit treason. The prodigal son was a parable with a limited purpose – illustrate God’s grace – it wasn’t meant to explain everything about sin and forgiveness. And we really don’t have to guess where we stand. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1) That seems like a definite done deal to me.
I am an atheist is important because I am not bound my the interpretive rules and orthodoxy that you are. I am free to read the text without straining it through a peculiar theological sieve.
Your view of God is shaped by your peculiar theological system. I am just reading the text. If someone unschooled in Christianity read the text I think they would come to the same conclusions I have. You come to the conclusions you do because of the box the text must fit in. ALL Christians do this. They must if they have any hope of maintaining any sense of orthodoxy. (i.e. your mention of the triune God, an absurd notion unless you are reading mythology)
Let me take you out of context ….”Bruce, I don’t know what else to say” and I suspect that is where we are in our discussion.
Thanks.
Bruce
Okay, let me get this straight. You say you are “just reading the text.” The text reads, “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” You say “Sin is the act not the thought.” That seems rather contradictory and inconsistent to me.
You’re whole post on “Fear” is not “just reading the text.” You pick and choose the sections that you want to use to make your point, ignoring vast sections of text. I’m not trying to get you to believe in God or Christianity. I’m responding to the way you present what the Bible actually says. You’re using your own sieve to do some straining.
I am not saying that people don’t think “evil” thoughts. What I am saying is that God didn’t destroy the world for what they thought. He destroyed the world because of what some people did. Every evil act (and I am using evil in a Christian context) is preceded by a a thought.
Again, I get where you are coming from and, again, that is what make the Bible so “neat”…any belief can be “proved” from the Bible. Does the Bible teach what you say it does? Sure. Does it teach what I say it does? Sure. So choose. Personally, I desire a world where people are judged according to what they do rather than what they think.
If you are not trying to get me to believe in God or Christianity….what ARE you trying to do?
I think you still don’t get how I read the Bible. I think you have trouble with me not playing by the approved rules. I try to take the text as it is written. In doing so it is clear that the Bible is quite contradictory. (as our discussion shows) What are we to make of these contradictions? You want to make them harmonize. I am content to do nothing since the Bible is just ancient text written by fallible men and copied over and over and over. It is not an inspired text, an inerrant text, so I have no need or desire to make it all work. What I see is that people have always had conflicting views about how to view life.
Imagine a world where we were held accountable and judged for what we thought. (if there was even a way to know what people thought) I have “murdered” in my mind a time or two…should I be sent to prison for what I thought?
I’m saying sin is more than an outward act. Thinking is an aspect of doing. That’s where we started this discussion. And I totally agree that the Bible can be made to mean different things, but that’s true of any book or writing. That’s not necessarily a flaw in what’s written but an error in how it’s being read. Just because it can be interpreted different ways doesn’t mean that it actually means those different things. And I’m not claiming that I know beyond a doubt what is always meant.
What am I trying to do? Get you to deal with the Bible as it really is, whether you believe it’s inspired or not. If you’re going to attack what the Bible says about God (or anything) then don’t just attack a distortion. Go after the complete message – don’t just deal with “wrath” but put it in the context that it has in the Bible – with holiness, justice and mercy,etc. You don’t have to jump from book to book to do that. Sometimes all those ideas are in one book. That would be taking the text as it is written. Otherwise you’re just jousting at windmills and your arguments against what the Bible says don’t make sense. You just wrote “I have ‘murdered’.” I suppose I need to call the police and report your confession and warn everyone to stay away from you. You get my point. I think that’s what you’re doing with the Bible. Bruce, you told me before that it’s your nature to speak bluntly. That’s what I’m doing now. I’m not attacking you personally.
Michael,
What you want me to do is play by a set of rules that I do not apply to anything else I read. You want me to treat the Bible as something more that what it is and I can’t or won’t do that.
My purpose here is not to provide sound exegesis. Besides, no two Christians can agree on what the text says. I am more interested in applying a variation of John Loftus’s outsider’s test of faith to the Bible. If we are stripped of our presuppositions and our training and brought a clean slate to the Bible what conclusions would we come to?
I know this much…we wouldn’t come away with monotheistic, trinitarian, Christianity. I doubt anyone would get past Gen 1-3 before concluding there are multiple gods.
Bottom line, the Bible is just a book, a book that has been used to hurt, enslave, and kill people. In America, it is being used to force people to live by a certain moral standard. It is being used to demand power and preferential treatment and THAT I am interested in because it affects the well-being of everyone.
Understood.
Pingback: Do you get the hint? « Michael Wilson's Blog