Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

Did the Death of Jesus Appease an Angry God?

By Jeremy Myers
61 Comments

Did the Death of Jesus Appease an Angry God?

In many Christian circles, when people think about why Jesus died on the cross, the following is the basic logic that many believe:

God is infinitely holy and righteous. As such, any sin against God is an infinite offense. Therefore, an infinite sacrifice is required to cover an infinite offense. Because humans are sinners, we deserve eternal punishment for our eternal offense. But God wanted to show mercy to us, and so He sent Jesus to die in our place. Since Jesus is God, the death of Jesus is an infinite sacrifice, which is therefore sufficient to cover the infinite offense of sin.

Though different authors, pastors, and teachers will explain the death of Jesus in different ways, this is the basic outline many will use. I used to teach and write about the death of Jesus in this same way, and in fact, many of the posts and sermons which you can find on this blog will contain this exact sort of theological explanation about the death of Jesus.

death of Jesus on the cross

But let us look a little deeper at what this sort of explanation says about God, sin, righteousness, and the death of Jesus.

The logic of the argument above basically teaches that God gets so worked up over sin, He wants to burn forever and ever those who commit any sin. And since James 2:10 says that even one sin makes us guilty, it doesn’t even matter if we only commit “small” sins. Sin is sin, and even “small” sins deserve eternal hell fire. So if you get mad at your neighbor when his dog digs through your trash, or if you are not completely honest with your boss about why you were ten minutes late for work, God’s justice demands that you get punished the same as if you were serial rapist and mass murderer.

Though this seems unjust, people explain that it only seems unjust because we are sinful human beings and think that some sins are not as bad as others. We are told that since God is infinitely holy and righteous, all sins, no matter how small, are an infinite offense to His holiness. So even getting angry at our neighbor’s dog or lying about why we were 10 minutes late for work is an infinite affront to the righteousness of God, and therefore, deserving of infinite punishment.

But … things don’t seem so cut and dry when we rephrase the question a bit …

Look what happens when we turn the question around:

So it is wrong for me to get angry at my neighbor when his dog digs through my trash, but it is perfectly righteous for God to be eternally angry at me for getting angry at my neighbor? And while I vent my anger by muttering under my breath while I pick up the garbage in my lawn, God gets over His anger … never … while I burn for all eternity in hell?

When the question is presented this way, this sort of god just doesn’t seem very godly. Or at least … this sort of god doesn’t look at all like Jesus.

The typical response, of course, is that this why God sent Jesus. God didn’t actually want humanity to burn forever for muttering under our breath at our neighbor, but His justice demanded that He behave like this. God was sort of captive to His own righteous justice.

But since He loves us so much, He sent His Son Jesus to suffer and die in our place, so that all that “righteous” rage can get poured out on Jesus instead of on us.

Again, this is exactly what I used to believe and teach.

But in recent years, I have begun to have doubts that this is exactly what happened (Get my series of posts on the death and resurrection of Jesus to learn more.)

Problems with the Traditional Explanation of the Death of Jesus

Does it make sense to think that Jesus came to rescue us from God? Does it make sense to think that God sent Jesus to rescue us from Himself? Or at least, from some aspect of Himself?

IF so, God now appears rather schizophrenic. Does God want to kill us for all eternity or love us for all eternity? The theological explanation above makes it sound as if He wants both.

Furthermore, what good does it do for God to pour out His wrath upon the innocent victim, Jesus?

Let us say that after I get angry at my neighbor for letting his dog spread garbage all over my lawn, I go down the street and set a different neighbor’s house on fire. Does my act of arson do anything to relieve my anger at the first neighbor or his dog? No! Setting an innocent third party’s house on fire does not alleviate my wrath toward the guilty party at all. This would still be true if the innocent neighbor noticed my anger at my neighbor’s dog, and said, “Don’t be angry at him; instead, come burn my house down.”

I would look at him like he is crazy. How would burning down his house help me at all? Yet this is what we think happened with God’s wrath in the killing of Jesus. Somehow, though God was angry at us, His anger was appeased by letting us kill His Son? I just don’t see how that would help the situation.

But there are other problems beyond this.

God’s love and grace for us is supposedly unconditional. But if He couldn’t actually show us love and grace unless Jesus first came to die on the cross in our place, then isn’t that a condition on His love and grace? It seems that if Jesus had not come to die, then according to this traditional understanding of the death of Jesus, God could not have shown His “unconditional” love and grace for us.

jesus died in the crossFurthermore, people say that God had to pour out His wrath against sin upon somebody (either us or Jesus) in order to satisfy his justice. Yet then we say that God did this out of His mercy.

But this is logically impossible.

By definition, mercy and justice are mutually exclusive. If a man robs a bank and then goes to prison for 20 years, this might be considered justice. But what if, after the crook spends 20 years in prison, the judge meets him at the prison gates and says, “Aren’t I merciful to let you out of prison today?” The recently-freed man would say, “You’re not merciful. I just spent 20 years in jail. Mercy would have been setting me free 20 years ago.” You see? If justice is satisfied, there is no need for mercy. And if one chooses to show mercy, then by definition, they cannot also demand justice. Yet if God poured out His wrath upon Jesus to satisfy His justice, then God is a just God, but He is not merciful. On the other hand, if God decides to show mercy to humankind, then, by definition, He cannot demand justice, even justice upon Jesus.

I could go on and on about this, but here’s the point: There are numerous flaws with the idea that the death of Jesus paid the penalty for our sins or satisfied the wrath of God.

Logically and theologically, it just doesn’t work.

But there is a bigger problem still …

Jesus: The Pagan Sacrifice to God

A short while back I wrote a post about a few things Christians can learn from Pagans. A guy on Facebook blew up about this, leaving comment after comment after comment about how ridiculous it was to suggest such a thing. He argued that Paganism has infiltrated Christianity in numerous ways, and we must root out and destroy all such pagan influences, traditions, and customs.

I know where he is coming from, but I just think that (1) his position is logically, theologically, and realistically impossible, and (2) the most pagan things about Christianity are found at the core beliefs and behaviors of many Christians — especially those who are on the war-path against pagan influences.

In my experience, for example, those who are most concerned with getting rid of all pagan influences in Christianity, are also those who tend to be the most judgmental and critical toward those Christians who still incorporate some of those pagan traditions and customs. But which is more pagan: putting tinsel on a Christmas tree or judging and condemning the people who do?

What does all this have to do with the death of Jesus?

At the core of much of Christian theology is the pagan idea that God requires blood sacrifice to forgive sins. The vast majority of Christians believe that God hates sin so much that He is filled with wrath toward sin.

He hates sin so much, we are told, that He cannot even be in sin’s presence.

But, we are told, God’s wrath toward sin can be appeased with blood. God needs someone to pay for the eternal offense of sin against Him and His holiness. Thankfully, as the theory goes, just when God was demanding that all of us wretched sinners open our veins for God to appease His wrath toward us, Jesus stepped up and said, “I’ll take the bullet. I’ll die for them all.”

So Jesus came to earth, died as a sacrifice for our sins, poured out His blood upon God’s heavenly altar, and in so doing, appeased the wrath of God.

When God looks at us now, He doesn’t see sin; He sees Jesus. Therefore, instead of wanting to incinerate us, God can now love us.

Again, this is the basic sort of theology we hear in most churches about the death of Jesus and why He had to come and suffer and die.

But do you know where this entire theology comes from? Not from Scripture, but from Paganism!

Almost every religion in the world has the idea that the gods are mad at us for our sin, and we must do things to appease their wrath. We must sacrifice our goats, and make vows to visit holy places, and commit to treating people with more love (or commit to killing certain “enemies” of the gods).

When our sin is really serious, the gods want blood, whether it is our own blood, or the blood from someone in our family. As a last resort, the gods may accept the blood of a valuable animal.

And yes, I know that the most popular way of reading the Old Testament sees support for this idea in the Mosaic Law. When most people read the laws that are recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, they see an angry god who wants blood.

But this sacrificial way of reading the Bible is influenced heavily by paganism, and is not at all what Scripture teaches.

the death of Jesus was not for godWhen the Pentateuch is understood in its entirety, it appears that the message of the Pentateuch is that God was never angry at people and never wanted sacrifices and offerings, but wanted instead a people for Himself who lived by faith in God and with justice and mercy before a watching world. See Sailhamer’s magnum opus for more on this.

Furthermore, when the Israelite prophets come on the scene, nearly all of them decry and condemn the sacrificial system as not at all reflecting what was in God’s heart. Jeremiah says that God never commanded his people to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Jeremiah 7:22-23). Amos says that God hated their religious festivals and burnt offerings (Amos 5:21-24). Micah points out that God doesn’t need thousands of rams and rivers of oil, and definitely not a family’s firstborn son. Instead, God wants justice, kindness, and humility (Micah 6:6-8). God is not delighted with sacrifices and offerings, says the Psalmist, but with a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16-17).

So it is no surprise, when Jesus comes on the scene, that He tells people through His words and His actions that God is not angry with His people, that He does not want more sacrifices and offerings, that He loves, accepts, and freely forgives all people, no matter what.

While Jesus did proclaim freedom from sin, He did not do so on the basis of the sacrificial system (or even His own sacrifice), but simply on the basis of God’s limitless love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

God forgives, simply because He is a loving and forgiving God. End of story. No sacrifices, offerings, blood, or death are required.

the death of Jesus was not for god

So Why Then Did Jesus Die?

When Jesus went to the cross, He did not die for God.

There are numerous reasons Jesus died. One was to put death to death. Another was to defeat sin and the devil (cf. Heb 2:14-18; Rom 6:4-13; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). But one reason I want to focus on here is that Jesus wanted to expose the lie of the scapegoat: the religious lie that an innocent victim must die for sin.

To put it bluntly, Jesus died to expose religion as a big, fat, satanic lie.

In His death, Jesus put to death the religious requirement of death. In His death, Jesus exposed the emptiness of the sacrificial system for what it was: a form of satanic enslavement by which humans think they are appeasing God for that which He had already forgiven them for.

Religion says: God is angry with you, but will forgive you if you do great things for Him and offer valuable things to Him. By going to the cross under the condemnation of religion, and then being raised again to new life, Jesus exposed the powerful and satanic lie of religion.

Through His death and resurrection, Jesus announced loud and clear that God is not angry at sin, and that just as sin, death, and the devil have no hold on God, they have no hold on us either.

God is not angry at sin. If He’s angry at anything, He is angry at enslavement. God wants us to live free.

And while sin does enslave, the greatest slaver of all is religion.

As such, God wants to free us from religion more than He wants to free us from sin. This is what Jesus proclaimed through His life, death, and resurrection.

The Resurrection of Religion

Sadly, within a few short years of Jesus’ ascension, Christians returned once again the sacrificial mentality of religion. They took the satanic desire to appease God through sacrifice and applied it to Jesus Christ, saying that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice which appeased God once and for all. And ever since this shift was made under Augustine and Anselm, Christianity has been little more than another world religion which seeks to appease God through good behavior and personal sacrifice.

So if people truly want to rid themselves of all things pagan, they need to start not with their holidays and traditions, but with their theology.

Most specifically, we need to rid ourselves of this idea that God is angry at us for our sin and needs to be appeased through blood and sacrifice. This has never been true of God and is not true today.

The sacrificial reading of Scripture is a pagan reading of Scripture, which does not represent the heart of God, but represents a pagan view of God in which God is angry and must be appeased through sacrifice and human merit.

In contrast to this, the God revealed in Jesus Christ is not angry, but loves freely and forgives freely. No ifs, ands, or buts. The death of Jesus did not secure for us the forgiveness of God. God already forgave us freely by His grace.

Now, some of you might be thinking about Hebrews 9:22. But this post is already WAY too long, and an examination of Hebrews 9:22 deservers a post of its own.

The cross of Jesus is CENTRAL to everything!

Transform your life and theology by focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus:

Fill out the form below to receive several emails from me about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

(Note: If you are a member of RedeemingGod.com, login and then revisit this page to update your membership.)

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: atonement, christus victor, crucifixion, cruciform, crucivision, death of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, Theology of God, Theology of Jesus, Theology of Sin

Advertisement

Does Jesus Drown Babies?

By Jeremy Myers
47 Comments

Does Jesus Drown Babies?

Andrea YatesRemember Andrea Yates? She is the mother who, in 2001, drowned her five children in a bathtub. She said that the devil had influenced her children, and so they needed to die.

A few years later, another mother, Deanna Laney, tried to kill her two children, claiming that God told her to.

Then there is the case of Victoria Soliz, who tried to drown her son in a puddle because Jesus told her to do so.

No Christian with their head on straight (or unless you’re John Piper) honestly believes that God actually told these mothers to kill their children. Nobody who really understands the message and ministry of Jesus, and especially His love for children, can imagine that Jesus wanted or commanded these mothers to do such horrific things to their babies.

And yet…

How strange is it that while we decry and condemn such actions by various people today, we turn around and tell the story of God drowning millions of babies (along with their mothers and fathers and siblings) in the flood story of Genesis 6-8?

Does this make any sense?

the-deluge-doreOn the one hand, we say, “There is no way God told these mothers to drown their babies,” but then we turn around and say, “God drowned millions of babies during the flood.”

Oh, but they deserved it, you see. Those babies at the time of the flood were going to grow up to be the devil. After all, haven’t you read what Genesis 6 says about the Sons of God having sex with the daughters of men? All those millions of babies were devil spawn! God had to drown them.

Yeeeaaah … that’s what the mothers above said too. Go read those articles I linked to. You’ll see. They thought their children had been influenced by Satan and so Jesus wanted them dead. Sounds eerily similar to our “explanation” for the flood, doesn’t it?

If we really stop to think about it, if there is absolutely no way that Jesus would be involved in a mother drowning her baby today, then there is absolutely no way that Jesus would be involved in the drowning of millions of babies in the flood.

“What are you saying, Jeremy?”

I am just saying that the flood event, as recorded in Scripture, looks nothing like Jesus. Does anybody disagree with that? You cannot find anything anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus acts or behaves in this sort of way toward anyone—and especially not toward children.

the waters of the floodI have talked about this with numerous people over the past couple years, and almost without fail, people who defend the divine origin of the flood point to Jesus entering the temple with a whip (John 2:15; Matt 21:12) as proof that Jesus was also involved in sending the flood.

Really? Overturning the tables of a few greedy moneychangers is the same thing as drowning millions of babies? I just don’t see it. The text doesn’t even say anything about Jesus using this whip on the moneychangers—or even on the animals! Oh, except for all the children. These Jesus whipped till they were bloody. NO! NO! NO!

In my conversations about this, people usually then turn to the book of Revelation and point out how when Jesus returns a second time, He is going to kill so many people that there will be a lake of blood 200 miles wide and as deep as a horse’s bridle (Rev 14:20).

Yeah… I’m thinking that if this is how we read the book of Revelation, we’ve probably misunderstood the book.

Jesus with babyIf Jesus is a God who drowns babies because “They’re the devil!” and then rides His horse through a lake of blood from His slain enemies because “They wouldn’t worship me!” (Duh! You drowned millions of their babies!), I’m just not sure this sort of God is worthy of our worship.

But I still follow and worship the God revealed in Jesus.

Why?

Because Jesus doesn’t drown babies. He doesn’t slaughter His foes and then ride horses through their blood. And He never, ever, ever tells us to do so either. And since Jesus reveals God to us, this means that God doesn’t do these things either.

So what about the flood? What about Revelation?

I’m working on it!

I can’t yet share what I think about these texts, but one thing I know for sure: We will never understand these troubling texts of Scripture, and we will never understand God, and we will never understand ourselves, unless and until we begin with the realization that Jesus does not drown babies.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: flood, Genesis 6-8, Jesus, looks like Jesus, revelation, Theology of God, Theology of Jesus, violence of God, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

A Theological Shibboleth about the Violence of God

By Jeremy Myers
66 Comments

A Theological Shibboleth about the Violence of God

shibbolethDo you know what a Shibboleth is? You might have heard the term and not known where it comes from…

In modern usage, a shibboleth is an idea, practice, belief, or custom which differentiates one group of people from another. So, for example, if you wanted to know whether someone was politically conservative or liberal, you could maybe ask them about global warming. If they thought global warming is a hoax, they are probably conservative. If they think global warming is irrefutable science, they are probably liberal. In this case, the “shibboleth” is the issue of global warming.

The origins of the word “shibboleth” come from Judges 12:5-6 when there was a war between the people of Gilead and Ephraim. The soldiers of Gilead set up a little checkpoint at a river crossing and whenever a man tried to cross, the soldiers would ask them to say “Shibboleth.” Why? Because the people of Gilead said “Shibboleth” and the people of Ephraim said “Sibboleth” (because they could not pronounce the Sh). If the soldier said, “I am from Gilead” but then could not pronounce “Shibboleth” and instead said, “Sibboleth” then the soldiers of Gilead would know the man was lying and would kill him.

Anyway, that is the origin of the word Shibboleth.

I recently stumbled across a theological Shibboleth regarding the violence of God in the Bible. Almost everybody claims to believe that God is love, that Jesus reveals God to us, and that God does nothing but that which is merciful, kind, and gracious. And yet there are vast numbers of Christians who believe that God commands people to slaughter others, that God drowned people in a flood, and that God is the one who killed His own Son on the cross to appease His own wrath and anger against human sin.

Yesterday I was reading the Gospel of Luke and read Luke 12:5. I did a double-take on the verse because while the pronouns are capitalized in the Bible I was reading, it sure seemed to me that Jesus was not talking about God, but about Satan. Here is the verse (without capitalization):

But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear him!

The shibboleth is this: Is Jesus talking about God or Satan in Luke 12:5?

If you check most modern commentaries, they will tell you that Jesus is talking about God. Some argue that the verse refers to Satan. During the first 300 years of the church, it was almost exactly opposite. Many of the early church fathers believed Jesus was talking about Satan, but a few thought He was referring to God.

But what do you think? In Luke 12:5, is Jesus talking about God or Satan?

In the comments below, please feel free to state you opinion, and then also state why you believe what you do about Luke 12:5. And I promise, that whether you answer “God” or “Satan” (Shibboleth or Sibboleth), nobody is going to kill you!

Whose name tag goes on that verse?

God or Satan Luke 12 5

I guess I’ll start…

I used to think Jesus was talking about God, but in the last couple years, my theology has changed enough so that I now think Jesus was talking about Satan.

After all, why would Jesus say that God kills when He later says that it is the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10)? Why are we called to fear God when John tells us that there is no fear in love for perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18)? And is it really God who casts people into hell, or is He rather working to rescue people from hell?

2017 UPDATE: After further study and discussion with people in the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group, it is interesting to note that the word for “hell” is Gehenna, which is the smoking trash valley outside of Jerusalem, and the word for “destroy” is appolumi, which is used in Matthew 10:6 in reference to the “lost” sheep of Israel, and then also in 10:39 (cf. 16:25) when Jesus says if you “lose” your life for his sake, you will find it. So other forms of the word can refer to “lose” or “lost.” Notice later that the Jewish leaders plot how they might “destroy” Jesus (Matt 12:14; 27:20). This sort of seems to indicate that other human beings might be in view … but if so, Jesus would be saying “Don’t fear human beings who can take your life, but do fear human beings who can cast you into the burning trash pile outside of the city.” How does this make sense?

Maybe the key is the word “soul” (psuche) in the context, which is not the “eternal principle of a person” but is instead the “life.” That is, your “life” here on earth. Who is it that can destroy your body AND your life by sending you out into the burning trash pile? Only one group: The religious leaders. They often sent people to live in Gehenna. It was one of the places where lepers and outcasts were sent. But how is this worse than being killed?

We have two contrasts here:

body (sarx) vs. life (psuche)
kill (apokteino) vs. destroy (appolumi)

2021 update: I address this text here, and provide my current beliefs about Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: gehenna, hell, Luke 12:5, Matthew 10:28, Theology of God, violence of God

Advertisement

Did God Drown the Egyptian Army?

By Jeremy Myers
57 Comments

Did God Drown the Egyptian Army?

The following post contains a proposal about how to understand the violence of God in drowning the Egyptian army. I am publishing it for your input and feedback. I think that maybe what I have presented is a bit of a stretch, but if I am going to maintain some bit of sense of the inerrancy of this text, I can see no other way of reading about the drowning of the Egyptian army in Exodus 14 through the lens of Jesus Christ dying on the cross for His enemies.

In other words, the question I am trying to answer in this post is this: “Why would Jesus die for His enemies on the cross, but God drowns the enemies of Israel in the Red Sea?” Doesn’t something seem “wrong” in that picture? It does to me… This is my attempt to provide a solution…

Please provide your input in the comment section below….

drowning Egyptian Army in Red Sea


One almost feels bad for Pharaoh.

After experiencing the crushing humiliation of the ten plagues which culminated in the anguishing loss of his firstborn son, Pharaoh damages the economy and productivity of Egypt by finally allowing the Israelites to leave Egypt, only to change his mind and chase after them in hot pursuit, which leads to the decimation of his army in the Red Sea.

If there is any lesson at all in the sad tale of Pharaoh in Exodus 1–14, it is that pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall (Proverbs 16:18).

Nevertheless, it seems from various clues in Exodus and other texts in Scripture dealing with the Israelite exodus from Egypt that it was never God’s intention to break Pharaoh or destroy Egypt. Instead, God wanted Pharaoh to recognize His sovereignty over all things.

If at any time during the ten plagues, Pharaoh had submitted to the will of God and let the Israelites go, the nation of Egypt would not have suffered the way it did. Although it is a popular Christian teaching to say that God sent the plagues with the express purpose of hardening Pharaoh’s heart so that God could destroy Pharaoh and the Egyptian army, this way of reading the exodus event is probably not the best and does not reflect the heart and love of Jesus (See Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 63-69).

Despite God’s warnings to Pharaoh and repeated signs that God wanted Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, Pharaoh continued to disregard God’s warnings and rush headlong toward his own destruction.

This is not only seen in the events of the ten plagues, but also when Pharaoh’s army drowned in the Red Sea.

The Drowning of Pharaoh’s Army in the Red Sea

There is something quite strange about the drowning of Pharaoh’s army which needs to be pointed out as we seek to understand the violent descriptions of God in the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ.

While few would consider the drowning of Pharaoh’s army one of the more violent actions of God in the Bible—for didn’t Pharaoh bring this destruction upon himself?—there are a couple things in the text which helps us understand God’s involvement in human violence.

God’s Power over Chaos

First, it is important to remember that from an Old Testament Hebrew perspective, the forces of rebellion and chaos arrayed against God were often identified with the sea, and especially with the storms and waves that often rage across the sea. This concept was considered in previous posts as part of the discussion of the flood.

So once again, just as the ten plagues put on display the power by God over the impotence of the various Egyptian deities, so also, the crossing of the Israelites through the waters of the Red Sea showed that God even had dominion and power over the threats of chaos, storms, and destruction that were identified with the sea.

The parting of the Red Sea is not just a miracle to give to the Israelites a path through the waters of death and destruction, but is primarily intended to show the Israelites that not even the raging gods of chaos and destruction can overcome God’s hand of protection over the Israelites.

However, this does not mean that God’s hand of protection is without limits.

The Limits to God’s Control

The entrance of the Egyptian army into the path through the Red Sea demonstrates that if a group of people persists in rebelling against God, there comes a time when not even God can hold back the consequences of such rebellion.

Destructive decisions must eventually lead to destruction, even though God has pled with people to turn back and warned them about where their decisions will lead.

Pharaoh had been warned ten times already to let God’s people go, yet by sending his army after Israel, Pharaoh revealed that he still had not learned. He still could not let go. He still persisted in rebellion against God. The Red Sea crossing was not a trap set by God for Pharaoh, but was a form of deliverance for God’s people Israel, and Egypt, in their rebellion, tried to use God’s protection as a method by which to destroy.

As a result, destruction came upon Egypt instead.

God’s Attempt to Deliver Egypt

But it is critical to note that even prior to destruction falling upon the Egyptian army, God attempted to deliver and turn the army back so as to avoid the devastating consequences of their sin.

Red Sea Egyptian ArmyIn Exodus 14:24-25, after the Egyptian army had followed the Israelites into the Red Sea, the text says that God sought to turn the Egyptian army back by bringing trouble upon them. He caused the chariot wheels to fall off, and brought confusion among the ranks.

It appears that through such actions, God was trying to non-violently warn the Egyptian army that destruction was about to fall upon their heads, and they should turn back while they still had time. The Egyptian army received the message loud and clear, and in fact, did attempt to turn back. Exodus 14:25 says that they sought to flee from the face of Israel. They stopped pursuing Israel through the Red Sea and turned back toward the shore from which they had come.

Yet the text takes a troubling turn at this point. One would think that if God was bringing troubles upon the Egyptian army so that they would turn back, that once they did turn back He would let them escape the Red Sea and live. The point was to deliver Israel; not destroy Egypt. And once the Egyptian army turned back, as the text says they did, what reason could God have for drowning the Egyptian army?

And yet that seems to be what occurs in Exodus 14:26. Just as the Egyptians were seeking to flee from the sea (cf. Exodus 14:27), the text says that God instructed Moses to stretch out his hand over the waters so that they might collapse back down upon the army. And so all the horses and men of Pharaoh’s army drowned beneath the waves (Exodus 14:30).

This confusing and somewhat contradictory series of events seems to indicate something going on behind the scenes, which is not fully evident in the text itself.

Behind the Scenes of the Drowning of the Egyptian Army

It seems that while God’s protection was upon Israel, this protection did not extend to the Egyptian army because of their continued refusal to heed God’s warnings and submit to God’s sovereignty.

As such, the Egyptians were in rebellion against God and had departed from God’s hand of protection. Through the use of the pillar of cloud and fire and by causing confusion among the army ranks when the chariot wheels fell off, God continued to try to keep the army out of the danger of drowning in the Red Sea.

But once Israel had passed fully through the Red Sea, the forces of chaos and destruction could no longer be held back, and they swept away the Egyptian army into death.

But What About God’s Command to Moses in Exodus 14:26?

The command of God to Moses in Exodus 14:26 to allow the waters to fall back upon the heads of the Egyptians can be understood as God taking the blame for that which He did not prevent.

Though God repeatedly warned the Egyptians about their rebellion and tried to get the Egyptians to turn back from the Red Sea crossing, they responded too late and destruction fell upon them, just as it had in the tenth plague.

In Exodus 14:26-31, God takes the blame for this event and bears responsibility for it because it is something that happened on His watch and seemingly by the hand of His prophet, Moses. But really, the fault lies with the Egyptians, and specifically with Pharaoh, who consistently and rebelliously walked in the way of destruction.

“Having cast off every God-given opportunity to repent, Egypt under Pharaoh succumbed fully to the destroyer’s jurisdiction” (Campbell, Light through the Darkness, 72).

God’s Involvement in Drowning the Egyptian Army

God’s action in the miraculous Red Sea crossing was not in drowning the Egyptian army, but in holding back the waters for Israel as they passed through on dry land.

God’s actions were for deliverance and protection first from the invading army and second from the drowning waters. Though God did not desire that the Egyptian army be killed, their refusal to repent and refusal to abide by their promise to let Israel go meant that they had departed from God’s hand of protection.

So once the Egyptian army stepped foot into the Red Sea, God was not able to hold back the waters any longer. Due to their sin and rebellion, the Egyptian army was no longer under God’s jurisdiction, but was under that of the destroyer.

The waves of chaos and the forces of the sea swept over the Egyptian army and carried them down into death. The destroyer destroyed the Egyptian army; not God.

What are your thoughts on the drowning of the Egyptian army in Exodus 14? Did God really do it? If so, how do you reconcile the enemy-loving, self-sacrificing Jesus with the enemy-drowning, vengeful God of Exodus 14? 

God of the Old Testament and JesusHow can a God who says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) be the same God who instructs His people in the Old Testament to kill their enemies?

These are the sorts of questions we discuss and (try to) answer in my online discipleship group. Members of the group can also take ALL of my online courses (Valued at over $1000) at no charge. Learn more here: Join the RedeemingGod.com Discipleship Group I can't wait to hear what you have to say, and how we can help you better understand God and learn to live like Him in this world!

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: Egyptian army, Exodus 14, Theology of God, violence of God, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

Why Atheists are the True Worshipers of God … (and a Call for Christian Atheists)

By Jeremy Myers
58 Comments

Why Atheists are the True Worshipers of God … (and a Call for Christian Atheists)

Atheists are right about God being wrongPeople often assume that we must determine whether or not God exists before we can raise the question of what this God is like.

In other words, why bother with the question of the nature, attributes, and characteristics of God until and unless we first determine the existence of God?

But this exactly what we must do. The question of the existence of God must be secondary to the question of the nature and attributes of God.

Why?

Well, for one reason, how can a person look for God if they don’t know what God looks like? If a person doesn’t know what to look for in God, they cannot very well look for God.

Furthermore, if we begin with the question of the existence of God without first seeking to understand what this God would be like (if he existed), we run the danger of looking for a God who does not actually exist.

And in fact, this is what I think has happened to most atheists.

God-Worshiping Atheists

Many atheists, I believe, have rightly declared their non-belief in a god that truly does not exist.

They have gone looking for a god that does not exist, and, having failed to find him (and how could they?), have declared that god does not exist. Christians take offense to this, and come up with all sorts of arguments for the existence of God, but fail to recognize that they too are arguing (in many cases) for the existence of a god that does not actually exist.

In such cases, it is the atheists who are the true worshipers of the true God, for they have recognized the non-existence of the non-god.

The Christians who seek to defend the existence of the god who is not God are the idolaters, for if they are seeking to call people to believe in a god who is not God, they are calling people to believe in an idol. In such a case, the rejection of this false god by the atheist is an act of pure worship.

Let me get real concrete and specific.

The vast majority of atheists I know today have rejected a god which is believed in by the majority of Christians, namely, a god who hates people of other religion, hates homosexuals, hates democrats, and hates “sinners.” This god of popular Christianity commanded Israel to commit acts of genocide, drowned millions of people in a flood because they sinned too much, and is planning to send the vast majority of the people of this world to an everlasting torment in flames and boiling lava.

Since the God which Jesus revealed to us is nothing like this sort of violent, blood-thirsty, people-torturing god, the atheistic rejection of such a god is an act of true worship of the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

If God is not like what we have been taught, then when we declare, “God does not exist,” we are not denying the God who does truly exist, but the god who is nothing more than a figment of human imagination, philosophical speculation, sociological superstition, and religious wish-fulfillment.

To deny a god who does not exist is to say nothing about the God who does.

When atheists deny a god who does not exist, this is an act of pure worship to the God who does.

A Call for Christian Atheists

So this bring us back to the idea I began with: Before we can discuss whether or not God exists, it might be best to discuss what sort of God we are looking for.

I propose we invite people to look for the God revealed in Jesus Christ, for this is a God who not only exists, but this is a God who can be found.

I believe that if those people who have rightly denied the existence of a god who does not exist were properly introduced to the God who does, they would no longer deny the existence of God.

In my experience, it seems that the vast majority of atheists have not rejected the God revealed in Jesus Christ, but the false god of popular, power-based, political religion.

I reject and deny the existence of that god too … Does that make me a Christian atheist?

So Christians, let us follow our atheist friends in denying the existence of this false god of power, money, bloodshed, and violence, and instead call people to believe in the enemy-loving, all-forgiving God who is found in Jesus Christ dying on the cross.

Only once we present God as what He is like in Jesus Christ can we expect people to “find God” as He truly is, because the God who looks like Jesus is the only God who can be found.

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: atheists, existence of God, Jesus, Theology of God, violence of God

Advertisement

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 13
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework