Is God a Moral Monster? (Paul Copan)
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). 252 pp. $14.99 paperback.
review by Kevin Williford
Among the challenges facing the church today is the attack on the Christian faith posed by what is commonly called the “New Atheists.” What distinguishes the New Atheists from those in previous generations is their militancy and efforts to popularize atheism. The primary mode of attack is to use the Old Testament (“OT”) stories to accuse God of being irrational and immoral.
Paul Copan wrote Is God a Moral Monster? to address many of the New Atheists’ charges regarding God as He is presented the OT. Copan is a distinguished evangelical apologist who received his PhD from Marquette University. He currently serves as the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach University.
Summary
In his first chapter, Copan identifies the New Atheists and presents them as popularizers who gather much attention, but who are really not strong philosophers. He characterizes them as angry men who use flimsy arguments and are unwilling to own up to the atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Copan supports this charge with quotes from noted philosophers, many of whom are themselves atheists.
Chapter two extends this introduction by providing a summary of the charge that is made against theism by the New Atheists. The charge is essentially that the Bible reflects a primitive and brutal ethic that is inferior to modern morality. If God is truly responsible for these barbarisms, then He should be rejected as an impostor. Modern man has achieved a higher morality than the Bible without God as a working hypothesis.
The remainder of the book is Copan’s answer to the specific examples cited by the New Atheists of the brutality, immorality, and irrationality of God from the OT. In each chapter Copan exegetes the passages related to the charges levied by the New Atheists. Chapters 3-5 address the charges levied against God’s character, including:
- The charge that God is arrogant as demonstrated by His continual demands for praise (ch. 3). Copan responds by carefully defining arrogance and humility and emphasizing that God is only arrogant if He demands praise that He is not due.
- The charge that God is an angry and vengeful deity (ch. 4). Copan explains the jealousy of God in reference to His covenant relationship with His people, emphasizing the caring and protective elements of divine anger.
- The charge of divinely-sponsored child abuse as seen in the Sacrifice of Isaac (ch 5). Copan explains the story’s function in the larger narrative of Genesis and as an illustration of God’s grace and Abraham’s obedience.
Chapters 6-18 focus on the charges made against religion that are the result of an insufficient knowledge of ancient Near Eastern culture. In Chapter 6, Copan sets the stage by utilizing the concept of progressive revelation to argue that the Bible does not claim that everything at the time was as God desired. Rather God began with where mankind was and in incremental steps progressively moved from the reality to the ideal. Chapters 7-18 all operate with this principle in mind.
- Chapters 7-8 deal with the kosher food laws that seem ridiculous to modern readers. Copan emphasizes the purpose of these laws in creating consecrated community.
- Chapter 9 addresses other laws that appear barbaric. Copan does a good job of illustrating how they were enlightened in comparison with those current in other Ancient Near Eastern Societies.
- Chapter 10-11 addresses whether God was misogynistic and allowed the oppression of women. Copan explains how these laws were actually meant to protect women and led to the improvement of their lives.
- Chapters 12-14 discuss the issue of slavery in the OT. Copan emphasizes the laws that placed restrictions upon slavery that were unparalleled in the ancient Near East.
- The question of whether God endorsed genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites by the Israelites is the topic of Chapters 15-17. A key point in this discussion is the characteristically hyperbolic language of the ancient Near East that is often unrecognized today.
- Chapter 18 addresses the New Atheists’ charge that religion is cause of all violence in the world. The New Atheists claim religion is exclusionary and this creates the conditions that produce wars. Copan responds that the God of Scripture is actually an inclusivist. Copan also contrasts the biblical Yahweh Wars with Islamic Jihad.
Chapter 19 is the most philosophical chapter in the book. Copan addresses whether it is possible to be moral without God. Copan concludes the book in chapter 20 with a presentation of the positive contributions made to humanity by both Judaism and Christianity, and he presents Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the OT.
Critique
Copan demonstrates a good working knowledge of grammar of the text, the history of Israel, and the OT and Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds. The book is far more exegetical than it is philosophical, as Copan utilizes all of these disciplines to provide solid exegesis of the passages pointed to by the New Atheists. Copan’s basic argument is that New Atheists have misunderstood the biblical text, and so have misrepresented God as the OT presents Him.
Philosophers will likely be disappointed with Copan’s work because he does not deal with the philosophical arguments that have been made against theism. However, as he points out in the opening chapters, his work is to be an answer to the New Atheists whose attack has largely not been philosophically based. Rather they have attempted to use the OT text itself as an attack against theism, and the only way to counter that attack is to demonstrate the superficiality of the New Atheists’ reading of the text.
Copan’s work is solid, but it is not without its problems. In some places he overstates his case, such as page 108 where he argues for a priestly role for Eve in the Garden of Eden. Another example may be found on page 138 where Copan equates the designation Hebrew with the Habiru, a conclusion that is not unanimously held by biblical scholars, and in so doing extends the six-year manumission clause of the law to non-Israelites as well as Israelites. By overstating his case Copan may weaken his argument by inviting his reader to question his statements and conclusions.
In other places, Copan is not careful with his terminology. For example, on page 109 he describes the OT priests as having three duties: teaching, prophetic, and cultic. This would seem to equate prophet and priest, although what Copan means by the priest’s prophetic duty is the casting of the Urim and Thummim, which is not identical to OT prophecy in any way.
Due to the book’s exegetical and apologetic nature, it is unlikely that it would appeal much to philosophers in their discussion of arguments for or against theism. It is also unlikely that a committed New Atheist would be willing to engage in Copan’s detailed exegesis. Most of the New Atheists’ arguments rest on surface level readings of the text, and my personal experience in dealing with those who have been heavily influenced by the New Atheists is that they are generally either unable or unwilling to follow an exegetical argument.
Conclusion
The book seems best suited for the Christian who has come into contact with the New Atheism and is seeking answers to the accusations the contact has raised. Two useful features of the book are the suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter, and the appendix of discussion/study questions for each chapter at the end of the book. These discussion questions could be easily adapted to small group or classroom use.
The book would also be useful to Christian leaders who are often approached with questions about these difficult issues in the OT and need a ready answer. While Copan’s work is not exhaustive on these issues, it is a good starting point and points the way to further study. The book is first and foremost an apologetic work that provides an answer for the hope that we have with meekness and respect (cf. 1 Pet. 3.15). As such it is recommended to my brothers in Christ.
_____________________
About the Author: Kevin D. Williford lives in Kansas City, MO with his wife Sheila, their four boys and their Yorkie. He is the pastor of the Victory FWB Church and serves on the MOFWB Christian Education Board. He is a graduate of Hillsdale FWB College (1996). He also has a Master of Divinity degree from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2001), where he is also currently working on a PhD in Old Testament. He also teaches as an adjunct online instructor for Hillsdale. In addition to his love of the OT, he enjoys numismatics and reading Russian Literature.
April 4, 2013
The interpretation of OT texts by Jewish Rabbis are often more complimentary with the Revelation of God as [Unconditional] Love than the interepretaitions by Latin/Western Christians.
Excerpt from Jewish Renewal by Rabbi Michael Lerner:
In this moment Abraham must confront the central problem facing every religion and every historical manifestation of God in the world: the difficulty in separating the voice of God from the legacy of pain and cruelty that dominates the world and is embedded in our psyches.
The greatness of Abraham is not that he takes his son to Mount Moriah, the Temple mount (the place where today stand both the Western Wall sacred to Jews and the Dome of the Rock sacred to Islam), so that he can sacrifice his son. No. The greatness of Abraham is that he doesn’t go through with it. As he looks into the eyes of the son he has bound for slaughter, he can now overcome the emotional deadness that allowed him to cast Ishmael off into the desert. At the very last moment, Abraham hears the true voice of God, the voice that says, “Don’t send your hand onto the youth and don’t make any blemish.” Don’t do it Abraham, says God. You can break the pattern of passing on to the next generation the pain and cruelty that you have suffered. This is the moment of transcendence; the moment in which Abraham finally accepts as real the commandment that started his journey, to leave his father’s house. The real God of the universe is not the voice of cruelty that he had experienced and heard in his childhood; it is rather a God of compassion and justice who does not command the sacrifice of the innocent.
Startlingly, the text itself points to two different voices that Abraham has heard, not one voice that has changed its mind. In Hebrew, when the text talks about the voice that tells Abraham to take his son, it is ha’elohim (which could be translated, “the gods”). But the voice that tells Abraham not to lay his hand on the young boy is a messenger of YHVH, the four letters that Jewish tradition identifies with the embodiment of God as the Transformer and Liberator from Egypt. It is YHVH who tells Abraham that the chain of pain can be broken—and that makes it possible for Abraham to recognize Isaac as another human being created in the image of God, and hence infinitely precious.
April 6, 2013
Carol. Thank you for your interest in my review. There are several points that I would make regarding your response.
To begin with Lerner’s suggestion that Elohim and Yahweh are separate entities is nonsense. I know of no serious scholar (Jewish or Christian) that would argue such a position. Elohim is technically plural but all recognize the plural form as a synonym for Yahweh. Some have viewed this a holdover from primitive polytheism, but Gesenius in his lexicon states that the suggestion that Elohim is “Perhaps retained from polytheism [an idea which is not to be entertained for a moment], in which may be taken in a plural sense and understood of higher powers. [This is not the way in which the Scripture speaks of God]” [1]. The bracketed text in the quote is Gesenius’ evaluation of the notion, and not my commentary.
The problem with Gen 22.1 is that the Hebrew text includes the article on God (ha’elohim). Lerner indicates that this may be translated as “the gods,” but this is not the case. Certainly we would not expect the article on Elohim if it is referring to “God.” Some instances of the article on God are the result of the Hebrew construct relationship in which the article is placed on the second word in the construct chain. For example in 1 Sam 9.10 the Hebrew reads ’ish ha’elohim which should be translated as “the man of God” (i.e. the prophet) rather than “man of the gods.” But the construct relationship does not account for all occurrences of ha’elohim, and the occurrence in Gen 22.1 is not in a construct relationship. So how may we account for the other occurrences of ha’elohim?
HALOT indicates that ’elohim and ha’elohim are synonyms and that the author may choose between them on the basis of euphony (i.e. phoenetic quality) or as a matter of his free choice [2]. A little later in the same entry HALOT states that Elohim with or without the article acts as a proper noun equivalent to and alternating with YHWH in the Pentateuch [3].
The other standard Hebrew Lexicon, BDB states that the article on Elohim rather than indicating “the gods” actually conveys the meaning of “the one true God” [4]. Gesenius’ elaborates on this further by stating: “with the article ha’elohim is GOD,….. the one and true God;…. Deut 4.35 ki YHWH hu’ ha’elohim “For Jehovah is the (true) God;” 1 Ki. 18.21, “if Jehovah is (God), follow him, if Baal is (God) follow him.” Verse 37; Deut. 7:9. Whence ha’elohim is used very often of Jehovah, Gen . 5:22; 6:9,11; 17:18; 20:6,7” [5].
So Lerner is incorrect in suggesting that ha’elohim could be translated as “the gods.” If anything the text should be translated as “the one true God” indicating that the voice in Gen 22.1 is the same voice that speaks to Abraham in Gen. 22.10. To suggest otherwise is to introduce an alien norm into the text for “the gods” do not speak. Rather the gods are idols who cannot speak (Jer 10.5, Hab 2.18) who must have others speak for them (Is 44.9).
Secondly, the “Rabbi” cited is quite controversial and his ordination is even questioned by a great number of Jews. He is a trained psychologist rather than a graduate of the Jewish seminaries, and so his unorthodox psychological understanding of the text is understandable. I do not say this to demean Mr. Lerner, but simply to point out that he hardly is representative of mainstream Jewish interpretation.
Traditional Jewish interpretation views the Binding of Isaac as a test of Abraham’s faith. For example, the commentary on Gen 22.1 in the Torah and Haftorahs states: “The Authorized Version has the older English ‘tempt’, i.e. test; a trial (in older English, ‘a temptation’) is that which puts to the test. A test is never employed for the purpose of injury, but to certify the power of resistance. All his other trials of faith were to be crowned by Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his dearest hope to the will of God. The Rabbis speak of it as the tenth and greatest of the trials to which he was exposed” [6]. By “Rabbis” Rabbi Hertz is referring specifically to Rashi who identified the 10 trials of Abraham.
The commentary in the Tanach takes the same understanding of the passage, which is traditionally known as the Tenth Trial of Abraham or the The Akeidah. As an introduction to the passage the Tanach states: “This section epitomizes the Jew’s determination to serve God no matter how difficult the circumstances, which is the very reason of Israel’s existence” [7] Mainstream Judaism interprets the passage as primarily a test of the magnitude and depth of Abraham’s faith, a test which he passed with flying colors [8].
Copan summarizes the New Atheists’ philosophical challenge regarding this passage with the following three statements:
1. God’s command to do X obligates person Y to do X
2. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings
3. God commanded Abraham to take an innocent human life [9].
If this is the case, then the New Atheist argues God must be immoral. Copan offers his own answer to this challenge by arguing against the three premises, and I encourage the reader to consult Copan’s argument.
Judaism has a different way of resolving this problem. They emphasize that the command in Gen. 22.2 was not to slaughter Isaac, but to bring him up to the mountain and to offer him [10]. This interpretation understands the command as a living sacrifice reminiscent of Rom 12.1-2. This, however, involves a new interpretation of the ‘olah as a generic sacrifice rather than the usual whole burnt offering.
Third, there is simply nothing in the text to indicate that Abraham would not have gone through with the sacrifice had God not intervened. Keep in mind he had traveled for 3 days, had built the altar, bound his son, and drew knife. Every indication is that Abraham intended to be obedient and would have been. Keep in mind that the scriptures commend Abraham not for breaking a cycle of violence, but for believing the Lord. This is what was credited to him as righteousness (Gen 15.6; cf. Rom 4.3, 4.9; Gal 3.6, James 2.23)
Lerner’s reading is interesting but it is not representative of mainstream Jewish interpretation, nor is it the clear the reading of the text. There is much in the text including the radical obedience of Abraham, his unparalleled faith in the goodness of God, and the Lord’s grace. Jews who read the text understand that from the very beginning of their ancestry, they exist by the grace of the God who pardoned them.
[1] Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 49.
[2]Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1. (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 53.
[3] Ibid, 53.
[4] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000) 43.
[5] Tregelles, 49-50. (Due to the constraints of the internet forum, it was necessary to transliterate the Hebrew text in the quote. I also omitted the Greek and Arabic text as indicated by the ellipses, and filled out some of Gesenius’ abbreviations for clarity sake. Otherwise the quote unchanged.”
[6] Dr. J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed. (London: Socino Press, 5739 [1979]) 74.
[7] Rabbi Nooson Scherman, The Tanach: The Stone Edition (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2008) 46.
[8] The Tanach commentary cites the Midrash which derives the word nissah “test” in 22.1 from nes “banner” with the idea that the following test of Abraham was the means by which God elevated Abraham. Ibid, 47.
[9] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011) 49.
[10] Scherman, 47.
April 6, 2013
ISTM that, with the exception of the Pharisaic tradition, the rabbinical hermeneutic is more relational than juridical and therefor more psychological, also.
There is always cultural syncretism and after the Great Schism in 1054 the Latin/Western Church became even more influenced by the Roman Empire’s “Lex rex” principle. As an adult convert from a humanistic secular culture, I have always tended to interpret Scripture from a relational/psychological perspective. I suppose that is why I am more inspired by Orthodox/mystical and Jewish/relational commentaries than *traditional* Western/juridical interpretations of biblical texts. And I am not alone. Many people are reading their bibles as a devotional means of grace,the narrative of a Divine/human love story rather than as a philosophical treatise and/or a moral manual.
That hermeneutic may seem to be a “low” view of Scripture to those whose theological/spiritual formation has been traditionally Latin/Western, regard for the Bible as an authoritative source for guidance is very high when motivated by surrender to Divine Love rather than obedience to the Law.
I don’t believe psychology and spirituality can be separated if internal transformation, not merely external conformity to the Law is the promised hope of a Religious Tradition. IMO, the common practice of teaching/preaching based on the Decalogue while virtually ignoring the implications of the Beatitudes in many [most?] Western churches has been the unfortunate result of separating the two.
Scripture also begins the Creation narrative with the Original Blessing. Most Western soteriology begins with Original Sin, interpreted as the breaking of the commandment rather than as the breaking of a trust relationship with God as the Eastern Church teaches:
In Orthodox theology, the two words “image” and “likeness” are not used interchangeably as they are for Roman Catholics and Protestants. For Orthodox Christians, “image” denotes the powers and faculties with which every human being is endowed by God from the first moment of his existence. “Likeness” is the assimilation, the growth process to God through virtue and grace. We call this growth process “theosis.” For Western theology, man was created perfect in the absolute sense and therefore, when he fell, he fell completely away from God. For Orthodox theology, man was created perfect in the potential sense.–Fr. George Nicozisin
The biblical texts are the primary source documents for the Judeo/Christian Tradition and the Patristics are the secondary source documents. It took many centuries for the implications of Revelation disclosed by the historical Jesus to evolve into the realization of the Christ of faith. When the Protestant Reformers, mistaking traditionalism for Tradition, radically opposed the Bible to Tradition, they lost the ongoing Revelation by the Holy Spirit concerning the Cosmic Christ. The appeal of Eastern religions, both Christian and non-Christian, is often the result of Protestantism’s lack of a rich Wisdom Tradition and on-going eschatological process.
Scripture alone leads to faith in the historical Jesus alone. The Risen Christ is the Cosmic Christ, the foundation for a uniquely Christian eschatology.
“In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category.”
–Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition—Vol. 1.
“Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide.
Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.” –Jaroslav Pelikan
“If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen — nothing else matters.”– Jaroslav Pelikan
April 8, 2013
Kevin:
I wanted to thank you for this book review.
In part in response to the previous commenter’s comments, whatever our theological and interpretive distinctions within the Body of Christ, that’s not quite the point at which Copan is ultimately trying to get–or you for that matter.
The fact remains that there are those who are quite hostile to the Christian faith–that is, the new atheists. And if they are going to claim to engage Christianity, then they should actually engage it for what it actually says, and not their mistaken idea of what it says. Too many have created a straw man, which they call Christianity, but which in fact is not Christianity, by failing to read and interpret Scripture correctly, making it say what it isn’t actually saying. By so doing, these new atheists rob Scripture of its integrity. If the shoes were reversed, they’d want us to read and interpret their works in context. So should they extend the same courtesy to the Bible, Christians, and their God. In any case, it seems they often take Scripture out of context, call what they have found the God of Christianity, when in fact it is a gross mischaracterization of the God of Christianity.
I believe Copan’s point (at least in part) is to provide a corrective by investigating the God of Scripture for Who He actually is, rather than some false reflection of Who He is.
Sincerely, and thanks again for the book review.
April 9, 2013
Matt, I agree with you that the new atheists are attacking a straw man God/Christianity; but it is not they who have created the strawman, it is professing Christians whose theological/spiritual formation has ended with their Confirmation. The “Jesus in their hearts” is more like a small child’s invisible friend who is always on their side whenever a conflict with anyone arises than the Jesus of the Gospel narratives.
Jesus taught that we were to become childlike, not childish. Confirmation is intended to be an initiation rite, not a graduation celebration!
“The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. The invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator. …. Without doubt those who willfully try to drive God from their heart and to avoid all questions about religion, not following the biddings of their conscience, are not free from blame. But believers themselves often share some responsibility for this situation. For atheism, taken as a whole, is not present in the mind of man from the start (Atheismus, integre consideratus, non est quid originarium). It springs from various causes, among which must be included a critical reaction against religions and, in some places, against the Christian religion in particular. Believers can thus have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.” –Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 19
Many Christians still at bottom look upon God as one of the most selfish, self-absorbed Beings in the universe, far more selfish than they could think it right to be themselves, —intent only upon His own honor and glory, looking out continually that His own rights are never trampled on; and so absorbed in thoughts of Himself and of His own righteousness, as to have no love or
pity to spare for the poor sinners who have offended Him. ~Hannah Whitall Smith
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it’s not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. –Mahatma Gandhi
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? — John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse. . . . Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil. ~C.S. Lewis in a letter to Bede Griffiths, dated Dec.20 1961
April 9, 2013
Carol:
I will agree that hypocritical Christians have not helped matters. Even so, with any group of congregated people, whether Christian or not, there will exist “hypocrites” within that group. Now I’m not saying that that excuses Christians’ hypocrisy. Surely not! However, too many talk about the “hypocritical Christians,” as if the problem belonged alone to Christians. It certainly doesn’t.
Also, I do not believe not believe that hypocritical Christians, even assuming the point, are solely to blame for unbelievers’ choices. The fault lies, at least in part, with themselves. We’re all free agents who make our own choices, after all.
But, yes, to affirm your point, we Christians should surely walk our talk, and so at least not give unbelievers, such as the New Atheists, a further excuse for their already willing unbelief.