I talk weekly with people who are pretty antagonistic toward Christianity. One of them recently sent me this picture:
It is interesting because I am still in the middle of a long series on how to understand the flood in light of Jesus Christ, and the flood is exactly what this image talks about when comparing God with Hitler.
So how would you respond to this image?
Most Christians would say something like this: “Well, God is God and so He can do what He wants. Hitler wasn’t God, and so it was wrong for him.”
I reject that answer. If God can behave like Hitler, but it’s okay because He’s God, I don’t think God deserves our worship.
My conviction, however, is that God is not like Hitler; God is like Jesus Christ. We must read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus, and see that Jesus shows us what God is truly like, even though much of the Old Testament portrays something quite different. When God looks violent in the Old Testament, it is not because He is violent, but because He is taking the sins of the world upon Himself, just as Jesus did on the cross.
This is a challenging proposal, and I am trying to write a book to defend it (When God Pled Guilty). But the further I go, the harder the book becomes. That is why you have been seeing fewer and fewer posts on it. I cannot decide whether to push ahead or just give up in defeat.
Any thoughts on what I should do? How do you understand the violence of God in the Bible? Also, how would you respond to that image above?
Not sure what is implied by theology of some Christians but I assume Calvinist are inferred. The problem with the analogy is that it’s not even close to being equal, more likely Hitler is a terribly poor imitation of God even though he attempts to emulate omnipotence and sovereignty. I recommend reading Karl Bath who does have a Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty but also gave much criticism of Hitler. Bath was situated in that time and would make a great reference.
Jeremy,
You should give up inerrancy!
Your task then will become considerably easier:P
Also, you should definitely not quit, and acknowledge
your conclusions to be provisional.
I may have been unclear in the post. I am not considering giving up on inerrancy. I am considering giving up on that book project of mine… But I think you are right, I should continue the project and see where the rabbit hole goes, and acknowledge that my ideas are provisional, as you say.
Yeah. There are always 2nd, 3rd editions etc. where you can add/make changes.
You don’t need to give up inerrancy.
I was just kidding about that.
You are radical enough as it is already!
Yeah, I still don’t get why you are clinging to inerrancy. Just admit that the flood is a story probably written a while after a severe local flood, and that the theological point is to credit God for the saving of life as well as the promise not to destroy again. The fact that the Israelites attached that violence to God in Genesis doesn’t mean that God actually perpetrated the death of millions. If you really think God is like Jesus, and you can’t reconcile the Flood with Jesus, then you are going to have to question the historicity or normative qualities of the account.
Exactly.
It does. I’m saying he should give it up.
Timothy,
I am drowning in the flood. It is extremely difficult to reconcile it with Jesus Christ. I have options without resorting to getting rid of inerrancy. As to why I cling to it, I agree with what Eric says below… I am just not ready to start going down that trail yet.
Jeremy, don’t give up on inerrancy. If the bible has significant errors, then almost everything is up for debate including the ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection of Christ. I suggest that you keep plugging away at your book. It is a good question that you are asking and trying to answer.
Giving up on inerrancy is at first glance a solution, but in the end it raises much larger questions about the gospel itself.
To endlessly qualify inerrancy defeats the point of holding to inerrancy.
Eric,
I am not planning on giving up on inerrancy. What I meant above is that I might give up on the book project in which I explain the violent portrayals of God in the OT in light of Jesus Christ. It is extremely difficult!
Though one might compare God with a frog, that does not make their comparison an apt description of God. Perhaps it might be an apt description of something they or someone else has imagined, but nothing about that means it is in any way accurate.
I commend you for wanting to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Has Scripture always been considered inerrant? If not, when did that idea emerge? Exactly what do you mean by inerrant? Even though most presume the meaning of inerrant to be quite obvious, is it? Do people really mean exactly the same thing by that term?
Have you noticed that those who use the term almost always follow its use by their “interpretation” of what Scripture (usually certain specific passages, which result in certain specific doctrines) says? Therefore, “since Scripture says…and we know Scripture is without error….” Completely logical, right? Or so those people want us to conclude. Wherein lies their egregious error?
Of course, this all leads to the question “Is the violent God we are told is portrayed in the Old Testament an apt description of God?” Is the God of love we are told is portrayed in the New Testament an apt description of God? Why do these descriptions of God appear to be at variance with each other?
Great questions about inerrancy. I think that the modern definition of inerrancy is a relatively recent development in theology, put forward in response to some of the challenges of the enlightenment.
I think that if I cannot reconcile the violent portrayals of God with the God revealed in Jesus, I will go with what I think is your view on the Bible. Maybe we can talk more about it sometime soon.
I think the answer lies in the Heart of each. Hitler’s heart was for self gain and Sin. While God’s heart was to save the few who weren’t corrupted by sin. God’s Heart was looking to save people while Hitler’s heart was to destroy. Never let the enemy steal what you already know as truth. God’s will is for all people to be saved. I can’t and don’t have all the answers but I know who does and that’s God. If you ask Him He will reveal it to you. But I really think this is a heart issue.
I share the same opinion. It is a heart issue, an attitude in situations.
yes, they definitely had different heart and goals. I guess the challenge is to explain the difference to those who are antagonistic toward Christianity. Of course, many of those same people love Jesus. So if could get them to see that God is like Jesus….. but how?
Actually, Hitler would have said he was trying to save Germany from the corrupt, money hungry jews who would eventually try and create a new world order!
Also, it’s interesting that we all think that God caused the flood to kill of sin but was quite happy to put a mark on cain to protect him even though he had murdered his brother! Doesn’t really add up now does it?
Ivan
God created everything! Hwy do we give him credit for being loving and caring all the time. Would living in Paradise sustain life as we know it, as God created it? God new the laws of balance and equilibrium. Just look around you. If there was no evil how would we know what is good? What was the idea of giving us a “Will”? ( license to sin) Did God create the Devil? Of course he did. He new what he was doing, making life interesting and sustainable for a while. Did God create all religions that are constantly in conflict? Of course he did. Why are we then trying to glorify or discredit some God that we created in our own mind? I guess God wanted it to be that way.
It’s difficult to respond to the image above directly. Thoughts like those being conveyed expose an underlying negative view of God which motivates the way its author processes information. The author does not believe that God is unjust because of his acts of violence, but rather they accuse God of violence because they already believe him to be unjust. (Usually this is the result of the “how could a loving god…” line of reasoning.)
If one considers that such God-maligning thoughts as those in the image above spring from a common root (the supposed injustice of God), addressing that root would seem to be the best response. When a person begins to see God as loving and good, other skewed perceptions (like the “violent God” or the “angry, hateful God”) will fall away.
I read over many of the articles in your series so far, and I think you are heading in the right direction with the way you are handling the flood. The picture of God which you present (especially by drawing in other passages which comment on the flood) demonstrates his overwhelming desire to save people from the destruction they are bringing on themselves. This is a clear OT concept:
“The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.” (Neh. 9:17; Ps. 103:8, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2)
This overwhelming desire of God to save rather than destroy is seen throughout the OT. A few other examples you may not have mentioned:
Destruction of the two cities — God seeks out Abraham to intercede on their behalf (this dialog speaks volumes to the nature of God’s judgment); even when ten righteous are not found, he intentionally spares Lot’s family, and then at Lot’s request spares a small town that would otherwise have been destroyed.
The city of Nineveh — God pronounced judgment through Jonah as a warning, but when the people repented, he did not destroy them. Jonah indicates that he knew all along that it was God’s desire to save these people from the destruction they were heading toward. Jonah 4:11 shows that God was not only concerned with saving people, but also with saving the animals in the city.
Ahab and Jezebel — God spoke judgment against these two as a warning. Ahab repented and was spared. Jezebel did not, and she died according to Elijah’s prophecy. 1 Kings 21:29 shows God’s strong desire to spare people.
Tony,
Great points. Of course, regarding the flood, God does indeed seem to behave in a pretty violent way. Thanks for the encouragement on the project so far. I think I will continue, though I am not sure exactly where I will land…
is it wise to question the Almighty God? Is it not and was it not God who created us. Did our Lord Jesus not give himself up for us on the cross. Did Jesus descend to Hell and retrieve the keys of Death, Did Jesus not witness to all the lost souls in hades, do u think that one soul in Death would stay in death? or would choose not to rise in Life with our Lord Jesus Christ? Was there not war in heaven? are we not spiritual beings in a material shell. Is God all knowing? does our God delight in destroying his Creations? Of Course not.. God has found away and he is not to be argued with. In destruction The Almighty has given us LIFE forever more.We should be happy and praise our God For the Bad and the Goodness to everlasting life. But am i to talk like this, for even the wise men and Job could not understand Gods Grace and Glory.
Lots of great questions here. But I think that asking difficult questions about God and Scripture is not questioning Him, but is faith seeking understanding. I seek to know God deeply, and one way I do this is through digging into His Word.
Forgive the simplicity of this response. I know that the issue being discussed here is more complicated than this, but there is an element of the following comparison that can be explored further in this comparison to God and Hitler.
As a dad, I punish my children for their learning and maturing. When I do it correctly, I do it lovingly and thoughtfully, making it clear that there is a reason for their unpleasant experience – not just my bad mood or my unrestrained temper. My children, on the other hand, are not allowed to punish one another. They do it, of course, but they aren’t allowed to. They are not mature enough nor do they have the authority that I have.
Suppose one day, I put my eldest child in charge of the house while I’m away. If he has authority, then he has the right to punish my other children for breaking the rules. He does not have the right to do it the way I would do it myself, but only to do it the way I have permitted him. He has authority, but only as much as I give him.
Isn’t this the way of things with the governing authorities (like Hitler)? Is it not just for God to punish and deal with His creation/children as His wisdom leads even though it is unjust for someone else to do so who has been given that authority? Governing authorities bear the sword for the purpose of executing the justice of God on His behalf. That is a heavy and serious responsibility, and godless authority figures will most often neglect it. This doesn’t mean that God is unjust when He acts.
I may do what I see fit with my own works of art, but it is another matter altogether when someone else invades my studio and smashes them to bits! This is not just a matter of property rights; as Creator, God can be trusted much more than the creation that is marred and deformed by sin and selfishness.
That is actually a very compelling analogy. Since we are created in the image of God, it does not seem unreasonable to understand him better through our structured society (however imperfectly it may reflect his nature). We see that a healthy marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Why shouldn’t healthy parenting be a type of our relationship to the Father? (Why is he called the Father, and we are his children if this does not have at least some literal value?)
Ryan,
I agree in theory with what you are saying, (and with what Tony says in his comment) about the natural world helping us understand God’s relationship with His creation.
But are you saying that since Hitler was a national leader, He was doing God’s work? That in killing 6 million Jews, Hitler was carrying out the will of God? It kind of seems so, but then you say that “godless authority figures will most often neglect it [their responsibility].”
The primary horror of the German Death Camps, or the Soviet Gulag, or the North Korean re-education camps is the scale on which people were sent to them.
The secondary horror is the crime one committed, to land in one of those faciliies.
The major difference between the Gulag, the Holocaust, and God’s condemnation, is who one chooses to accept, as the absolute political, religious, moral, and ethical authority, and consequently follows.
Either punishment for ‘criminal activity’ is ethically acceptable, or it is ethically unacceptable.
The God of Christianity allows one to choose unwisely.
Wait. Are you saying that the people who got sent to the death camps got sent there because of a crime they committed, and so their “punishment” was acceptable? I might have misunderstood Ryan’s comment above, and maybe I am misunderstanding yours as well (It’s late!).
I wasn’t thinking of Calvinism in particular, but any perspective of God which portrays Him as a violent, vindictive being who slaughters those who disobey Him. This does not look at all like Jesus Christ.
The difference between God and Hitler is that God wants to save people, Hitler wants to kill people.
In the passages about Noah we read that he built an Ark and it took him 120 years. This means that there were 120 years of publicity about Noah, the Ark and the coming flood. I believe all people on the planet knew about the coming flood and the ship that could save them if they entered. So God provided an escape from coming judgement. Jesus is the ship that saves.
Also Jesus went to the people who lived before Noah to tell them about Himself (was the passage in Judas or 2 Peter…?). That’s another grace act of Jesus.
The guy who compared God with Hitler only focussed on life on earth, but not on afterlife.
Lastly, we read in genesis 6 that angels (gods sons litterally translated) had sex with women of earth. There offspring are called nephilim (translated as giants). This was an abomination in Gods eyes. Genes of men were never intended to mix with genes of angels. So I think this was another reason for the flood.
Ultimately God Himself payed the ultimate price for our sins.
Yes, many good distinctions there. Of course, hell is the ultimate challenge. For according to some theologies, God does indeed want to torture people in never ending suffering for all eternity. I am not saying there is no hell, but we must provide some sort of explanation for this challenge.
Erik Dijkstra wrote:
Yes hell a difficult question to answer. What helped me is the following statement: “Hell is Gods ultimate sign of love for us.” This is a rather bizarre statement, because hell and love frequently are not associated with each other. But the explanation goes like this.
God loves us and wants us to be with Him. He gave us a choice when Jesus died and rose again: Heaven or hell. But like the prodigal son, a lot of people choose to not be with God. God doesn’t force them to stay! Out of His love he lets them go and takes a risk. Will they return or not. If not, then they will end up in hell. Because without Christ, everyone is condemned.
God loves us. He loved us enough to give us the freedom of choice. Even if we make horrible bad ones.
But then what about the people who never had a choice. I believe God will judge them fairly according to their deeds. And I base this a little on John 9: 39,40,41. This is the epilogue of the blind man who got healed and got inquired multiple times by the farisees. In these verses Jesus says He has come to judge the world and the blind will see and the seeing will become blind. The Farisees says: “surely we are not blind.” and Jesus responds saying: “it would be better if you were blind, then you would be without sin. But now you claim to see, so your sin will stay.”
When I read this the first time I thought about people who never heard of Christ and are therefore spiritually blind. They are without sin according to this passage. So in my reasoning they get saved and get to be with God. But correct me if I’m wrong about this passage.
Hope this helps.
Good luck and blessings with the continued writing of your book Jeremy.
Blessings,
Erik Dijkstra (forgot to logon and on my mobile device loging on means losing everything I’ve typed 🙂 )
My takes on the flood is a type and shadow of water baptism. God is baptising sinful man and in Jesus Christ mankind is resurrected to new life
I find it interesting that some who reject God cite genocide in the Old Testament as one of the reasons. Another argument against God is that he allows evil to happen in our world. You can’t have it both ways. Either we allow God the freedom to address evil as he sees fit our we need to stop complaining that he allows evil. I posted about this http://www.mhmcintyre.us/judging-the-judge/
Good point. Yes, we need to allow freedom, or allow God to respond to evil. There is really no other way. I will come check out your post.
There are a lot of insights and great points to consider in the comments already. Although I haven’t read them each in detail, all I’d add is focus on relationship. God created man to have relationship / communion with us. Our salvation through Christ is so that we may have relationship with the Father through Christ. Period.
When the flood wiped out most of mankind, God allowed it because the current state of affairs on this earth were not conducive to His intent to have relationship with us. Mankind was so wretched, and possibly corrupted genetically according to some Biblical teachers, that starting over was the best option in God’s infinite wisdom.
Hitler’s intent was obviously not love and relationship – it was pride.
Yes, the motivations of God are definitely different than the motivations of Hitler. It is interesting you state that God “allowed” the flood. I believe that too (as I am defending in my series of posts on the flood), but the Genesis text seems to say that God “sent” the flood. Any ideas why it says that?
Hey Jeremy – I had read your material on the flood, and was intrigued by your ideas, so I think I chose that word subconsciously. Even if He “sent” it, it’s still a form of “allowing” it to occur, but I look forward to reading more from you on the topic! Sorry I don’t have any additional scholarship to offer on it.
But what if all that God did was drown a bunch of Hitlers? Wouldn’t most of us think that is justice?
Ah! Interesting! There are some who hold this view, that the brutality of mankind was so great, that it was justice to kill them all, and among those who were the innocent victims in the flood (for certainly there had to be some), it was merciful to put them out of the misery of living under a horde of Hitlers.
Yes that is what I have been contemplating about the violence attributed to God in the OT. If God felt the need to wipe everyone out and start new, choosing to save only one drunk and his family, how many truly innocent could there have been? Merciful justice. Wipe out a horribly corrupt generation to give another chance. Then only wipe out a human baby sacrificing culture to keep the trajectory toward love going. Gradually showing a violent and corrupt creation the path back toward fellowship and communion with its creator, to finally become true image bearers. All because of mercy. I know that when I get down about how awful humanity can be and think the lord should just come back now, I think that if his patience was not so great, I would not exist at all. And I rather like existing.
Please explain your premise, thank you.
Please explain your question, thank you.
You state, “When God looks violent in the Old Testament, it is not because He is violent, but because He is taking the sins of the world upon Himself, just as Jesus did on the cross.”
What so you mean by God “is taking the sins of the world upon Himself”? How, why, why a need for Christ to come and do it again? Thank you!
I see. Good question. I was specifically thinking of 2 Corinthians 5;21, and in my current ongoing series of trying to understand the violent portrayals of God in the Bible in relation to what Jesus revealed to us about God. Here is a link to some of those posts which might explain more.
https://redeeminggod.com/books-by-jeremy-myers/when-god-pled-guilty/
God gave them a choice. Hitler didnt.
I find the comparison odd. Hitler is a human being and therefore he can do me injustice. God by definition is eternal and incomparably holy. Therefore nothing God does can do me any wrong. It is a logical contradiction to say that God can wrong his creation. The question is whether God is always just to act as he does, and I think that God is always just even when it appears “unfair.”
Yes, the comparison isn’t exactly fair or equal. But for those who make the comparison (mostly atheists) we need to have a MUCH better response than, “God is God and can do what He wants.”
But Sir,God never intended to cause pain to people.Our spirits were dead after we sinned(became self loving) because we were designed to exist in the love of christ. We accepted the lies of satan ourselves because God has bestowed us with free will.We seek magnification of ourselves in everything as satan did.All our actions are aimed at impressing fellow people so as to derive love and care from them.This hurts other people when we are concerned only with our satisfaction and also,people couldn’t love unconditionally without first receiving christ’s love(we love because he loved us first).This self love is sin.God never forced chaos on us.we gave in to satan’s lies about evil being an inherent necessity.Jesus said he was the way,the truth and life.He was the life(love)that everyone craves for,he is the truth which meant that his love was our only need and he exposed the lies of satan that we could attain bliss on subordinating people to our cravings.Sinning people don’t accept a God who requires us to renounce ourselves because they are not convinced of God’s love being enough for them and they are afraid to destroy their identity and live for the Glory of God.So,upon death,these souls realize that the physical world was just a shadow of God’s love(the nature,food etc) and their own lies(violence,self love etc) and realize that love is their only need.They pursue it from other soul beings but are hurt that there’s only hate and self love.They are afraid to approach the light because they don’t want to renounce their identity as they have not recognized God’s love before.
Jermemy…I applaud your doggedness to try to understand why God act violently in the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians need an answer. When I read you say this as your possible resolution: “When God looks violent in the Old Testament, it is not because He is violent, but because He is taking the sins of the world upon Himself, just as Jesus did on the cross.” What mental gymnastics this is. I think in your research you have forgotten the human element in the composition to the Scriptures. The Bible is “God’s word in Human word’s.” What this means is that human beings are offering interpretation on what they believe God is calling them to be. They are tribal and petty and their descriptions of God reflect this. Theologians I believe that have done a great job on “the violent God” theme are Richard Rohr and John Shelby Spong. I highly encourage you to read there suggestions…they may help you resolve the matter as they have done for me.
I have read much from Rohr and Spong, and find their answers unconvincing, along with dozens upon dozens of other books on this topic. I think there is much more going on in the OT violent texts than simply that humans were wrong about what God wanted.
You do realize that God is not a person, right ?
I mean, the picture is funny… but how can you be taking this seriously ? If you want to go down that road, you don’t even have to go that far to find that God sucks: see, if God created life, he also created death, and by extension, he’s equally responsible for all the deaths Hitler caused…
If you want to think about God, you’ll have to get an interest in theology… and what you’re doing right here is the level zero of theology. If you are still at the point where you conceptualize God as a person you could share a cup of tea with, you haven’t even scratched what theology has to offer to you.
You do realize that this is not the only post on this blog, right?
I do, but it really doesn’t motivate me to see what else is there 🙂 !
Jeremy wrote:
Most Christians would say something like this: “Well, God is God and so He can do what He wants. Hitler wasn’t God, and so it was wrong for him.”
I reject that answer. If God can behave like Hitler, but it’s okay because He’s God, I don’t think God deserves our worship.
Jeremy, you study the bible a lot. Since that is the case, you know better than this. I’ve known hundreds of conservative christians, and none of them would describe the traditional, conservative hermeneutic as being that God’s behavior was ‘just like Hitler’ but since he’s omnipotent it’s ok to be like Hitler. This is rubbish. You are using the straw man logical fallacy, not mentioning what conservatives truly believe and say, and then tearing it down the straw man to support your trashing Moses account of history.
An omnipotent, omniscient, infinite being, a being that has never once, ever, done anything wrong in all eternity…He tells wicked, evil people to cease from their evil, gives them decades or centuries to desist. They give the finger to God and say, screw you, we’re going to keep being evil, then God judges them because He is JUST, and His character demands that He be just, otherwise He’d violate His nature. That’s one thing. (and we haven’t even gotten into the nephilim issue)
Then you take a wicked, sinful, racist dictator that murdered millions simply because they were Jewish. That’s another thing.
You’ve equated the two. I don’t think that’s being honest with the material.
It doesn’t seem a hard question to me. People at the time of the flood were described as living continually in sin with every thought turned towards it. An extremely different group of people than innocent Jews. Comparing the flood to the holocaust is like comparing someone who shoots a murderer to protect his family to the murderer himself.
No, it’s little different than that. It’s like comparing someone who shoots a murderer, and his wife, and his children, and his parents, and his friends, and his cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. So you really think all the children at the time of the flood deserved to drown?
Frankly, I think the story of the biblical god starts with Abraham. I don’t consider any of the previous books to be canon, the story of creation, for instance, is covered in something like two pages and feels like only a part of a bigger story. I interpret the story of the flood as the ancient jewish interpretation on what was likely a localized flood in the ancient middle east, a flood which was also referred to in the Gilgamesh epic.
http://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
The Bible is a book. It is not God.
The Bible is a book filled with stories, translations, and very many metaphors. The metaphorical stories can only be interpreted with God’s Spirit, since their idea is spiritual. They are not stories about people, but about spirits. The Bible stories tell the human spirit what the human spirit is. That’s why there is so much evil in the Bible. In the human spirit there is God, but there is also the Devil, the Anti-God.
The Bible is a spiritual tool. It is not a history book. It is not a natural sciences book. It is not a book of mathematics, law, or sociology. It is meant for spiritual guidance, but in order to receive spiritual guidance one has to be open for spiritual guidance.
Spirit is inside. There is the living spirit in every living thing. God is everywhere. So we can have spiritual guidance spiritually, via spirit, directly. We don’t need any books for that. We don’t even need to know how to read. God is in everyone, and God is the Same God for everyone. God is One. God is the Truth.
The stories in the Bible are metaphors. This means they have to be interpreted. The flood story is not about any actual flood, killing almost everyone, but it is a story of spiritual transformation, like many other stories in the Bible, including the story of Jesus.
If we think the Bible is a history book, it doesn’t make any sense, and it’s not real or true either.
God is not a ”he” and God is not a man. God has no gender. God is not physical. These words are very often leading people astray. All literal interpretations are leading people astray.
God is Pure Spirit, and unless we recognize this, we can have no clear understanding of God.
As to Hitler, he was a psychopathic mass murderer and a very evil man, and as such had nothing to do with God. Hitler was doing the will of the Anti-Christ.
Christ is inside of us all, just like God. Again, Christ is not a man, but Spirit, a definite level of Spirit, and there are many levels. The Highest (Purest) level of Spirit is God.