1. Introduction:
· The research done follows reputable scholars in OT studies. It represents a broad general agreement on issues covered.
· Terry Eagleton English literature and cultural theory professor criticizes Dawkins and Hitchens for being out of their depth and misrepresenters of the Christian faith. These famous atheists represent much of atheism in that they aren’t interested in understanding complex texts, historical contexts and the broader biblical canon. They rely heavily on rhetoric, emotion and superficial readings.
· Christians shy away from a lot of atheist objections and the results are predictable, it rattles their faith and makes Christianity look weak in the marketplace of ideas.
2. Is God proud and narcissistic?
· No. He has an accurate view of himself. Sceptics don’t slow down and do a proper internal critique. IF the God of the bible is real, then worshiping him is just smart and logical. God doesn’t need humans or their worship that is a myth that exists only in the minds of sceptics. But humans do NEED to worship, if you can’t concede that you have not learnt anything from history.
· If humans don’t worship God (the highest possible moral ideal) then it will inevitably be something that ends up harming them somehow. People in this day and age are repulsed by the word worship but they still do it. Take Jesus’ advice and consider where all your time and money goes.
· A lot of what attackers call arrogant is just God telling his people to be grateful for what he has done. According to this logic, every good parent in the world is an arrogant narcissist.
· Yes God made humans in his image. Do you know what this means? It is following a common theme in Ancient near East texts of functional creation. It calls something created when it has been assigned a function. Being made in God’s image gives humans not only value but equality. If we are not made in God’s image what makes us valuable? Or equal? And if you think of something, how is it not subjective, arbitrary opinion?
· So why create us? He wanted to share his love. He didn’t need to. God wasn’t lonely, he is 3 persons that fellowshipped for past eternity. So whence cometh evil? In order to create agents capable of real love, those agents need the real choice to be loving, obviously leading to the real choice to be evil. Very hard for some atheists to wrap their heads around.
3. God is Jealous
· Again, internal critique. When done properly most criticisms of God and the bible dissolve. Wouldn’t you think it strange for a husband not to be jealous over a cheating wife?
· Jealousy is good when it’s not self-centered and has pure motives. If God is real, then people that worship nongods are only harming themselves. Other gods didn’t require self-restraint or ethical behavior, as long as you kept your ‘god’ fed with sacrifices, you could indulge in gluttony, ritual sex, and adultery. If you knew some of the things these false gods were requiring, you’d be very pleased that God was jealous and put a stop to it!
· God isn’t an abstract deity or impersonal principle; he is engaging and relational and attaches himself to us to be a loving and wise father. He opens himself up to pain and sorrow when people reject him. God is consistently a wounded husband not wanting to bring punishment. He constantly tried to bring the Israelites back. Eze 18: “I have no pleasure in anyone dying.”
4. Abraham and Isaac:
· Sceptics love to strip the context for a bigger punch, like the media. God had already done multiple miracles to recruit Abrahams trust. This is not blind faith. Abraham’s obedience was carried out in the context of his awareness of God’s earlier deliverance of Ishmael and of God’s act of providing the miracle child of promise through Sarah. Abraham sent Ishmael and Hagar into the wilderness and this would have been morally wrong if God hadn’t promised Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael would be fine and have many descendants. Sending them away like this was obviously a preliminary test before Isaac.
· The moral outrage from atheists on this story is actually comical, they can’t even have objective morality yet they’re using to attack God. That’s like climbing up on God’s lap to slap him in the face.
· And also, they seem to ignore the fact that God didn’t want to see follow through. He condemned other nations for child sacrifice.
· God shows tenderness and appreciates the costliness when he says “please take your son” or “I beg of you.” This is very rare.
· Please also keep in mind, Abraham knew he was talking to God. If you actually believe (let alone KNOW) you are talking to God and you refuse to do what GOD asks, then you are the idiot, you are the one with the huge moral failing. When Abraham and all the others exercised faith, it was a trust in what God said he would do, so they knew full well God had spoken to them, it was a matter of believing him. Don’t trust something that you’re not completely sure is from God. It’s very easy for Christians to know what is from God, we have his word, when this story occurred, there was no bible and the Law of Moses hadn’t even been created.
· Morality is largely made up from its results. Killing people is bad because they do not come back from that. But Abraham and God both knew these regular laws of physics were on hold. Before they went up to the mount, Abraham said “we” will return. He knew what God wanted him to do, and he knew that Isaac would be one of many descendants so therefore he knew somehow that they’d both return after the events on the mount. In fact, he was under the impression God would just raise him from the dead as Paul goes on to point out later in Hebrews.
· How about sceptics get a little bit impressed with such a huge foreshadowing of the Gospel. This story makes no sense without Jesus coming later on claiming to be the actual son of God to be sacrificed. The most overt and in your face foreshadow in the bible is this! God even says “take your son, you’re only son”, but Isaac wasn’t his only son there was Ishmael, he said it like that to foreshadow Him giving up HIS only son. And there's the fact that Ishmael carried his own wood for the sacrifice just as Jesus did. And the fact that Abraham said God will provide a LAMB but in the story Abraham was given a ram. Meaning a Lamb from God was still to come and guess what? That Mount Moriah they were on was Jerusalem to which Jesus would later come to! And you've also got the fact that Abraham simply thought God would raise Isaac from the dead like what happened with uhh....Jesus! There were conflicting messages about the coming Messiah, he would rule the world and there would be peace, but also that he would die. The Jews chose to resolve the conflict by saying there would be multiple Messiahs but when Abraham had the conflicting promises of an abundance of children through his son, namely, the son that was to be killed, he didn't assume the promise would be fulfilled through a different son but instead made the correct assumption that applies to Messiahs, it's the same person but they we person but would just be resurrected.
Even with such a command as this, we can still say God would never command us to do something he wouldn’t do himself. He wouldn’t even let us suffer anything he wouldn’t suffer that’s why he came down in human form.
· The story is something of a polemic to surrounding nations and other pagan gods, sacrificing a child was meant to be one of the highest forms of sacrifice/worship, Abraham was willing but the difference is Yahweh didn’t require it and in fact provided the sacrifice himself. While they said I will offer my son to show my love for you, God said no I will sacrifice my son to show my love to you. He judo flips the pagan script. Sacrificing children has not been chained to the past. The Pakistani grooming gangs devoured children for years because police and officials didn't want to be accused of being Islamophobes. Children are being mutilated by doctors and parents aren't allowed to question the gender ideology of the day. Oh and the other obvious topic that involves millions of babies dying every year.
5. The Law of Moses:
· The Mosaic Law was only for Israel at that point in time, a point that is so incredibly lost on the people attacking it. They had just left Egypt and they needed to become their own society.
· God rescued his people from captivity in Egypt and wanted gratitude to be Israel’s motivation for living right and loving Him. It certainly is with Christians who believe the gospel.
· Some object to Israel being a ‘chosen people’. But God threatens them with the same judgement as other nations if disobedient. They didn’t do anything to earn this status, God just promised Abraham this and decided his descendants would be the instrument used to spread his name. God reminds Israel he is at work in other nations too. Amos 9:7. We encounter non-Israelite characters (Job, Ruth, Rahab, Melchizedek) and it reminds us of what Paul said in Acts 17:27, that God isn’t far from each one of us.
· The Mosaic law can be summed up in the 10 commandments, the first 4 deal with man’s relationship with God and the other 6 deal with man’s relationship with each other.
· God did not force these laws on them. Exo 19 “…if you will indeed obey.” They all agreed to be put under these laws and were also free to leave at any time once they did. It is the disregard for the covenant and promise that God is offended by. God punished people who wanted to live in a good society because of him, yet not contribute by obeying the laws that keep it peaceful. These people were rebellious. You can’t look at it through your western eyes. If you do this, you’ll never see that it was still a dramatic improvement in the moral landscape.
· There was leeway and wiggle room within these laws (Num 27).
· The bible makes clear that a future/better law is necessary. The law was good but it was only meant to be temporary. Jer 31:31. Eze 36:26, Rom 7, Gal 3. Acts 17:30, Rom 3:25.
· The seemingly huge contrast between OT ethics and NT ethics can be explained like this. The true standards are in Gen 1-2 but we fall short from then on and humans get exponentially worse. When the Mosaic Law came in, it began putting a limit on that exponential growth of sin and indeed started a slow decline by encouraging man to strive higher.
· Christopher Hitchens said “it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals,” those times were indeed crude and uncivilized but these laws were a dramatic improvement far surpassing the moral landscape at the time. He never said that part. We don’t have to explain away things like Josh 10:22-27 because the bible never claims these as good things. Description isn’t the same as prescription.
· Why didn’t God just give them the NT ethics straight away? God had to permit certain social arrangements in an attempt to meet the Israelites halfway. If human beings are to be treated as human beings who possess the power of choice, then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand.” What Jesus said about divorce relates to much of these social arrangements “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.”
· The Laws go from Exodus 20 to Numbers 10 and recapitulated in Deuteronomy for the next generation.
· A common law to be attacked are case laws. These aren’t ideals and therefore would be the perfect thing to attack to make the Law look as bad as possible. They always start with “if two men quarrel” or “if a man sells his daughter” or “if a man beats his slave…” its dealing with a less than ideal situation not commanding these things to occur.
6. Justice:
· Sceptics mock the idea of someone claiming to speak for God and acting as if anyone can put words in God’s mouth for their own agenda. They couldn’t in Israel. False prophets were sentenced to death so that would deter fakes, wouldn’t it?
· · People with modern sensibilities hate the harsh death penalties of old. Yeah, death seems like a harsh penalty if you believe this is the only life there is, this is the internal critique fleshed out properly. The truth is you don’t only live once so that should offer a slightly different perspective on these punishments.
· God deals harshly with first time offenders to set an example and deter evil. Think of Ananias and Sapphira. And that was in the NT! The difference between OT God and NT God isn’t as great as people think.
· And people weren’t dying left and right on whims. Proper trials had to take place; justice couldn’t be sought personally.
· And as for these trials and punishments:
Ø A murderer could only be killed based on the witness of two not one. Meaning God preferred some murderers to go free rather than innocent people killed.
Ø And if a witness gave evidence for acquittal he couldn’t change his mind but if it was for condemning, he could change his mind.
Ø And when a false witness arose, more judges and officials were brought in to test them. And if they were found to be false, then he suffered what he intended to do to his brother.
Ø Accusers condemning had to throw the first stone because it is the hardest thing to do.
Ø There was cities of refuge for those who killed accidentally.
Ø Unlike other nations, Israel had a maximum set number of strikes with a rod.
Ø A range of scholars argue that these laws are less fierce when actually put into practice. Many scholars think because premeditated murder is the only crime warned to not substitute or take ransom for, it implies the other 15 crimes punishable by death aren’t always done so.
Ø Unlike other nations, Israel had a maximum set number of strikes with a rod.
· God is wrathful because he is love. Think of the world’s atrocities. Should a loving God just show love and acceptance and tolerance? Parents most definitely appear tyrannical and immoral to an ignorant and naïve child.
· The law was healthy and helpful and gave insight to the character of God. You can whine about the punishments but it would have created an extremely just and righteous nation.
· A woman isn’t to have her hand cut off if she grabs another guys junk, she is to have her pubes shaved. This is not mutilation for mutilation it is humiliation for humiliation.
• The bible doesn’t say kids will be punished for the sins of their parents but it does say they will be affected.
• Human rights were radically elevated because of the civil laws given by God.
• Assault-made to treat any damage with money going straight to victim not the courts. Made to pay for time lost.
7. Uncleanness:
· Again, modern sensibilities and a lack of interest in context has many attackers confused and offended at this issue in the OT. These strict laws kept them safe from diseases unlike many nations surrounding them that would have done well to obey these things.
· On a superficial reading, Leviticus just seems to be banning food because of outward appearances but they are deeply significant and symbolic. Clean and unclean represented life and death. Carnivorous animals (scavenger/predator) represented death as well as vulnerable animals and so were unclean.
· Having a defect wasn’t equivalent to being sinful. It just represented incompletion-how things shouldn’t normally be. Though immorality can bring pollution and physical defects.
· Unclean Israelites weren’t prevented from worshiping or celebrating feasts, they simply couldn’t enter the sanctuary. The nearer one came to God, the cleaner they had to be.
· There are multiple ‘antimixing laws’ that represent not mixing with the world and crossing set boundaries. Like not wearing the other genders clothes, or one of the things that makes an animal unclean is that it crosses from land to sea, or vice versa and air to sea or air to water-you get the idea. Cooking kid goat in mothers’ milk was unclean because it was a blurring of life and death. Not planting 2 different seeds may have been because of an occult practice by Canaanites. Aquatic animals had to have fins and scales hence why shellfish are unclean. These all-symbolized God’s people and its need to be set apart and different to everything in the world. Not being part of the world, which is Satan’s while also trying to be part of God’s kingdom.
· There was a tier of holy places within the tabernacle and the whole thing itself was a tier in Israel, Israel was an entire tier itself as a type of holiness as pagan nations surrounded it..
· Vaginal blood and semen are powerful symbols of life, but their loss symbolizes death.
8. Women:
· The ideal was in Gen 1-2. Men and women leading side by side.
· Concubines and multiple wives. God was never into that but didn’t emphasize it in the law as he wanted to meet them where they were at if he wanted to change them. He did however command Kings not to multiply wives (Deut 17:17) which can fairly be assumed for everyone since the following verse is also good general wisdom. The reason it may specify Kings is because poor people are not generally in the position to multiply wives.
· The OT however is full of stories that involve polygamy and other ancient customs like primogeniture (first born rights) and in these stories the aforementioned practices are always problematic and told in a way that makes them look bad.
· Sceptics choose to ignore the verses that indicate women are just as equal and influential. (Exo 20:12, Prov 31:16, Song of Songs 6:3).
· Sceptics also ignore the many protections and controls against abuse of women that the law provided. There are at least 100 hundred verses on commanding people to help widows and orphans spread throughout many books of the bible.
· Many of the Mosaic laws are protections for women because in that culture their livelihood depended on being married to a man. Not God’s fault! It was the culture’s fault! The Mosaic law was mitigating that culture!
· It seems so vile that a man can just go and get his woman tested for cheating…but women could do that for their husbands. And it was a protection for women so men couldn’t just divorce their wives at a whim and leave her destitute. It was also innocent until proven guilty. A supernatural sign from God had to confirm her guilt.
· Probably longer ceremonial uncleanness for a baby girl because there are potentially two sets of vaginal bleeding.
· Marrying dead husbands brother meant keeping her belongings, the brother could refuse.
· It wasn’t just daughters that could be sold, daughters only come up in the law to protect their rights.
· The bride price was a way of showing serious intentions of marriage, like an engagement ring. Sceptics just want to concoct whatever they can against the bible without using consistent logic and context. Another way this is done is in the dowry system in India, the BRIDE pays for the groom but no one assumes the groom is property. It was a security to the wife in case the man divorced or died. The bride’s father would often give a larger gift of property.
· Was rape allowed? It is complete ignorance that leads people to think this. You barely even have to know anything to know that the bible emphasizes sex as something sacred and between a husband and wife. So why would rape be okay? The commands are clearly saying if a woman is engaged and she has sex with a man, then they both get stoned, if she was raped then she logically would have screamed for help. Why would the law say anything about screaming if rape was okay? Yelling was clearly necessary and it makes perfect sense as to avoid women making false accusations like so many have and still do today. It ruins the man’s life. And if no one was around then it is legally assumed that she screamed for help.
· Deut 22:28 the word tapas doesn’t mean rape, its softer than that. And if it was rape it would have been the word that’s used for actual rape in other parts of the book. She’s not forced to marry him either, it’s up to the father and why would he make his daughter marry her rapist? This only happens in atheist’s imagination where deeper thought and understanding don’t exist. The bride price was a woman’s financial security and having been sexually active, finding a husband would be much harder even impossible. Women’s wellbeing is literally the underlying point of these laws.
· The father got to decide if the man was fit for his daughter, if father said no then man must pay and support the woman, as stated already, human rights radically lifted, rapists were sentenced to death, men were treated more harshly in the case of consenting adultery.
9. Slavery:
· If the bible permitted and encouraged slavery, then why was the ‘Slave Bible’ created? A version of the bible with many edits to make slaves submit. 90% of the OT is missing as well as 50% of the NT…
· Contrary to what sceptics think, biblical slavery was nothing like the south.
Ø Slaves (better translated ‘servants’) had to go free after the 7th year.
Ø If it was so abominable, then why would there be a caveat in the law for slaves to stay “if they want to”?
Ø They were to be treated as a man “hired from year to year” and not to be “ruled over ruthlessly” Lev 25:53-54.
Ø The Mosaic law is the only ancient law code that holds people accountable for how they treat slaves and atheists still misinterpret these laws to make it sound like it permits and encourages abuse!
Ø Runaway slaves from other nations weren’t taken back. They were obviously running from harsh owners and the mosaic law commands them not to return them and to let that foreigner stay anywhere they like in Israel.
Ø There is a command against kidnapping, and selling the victim.
· God created laws to try and prevent people from even needing to go into slavery (Deut 15)
Ø Israelites had to let poor people graze the edges of their fields or pick lingering fruit
Ø And lend freely to the poor with no interest
Ø After the 7th year, the owners had to send slaves on their way with plenty. In other times and places, debt forgiveness was sporadic and usually had a political agenda but God made this to be consistent.
· Sceptics accuse God/Israel of racism:
Ø Keep in mind its commanded to love the stranger in your land. God loves the alien and doesn’t want them oppressed (Deut 10:18) because the Israelites themselves use to be foreigners in Egypt.
Ø Foreigners were allowed to eat non-kosher foods.
Ø Foreigners asking for loans was usually in regards to business and investment, hence why Israelites could loan with interest.
Ø When taking POW’s, to avoid the men creating an uprising or rebellion, they were usually put into servanthood. Foreigners and aliens/sojourners/strangers are different. Foreigners didn’t want to assimilate to Yahweh and the Israelite way of life.
People make the mistake that biblical servanthood is the same as southern slavery. This is dumb. Southerners afforded no rights to their slaves because they were complete property, not humans. It was completely forced and involuntary. So how ignorant is it to paste all these connotations on to the biblical text then?
· The word ‘ebed’ that was used in the original language is better translated employee or servant. And there wasn’t anything inherently lowly or undignified about being one.
· The laws on beating slaves WEREN’T commandments and they were worst case. And it was still in the best interest of the slaves. Because nowhere else had any sort of protection for slaves like this. If a slave died immediately, it meant the owner clearly had murderous intent so he shall be put to death as well, but if a day or two goes by, then the owner is given the benefit of the doubt. If there was any permanent injury then they were to go free.
·
· Treatment of slaves was commonly put at the back of ancient law codes yet God wants it front and center and to treat them as people not property. Job 31:13-15.
· Jesus didn’t create an economic reform plan to end slavery but he did address the heart attitudes of greed, envy, contentment, and generosity to undermine oppressive economic social structures. It all came out with Paul’s writings, everyone was equal in Christ regardless of status and slaves were to be called brother or sister, a master had a responsibility to God just as the slave did.
· Paul reminded masters that they too were slaves to the impartial master God. Paul’s strategy was this: instead of forbidding slavery, impose fellowship! Still not perfect, but far surpassing the culture.
· They were told not to afflict any widow or fatherless child. God has a heart for these kinds of people and what benefit could authors making up God have with this, or any of it? God said his wrath would become hot when hearing the cries from these.
· NT improvement: slaves were equal with masters in Christ, they were encouraged to gain freedom but masters were also encouraged to care for their servants. 1cor7.
·
10. Canaan:
· There is no shortage of historical evidence to show how despicable Canaanites were. Yes, Israel moved on Canaan, but God gave them 400 years to stop sacrificing babies and turn from their evil.
· And it still wasn’t too late for people to repent (Rahab). The majority scholarly view is that peace terms could have been and were offered. Josh 11:19. Ex 23:27-30. God makes clear its gradually dispossessing the Canaanites of their land, not brutally annihilating every last one. The “Driving out” references are greater than the destruction ones, they were being kicked out as Adam and Eve were.
· Many attacks center around the brutality of which God commanded the Israelites to conquer Canaan. On one hand people criticize God allowing evil, then when he does something about it, they still complain!
· The notion of ancient people fighting with each other purely over gods is not true. At least not with Israel.
Ø God decides when to make war. Not Israel. When they tried taking Philistine it was a sound defeat because God wasn’t into it. This is the only God sanctioned offense, the rest were defense. Though they tried, God wouldn’t let them conquer any other nation other than Canaan.
Ø God doesn’t just judge people purely on their false beliefs. But moves to action based on their wickedness (Amos 1-2, Ex 34:12-13, Deut 12:2-3).
Ø God didn’t allow Israel to have a standing army, that’s why census’ were forbidden.
Ø Their fighters couldn’t be professional they had to be amateur but still willing to fight. This was to show God’s power when they won.
Ø And there was the option to not fight at all.
Ø Soldiers fighting for Yahweh weren’t paid. And couldn’t take plunder.
Ø Kings, leaders, and priests could not call for a battle, only prophets
· Scripture acknowledges Canaanites continued to live in the land after Israel had taken it. The description of conquest was clearly an exaggeration and similar to other ancient conquest language (Egypt’s Tuthmosis III, Hittite king Mursulli II, Bulletin of Ramses-pg 172 of Is God a Moral Monster). They were there to take over the land, so they’re not going to destroy everything in a murderous rampage.
· As John Goldingay writes “an attacked population wouldn’t just wait around to be killed. Only the defenders, who don’t get out, are the ones who get killed.” Archaeology confirms widespread destruction didn’t take place but gradual assimilation.
· Whenever its commanded not to marry a non-Israelite, it’s clear that the reason is for being led astray by false beliefs. There would be leeway if they are open to serving the true God.
· Internal critique- if God’s real he has the right to give and take life. And if kids died, they’d probably go straight into God’s arms. But these commands were still only given by special revelation so we can’t go round doing it. It was never to be universalized. It was for a specific time, place and purpose.
11. Sex Slaves
· Num 31:17-18 look bad on their own. Which is why sceptics are allergic to context. These two verses alone look like they are being told they can keep virgins as sex slaves. But what does verse 16 tell us? It is about being dragged into idolatry. This was done through seduction and ritual sex. Num 25:1-3. In this way, virgins are not a threat.
· Deut 21:10-14. This prevented impulsive rape. The virgin of the conquered nation had a full month to grieve. Time to break away inwardly and outwardly from her old life.
· And then the victorious soldier had to make her a fully fledged wife. In Israel, marriage is not something entered into lightly (motivated by lust) because it became the man’s financial commitment.
Comments