As long ago as the year 177, the philosopher Celsus attacked Christianity using the
argument that the Old Testament describes a murdering, bloodthirsty God who is
very different from the loving, merciful God Christians like to talk about. The
argument has remained in the arsenal of critics ever since. Steve Wells, the
author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible,
has been particularly influential in popularizing this argument on his blog Dwindling in Unbelief and in his book Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings in the
Bible. Wells seems to take pleasure in the apparent shock value of comparing
the number of people that God has killed or ordered killed vs. the number that
Satan has. In his book Drunk With Blood,
Wells explains his purpose in making these comparisons. On the first page he
writes, “It is my hope that as God’s killings become better known, people will
know better than to believe in the Bible.” According to Well’s calculations;
God is responsible for 2,476,636 deaths in the Bible while Satan is responsible
for 60. Wells argues that if the prophesies of Revelation are included, the
Bible presents 24,634,205 scriptural deaths at the hand of God verses 60 at the
hand of Satan.
Is Wells
correct about these numbers? If so, is it a good argument against believing in
the God of the Bible?
Wells uses
estimates to develop the numbers, as the Bible often does not record exact
figures in these cases. I have not bothered to evaluate the estimates but it is
clear even from a cursory reading that the Bible attributes far more loss of
human life to the agency or command of God than to anyone else. If this is
shocking, it is only because of a deficiency in the popular understanding of
God’s character and holiness. In fact, the actual number of deaths attributable
to God is far higher than Wells estimates. Death is the result of God’s judgment
of sin (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 5:12, Jas. 1:15). Every funeral home, every cemetery,
and every mausoleum is a testimony to the sinfulness of humankind and the
righteousness of God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is therefore wise to live tempered
by the knowledge that we too will die and face judgment (Eccl. 7:2, 11:9). The
sovereign God determines when our earthly lives will end (1 Sam. 2:6, Job
14:5). Therefore, in an ultimate sense, God has taken the life of every person who has ever died.
Since Wells
seems to be correct that God takes human life and even sometimes uses other
humans to do so, is it true that God is immoral? Is his argument against
Christianity persuasive?
Although it
may have emotional appeal, it is not a very strong argument. As Dr. William
Lane Craig observed, “it [is] ironic that atheists should often express such
indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for
thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so [there is] no
basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong. As Doug Wilson has aptly
said of the Canaanite slaughter from a naturalistic point of view, “The
universe doesn’t care.” So at most, the non-theist can be alleging that
biblical theists have a sort of inconsistency in affirming both the goodness of
God and the historicity of the conquest of Canaan. It’s an internal problem for
biblical theists, which is hardly grounds for moral outrage on the part of
non-theists.”
The
argument must assume some standard of morality by which to judge God. Atheistic
materialism can support no such standard. Ironically, the standard often
assumed is the moral standard derived from the Bible. If the argument is intended
to charge God with moral inconsistency then it is necessary that each of the
events be considered within the broader context of the biblical teaching.
First, the Bible
teaches that God is the creator and His character is the source of truth, love,
and justice. As a result, it is not possible to appeal to any moral standard
outside of God without first denying the biblical understanding of who He is.
It is impossible within a Christian worldview to define any moral standard
apart from God Himself. God, Himself, is the ultimate basis upon which any
judgment of truth or morals can be made. We simply have no standard by which we
could judge what He Himself does. Whatsoever He does is assuredly just on the
basis that He does it. On this basis, the argument ultimately degenerates into
more basic questions of apologetics, namely, is the Bible true and does God
exist.
Second, the
most violent Old Testament events that these critics call attention to occur
within a particular context within the broader story of God’s plan to redeem a
people for His own glory. None of those whose life God takes was “innocent” or
undeserving. Rather than be shocked by their judgment, we should be amazed at
His patience with us. The transgression of men and women brought about curse
and only the guilty fall under its power.
Furthermore,
God in His gracious love has saved from this curse those who by faith are
united to Christ who paid the penalty of death we deserved while we were still
His enemies (Gal. 3:13, Rom. 5:8). Keep in mind that God repeatedly warns
people that He will judge sin. The coming judgment is usually not immediate,
giving people an opportunity to repent. Eventually, the judgment comes, but in
each case, God spared a remnant of faithful people. These historical events are
a foreshadowing of God’s final judgment and salvation. We do well to recognize
that we are currently living in a period of restraint whereby we have an
opportunity to join to the faithful remnant. It is because of God’s grace that He
records His terrible judgments for our instruction.
God is not
bloodthirsty but He is holy. Well's argument is only persuasive if we,
who are sinners, are bold enough to put ourselves in a position to judge God
rather than accepting His judgment and appealing to His loving mercy with faith
and repentance.