What do you think?
Rate this book
Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. Even Christians have a hard time stomaching such a thought, and many avoid reading those difficult Old Testament passages that make us squeamish. Instead, we quickly jump to the enemy-loving, forgiving Jesus of the New Testament. And yet, the question doesn't go away. Did God really command genocide? Is the command to "utterly destroy" morally unjustifiable? Is it literal? Are the issues more complex and nuanced than we realize?
In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster? , Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages. Pastors, youth pastors, campus ministers, apologetics readers, and laypeople will find that this book both enlightens and equips them for serious discussion of troubling spiritual questions.
In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster? , Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages. Pastors, youth pastors, campus ministers, apologetics readers, and laypeople will find that this book both enlightens and equips them for serious discussion of troubling spiritual questions.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 21, 2014
118 people are currently reading
880 people want to read
About the author
Paul Copan
87 books166 followersPaul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.
From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”
In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."
From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”
In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
April 18, 2015
Non-christians have always pointed out that God of the Old Testament is angry and vengeful. And that He ordered a genocide to massacre the entire population. So what is the christian’s response towards such a statement?
Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan attempts to answer this thorny question in this book. Copan and Flanagan are no strangers to these questions and has showed that christians does have a very good answers against this questions.
First, Copan and Flanagan helps the readers understand the question at hand, which centers around the Crucial Moral Principle, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.” Which Copan and Flanagan distills into 4 clauses :
1 Any act that God commands us to perform is morally permissible.
2 God is the author of the Bible.
3 It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
4 The author of the Bible commands us to perform acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
Having allowed the reader understand the question at hand, Copan and Flanagan then skilfully moves to explain each of the clause. And how the crux of the question lies mainly in the third and fourth clause.
Having done that, Copan and Flanagan then moves on to discuss about the bible text itself. This, I thought was where the book really excelled. Copan and Flanagan helps the readers to see that what might be read as “every single one”, might not mean literally “every single one”. Indeed, in some passages, the authors of the book (within the bible) mentions that “every single one” was killed, yet the same author would refer to these group of people again later in the book, showing that not literally “everyone single one” was killed. Copan and Flanagan really helps the readers learn these passages in their historical and cultural context.
Having explained the passages, they then move on to ask whether the commands to kill is always wrong. Although that might seem to be quite a simple question, Copan and Flanagan helps us see that, this questions is not as simple as what we think it is. He also highlights that although this action was indeed commanded by God, yet one must remember this are special occasions where He tells His people to act this way. They are certainty to not take that as a convenient excuse to act however they like to.
Lastly, Copan and Flanagan deals with the issue of, will God ask us to do these same actions again? and what if someone says God commands them to kill today, how should we answer? Reading the answers provided in this book at a time where religious extremism has prompt some to kill, shows how this is certainty not how a christian should ever act.
I think college students will find this book very helpful as they try to answer questions regarding this faith. Pastors might want to consult this book if they find themselves preaching through passages where God commends the people to kill “every inhabitants ”. They will find very helpful answers in this book.
Rating: 4.25 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan attempts to answer this thorny question in this book. Copan and Flanagan are no strangers to these questions and has showed that christians does have a very good answers against this questions.
First, Copan and Flanagan helps the readers understand the question at hand, which centers around the Crucial Moral Principle, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.” Which Copan and Flanagan distills into 4 clauses :
1 Any act that God commands us to perform is morally permissible.
2 God is the author of the Bible.
3 It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
4 The author of the Bible commands us to perform acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
Having allowed the reader understand the question at hand, Copan and Flanagan then skilfully moves to explain each of the clause. And how the crux of the question lies mainly in the third and fourth clause.
Having done that, Copan and Flanagan then moves on to discuss about the bible text itself. This, I thought was where the book really excelled. Copan and Flanagan helps the readers to see that what might be read as “every single one”, might not mean literally “every single one”. Indeed, in some passages, the authors of the book (within the bible) mentions that “every single one” was killed, yet the same author would refer to these group of people again later in the book, showing that not literally “everyone single one” was killed. Copan and Flanagan really helps the readers learn these passages in their historical and cultural context.
Having explained the passages, they then move on to ask whether the commands to kill is always wrong. Although that might seem to be quite a simple question, Copan and Flanagan helps us see that, this questions is not as simple as what we think it is. He also highlights that although this action was indeed commanded by God, yet one must remember this are special occasions where He tells His people to act this way. They are certainty to not take that as a convenient excuse to act however they like to.
Lastly, Copan and Flanagan deals with the issue of, will God ask us to do these same actions again? and what if someone says God commands them to kill today, how should we answer? Reading the answers provided in this book at a time where religious extremism has prompt some to kill, shows how this is certainty not how a christian should ever act.
I think college students will find this book very helpful as they try to answer questions regarding this faith. Pastors might want to consult this book if they find themselves preaching through passages where God commends the people to kill “every inhabitants ”. They will find very helpful answers in this book.
Rating: 4.25 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
February 9, 2015
http://ensuingchapters.com/2015/02/07...
Apologists Paul Copan and Matt Flanagan fail to offer fresh insights on biblical interpretation in Did God Command Genocide?. Copan and Flanagan have clearly put their conclusions ahead of their questions, and the result is a scriptural shell game attempting to exonerate the almighty from the more unseemly bits of his book.
We’re dealing with God’s directive to “completely destroy” those pesky Canaanites. In their attempt to gloss over this troubling fact, Copan and Flanagan turn to WIlliam Lane Craig’s argument of appropriation, which suggests that God does not necessarily endorse everything that’s in the Bible. “That is, God is not always affirming what the human author affirms.”
Sooo, which parts of the Bible are legit and which are “jk”?
The authors come to curious conclusions, but their flawed arguments reveal it to be wish fulfillment rather than critical thinking. It can be summarized as the Bible is the word of God when denouncing homosexuality, but human interpretation when ordering the deaths of women and children.
When God’s words are inconvenient, Copan and Flanagan argue that there is a “textual God,” and that his words “have nothing to do with God’s character, who is nonviolent and loving.” But our basis for understanding that God is “nonviolent and loving” is from God’s words, certainly not from his alleged creations. Why is it that we are to believe God’s claims in some places but not others? And how do Copan and Flanagan know which is which?
Of course, they’ll argue that the answer is in this book, but nothing in its pages would stand up to academic scrutiny.
The authors even admit that biblical texts have been misused for ill purposes. My question to the authors: How could a perfect being provide imperfect or incoherent instructions? And if there were misunderstandings resulting in violence and oppression, wouldn’t a “nonviolent and loving” being want to clarify what they meant?
In defending their position, Copan and Flanagan fling about every argument they can think of, hoping something will stick. They argue that God didn’t command us to “slaughter” the Canaanites, only Joshua. And it’s not as if God was writing a blank check: Israel was forbidden from attacking other nations—only the Canaanites.
I’m sorry to have to break it to the authors, but that’s still genocide.
So which is it? Did God not command genocide? Did he only say it was OK for Joshua? Is he cool with mass murder, but only if the victims are Canaanites? Clearly, Copan and Flanagan have some more work to do. You can’t argue that God didn’t command genocide by admitting that God commanded genocide, but putting qualifications on it.
Another sad argument is that the Canaanites were sinners. Israel wasn’t allowed to attack them until they scoffed at the laws of God without repent. Those sins? Just some good old-fashioned incest, bestiality, child sacrifice and, of course, homosexuality.
Ah, there’s the old chestnut of prejudiced wingnuts: homosexuality is on par with incest, bestiality and child sacrifice. And apparently, according to the authors, God meant what he said about homosexuality, but not genocide.
I’d still like to know who their Deepthroat is. Who is the inside source providing them these brilliant insights?
They fall back on semantic gymnastics: Since the Canaanites were slaughtered for their disobedience, not their ethnicity, it’s not technically genocide.
The authors should be ashamed of themselves for making such a cowardly rationalization. This is the same sort of logic that allows people to gun down cartoonists for perceived blasphemy. Killing people will send you to hell, but killing certain people will get you paradise.
When rationalization fails, the authors turn to qualification. You didn’t take that “totally destroy” command for realsies? Oh, you took that literally? No, what God meant by “totally destroy” was “drive out.” Like, LOL.
Bill Clinton gave more convincing testimony to Kenneth Starr.
And to add insult to inanity, the authors again turn to Craig (for some reason), who argues that if the Canaanites had simply abandoned their city, they wouldn’t have been killed. “There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.”
So, it’s the fault of the vanquished. All they had to do was surrender their land, possessions and become willfully homeless and they would’ve been spared. The nerve of those Canaanites. They were clearly just asking for it.
I could go on, but it’s not worth dignifying Copan and Flanagan’s “argument.” Rather than supporting their thesis, the authors merely provide justification for horrific religious violence.
Apologists Paul Copan and Matt Flanagan fail to offer fresh insights on biblical interpretation in Did God Command Genocide?. Copan and Flanagan have clearly put their conclusions ahead of their questions, and the result is a scriptural shell game attempting to exonerate the almighty from the more unseemly bits of his book.
We’re dealing with God’s directive to “completely destroy” those pesky Canaanites. In their attempt to gloss over this troubling fact, Copan and Flanagan turn to WIlliam Lane Craig’s argument of appropriation, which suggests that God does not necessarily endorse everything that’s in the Bible. “That is, God is not always affirming what the human author affirms.”
Sooo, which parts of the Bible are legit and which are “jk”?
The authors come to curious conclusions, but their flawed arguments reveal it to be wish fulfillment rather than critical thinking. It can be summarized as the Bible is the word of God when denouncing homosexuality, but human interpretation when ordering the deaths of women and children.
When God’s words are inconvenient, Copan and Flanagan argue that there is a “textual God,” and that his words “have nothing to do with God’s character, who is nonviolent and loving.” But our basis for understanding that God is “nonviolent and loving” is from God’s words, certainly not from his alleged creations. Why is it that we are to believe God’s claims in some places but not others? And how do Copan and Flanagan know which is which?
Of course, they’ll argue that the answer is in this book, but nothing in its pages would stand up to academic scrutiny.
The authors even admit that biblical texts have been misused for ill purposes. My question to the authors: How could a perfect being provide imperfect or incoherent instructions? And if there were misunderstandings resulting in violence and oppression, wouldn’t a “nonviolent and loving” being want to clarify what they meant?
In defending their position, Copan and Flanagan fling about every argument they can think of, hoping something will stick. They argue that God didn’t command us to “slaughter” the Canaanites, only Joshua. And it’s not as if God was writing a blank check: Israel was forbidden from attacking other nations—only the Canaanites.
I’m sorry to have to break it to the authors, but that’s still genocide.
So which is it? Did God not command genocide? Did he only say it was OK for Joshua? Is he cool with mass murder, but only if the victims are Canaanites? Clearly, Copan and Flanagan have some more work to do. You can’t argue that God didn’t command genocide by admitting that God commanded genocide, but putting qualifications on it.
Another sad argument is that the Canaanites were sinners. Israel wasn’t allowed to attack them until they scoffed at the laws of God without repent. Those sins? Just some good old-fashioned incest, bestiality, child sacrifice and, of course, homosexuality.
Ah, there’s the old chestnut of prejudiced wingnuts: homosexuality is on par with incest, bestiality and child sacrifice. And apparently, according to the authors, God meant what he said about homosexuality, but not genocide.
I’d still like to know who their Deepthroat is. Who is the inside source providing them these brilliant insights?
They fall back on semantic gymnastics: Since the Canaanites were slaughtered for their disobedience, not their ethnicity, it’s not technically genocide.
The authors should be ashamed of themselves for making such a cowardly rationalization. This is the same sort of logic that allows people to gun down cartoonists for perceived blasphemy. Killing people will send you to hell, but killing certain people will get you paradise.
When rationalization fails, the authors turn to qualification. You didn’t take that “totally destroy” command for realsies? Oh, you took that literally? No, what God meant by “totally destroy” was “drive out.” Like, LOL.
Bill Clinton gave more convincing testimony to Kenneth Starr.
And to add insult to inanity, the authors again turn to Craig (for some reason), who argues that if the Canaanites had simply abandoned their city, they wouldn’t have been killed. “There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.”
So, it’s the fault of the vanquished. All they had to do was surrender their land, possessions and become willfully homeless and they would’ve been spared. The nerve of those Canaanites. They were clearly just asking for it.
I could go on, but it’s not worth dignifying Copan and Flanagan’s “argument.” Rather than supporting their thesis, the authors merely provide justification for horrific religious violence.
September 4, 2020
I read this book in order to answer some questions I had about Scripture and had heard Copan's name before and probably read some during my Master's classes.
However, much of this book was difficult for me to follow. I think I understand the central premise(s) and could explain it if someone were to ask me the question. I agree with the other reviews that suggest it is too academic and overly long. (See comment below)
I found the tone to be arrogant; with no sense of winsomeness and there is no way I would recommend anyone outside of faith to read this book. It was not only the tone but I also thought some of the arguments were specious at best and went a long way (farther than my thinking would allow) to make a point that was much more easier said.
I do have one recommendation that would save other readers a lot of time and was one of the bright spots of the book. IF YOU ONLY READ THE SUMMARIES AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO UNDERSTANDING THE MAJORITY OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED!!!
However, much of this book was difficult for me to follow. I think I understand the central premise(s) and could explain it if someone were to ask me the question. I agree with the other reviews that suggest it is too academic and overly long. (See comment below)
I found the tone to be arrogant; with no sense of winsomeness and there is no way I would recommend anyone outside of faith to read this book. It was not only the tone but I also thought some of the arguments were specious at best and went a long way (farther than my thinking would allow) to make a point that was much more easier said.
I do have one recommendation that would save other readers a lot of time and was one of the bright spots of the book. IF YOU ONLY READ THE SUMMARIES AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO UNDERSTANDING THE MAJORITY OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED!!!
November 26, 2015
The style in which this book is written leans toward the academic philosophic, so it can take a bit of adapting to if that's not the genre that you typically read. However, it's worth taking the time to make the adjustment in order to glean the insights that are contained in this book. This book directly confronts that various philosophical arguments that are at the foundation of the atheist movement. It also demonstrates how easy it is to misinterpret scripture due to a lack of understanding or appreciation of historical and cultural context and scriptural analysis. The historical revisionism that has gained momentum also stands out as you dig into the actual course of history. Reading this book will not only deepen your understanding of the most difficult texts within the Old Testament but, it will also equip you to confront the mischaracterization techniques used by atheists to try to raise doubt about the goodness of God.
January 22, 2022
I love when Paul copan pretends that Hebrew words don’t mean what they in fact mean and relies on Richard Hess’ misleading archaeological interpretation to tell laypeople untrue facts
November 11, 2018
The titular question of this book is one I have asked in many different forms when I have read the old testament stories of conquest and war. As a believer, these passages cause me great internal conflict. How do I reconcile the loving message of Jesus with the apparent genocide described in Joshua and other old testament books? Is the conquest described there any different that the genocide of the Native Americans on this continent?
The authors present a detailed, through and sometimes dense answer to multiple aspects of this question. The most encouraging part of the book to me is its very existence. The authors are more conservative than me, but they respect scripture and the questions it raises. I am relieved to know I am not alone in struggling with these questions in my faith. I am glad the authors consider these questions important enough to bring intense intellectual prowess, historical research, and theological scholarship to bear.
Their final answer to the question is "No." I cannot do their book-length argument justice in this review, but I will try to provide a summary. The Canaanites were not innocent, and the evil they perpetuated was so vile and unrepentant for centuries, that God issued a unique exemption to the normal prohibition against killing innocent people. God's goal for his people was not the extermination of the Canaanites but driving them out of the land. Indeed, they were not exterminated as is evident from continuing conflict later in the Old Testament. God's justice was not partial; when the Israelites turned away from him for centuries, he drove them out of the land just as he did the Canaanites. Even this line of argument raises many uncomfortable questions, which the authors address with thoroughness and depth.
Their answers are not perfect; for example, they sometimes split the hair between what God commanded and what his leaders (e.g. Moses) commanded a little to thinly for me. However, reading this book has given me confidence that God welcomes these questions and has answers.
I think two chapters in the final part of the book (on Jihad and Just War) do not fit with the core message and are more distracting than helpful. The book's greatest strength is is depth and focus on Christians dealing with a difficult portion of our scriptures. Branching out into Islam subverts this strength and could be seen as a tu quoque fallacy. Just war is an extremely important and fascinating topic, but trying to address it in a single chapter gives it short shrift and does not fit well with the rest of the book. I think the book would have been better served by replacing these two chapters with chapters about the genocide of Native Americans and other atrocities committed in the name of the church (some are briefly mentioned).
Even after reading this book, some of the stories of the conquest still make me uncomfortable, and I think that is as it should be. Right or not, such violence should not be treated lightly.
Overall, this book has significantly eroded an important stumbling block to my faith, and I recommend it for anyone who wants to take the Bible seriously but struggles with what appears to be God commanding genocide.
The authors present a detailed, through and sometimes dense answer to multiple aspects of this question. The most encouraging part of the book to me is its very existence. The authors are more conservative than me, but they respect scripture and the questions it raises. I am relieved to know I am not alone in struggling with these questions in my faith. I am glad the authors consider these questions important enough to bring intense intellectual prowess, historical research, and theological scholarship to bear.
Their final answer to the question is "No." I cannot do their book-length argument justice in this review, but I will try to provide a summary. The Canaanites were not innocent, and the evil they perpetuated was so vile and unrepentant for centuries, that God issued a unique exemption to the normal prohibition against killing innocent people. God's goal for his people was not the extermination of the Canaanites but driving them out of the land. Indeed, they were not exterminated as is evident from continuing conflict later in the Old Testament. God's justice was not partial; when the Israelites turned away from him for centuries, he drove them out of the land just as he did the Canaanites. Even this line of argument raises many uncomfortable questions, which the authors address with thoroughness and depth.
Their answers are not perfect; for example, they sometimes split the hair between what God commanded and what his leaders (e.g. Moses) commanded a little to thinly for me. However, reading this book has given me confidence that God welcomes these questions and has answers.
I think two chapters in the final part of the book (on Jihad and Just War) do not fit with the core message and are more distracting than helpful. The book's greatest strength is is depth and focus on Christians dealing with a difficult portion of our scriptures. Branching out into Islam subverts this strength and could be seen as a tu quoque fallacy. Just war is an extremely important and fascinating topic, but trying to address it in a single chapter gives it short shrift and does not fit well with the rest of the book. I think the book would have been better served by replacing these two chapters with chapters about the genocide of Native Americans and other atrocities committed in the name of the church (some are briefly mentioned).
Even after reading this book, some of the stories of the conquest still make me uncomfortable, and I think that is as it should be. Right or not, such violence should not be treated lightly.
Overall, this book has significantly eroded an important stumbling block to my faith, and I recommend it for anyone who wants to take the Bible seriously but struggles with what appears to be God commanding genocide.
February 3, 2019
This is a very important work that provides a good corrective to common misunderstandings about Old Testament passages. The mid-wit skeptic/atheist crowd lead by Dawkins and his ever shrinking band of trolls loves to point to passages in the Old Testament and shed crocodile tears about the "slaughter" of the poor, doe-eyed Canaanites. How can any decent person think YHWH is a morally good deity they ask? Well to that nonsense Copan provides some very good and I would say overpowering rebuttals. Ironically those who head to the fainting couch about Israel conquering Canaan just hand-waive away the actual genocide of our day in the form of abortion by proclaiming it to be a private decision between the woman and her doctor. This book is a must have for any apologist.
October 20, 2018
Pretty good and very thorough, maybe too thorough. It seemed at times a bit unnecessarily long.
Great content, research, biblical framework though.
Great content, research, biblical framework though.
December 22, 2019
While the beginning and end of the book provided some valuable thoughts, I was looking for something more accessible and formative for a normal, non-theologian. Instead, much of the book was challenging to follow. I came away with some new ideas about God and the violence between Israel and Canaan, but overall, this book was not was I was hoping for.
March 9, 2015
I had mixed feelings about this book, overall I was glad I read it and it contained lots of interesting information, but it got a little bogged down in the third quarter of the book. The authors put the Old Testament war texts in context in the time they were written and discuss the similarities and differences with other ancient war text. The portion of the book where they take on specific modern philosophers arguments got a little dry, particularly since they address so many different arguments back to back there isn't much to tie the arguments to a specific modern philosopher. The book finished well though with a general discussion of religion and violence. I received a free copy of this book through Goodreads First Reads giveaways.
July 8, 2022
Sięgnąłem po tę książkę, bo zacząłem przerabiać kolejno księgi biblijne z komentarzami. I przyszedł moment na Jozuego i Sędziów; a wraz z nimi na kwestię klątwy wojennej. To jeden z wielu tematów Biblii, ale temat szokujący dla wielu czytających i chętnie brany na sztandar przez ateistów — Bóg nakazuje, ni mniej ni więcej, ale bezwarunkowe wymordowanie mieszkańców Kanaanu — mężczyzn, kobiety i dzieci. Z polskiego na nasze: ludobójstwo.
W tym rozkazie koncentrują się liczne zagadnienia: co jest poleceniem Boga, skąd o tym wiemy, kogo ono obowiązuje, jak je rozpoznać, czy Bóg jest moralny, jak to można uzasadnić, oraz — czy to miało miejsce w historii.
Brzmi ciekawie i jest tu dużo ciekawych zagwozdek, które autorzy zauważają. Tyle, że z argumentacją panów Copana i Flannagana jest źle — oni starają się bronić chrześcijaństwa i Boga przed zarzutami, stosując wszelkie możliwe kruczki i właściwie nigdzie nie wchodząc w poważną dyskusję z przeciwnikami. Bo, wyobraźmy sobie twarz Dawkinsa, któremu ktoś tłumaczy, że nie każdy rozkaz Boga jest rozkazem Boga, ale jak Bóg potwierdzi go cudami 2G (wysoko w skali cudów, przytoczonej przez Copana i Flannagana), to owszem, rozkaz obowiązuje…
***
OK, ale napisałem o książce, że mi się nie podoba, choć to jedna z takich pozycji, że jak się na nią irytuję, tak czegoś się z niej nauczyłem. Choć może niezupełnie tego, co autorzy pragnęli. Ale odniosę się do samych zagadnień, skoro już je wymieniłem.
@co jest poleceniem Boga: Faktycznie, mamy dziś jako chrześcijanie problem, bo Biblia roi się od zaleceń i praw, których nie przestrzegamy. Ulubiony mój przykład — kaszanka. Spożywanie krwi jest absolutnie sprzeczne z nakazami Biblii, więcej — zostało w Nowym Testamencie podtrzymane. A my kaszankę jemy. I nawet nie wiemy, że coś jest tu nie tak.
Różne są sposoby rozwiązania tego dylematu — nie samej kaszanki, ale kwestii aktualności praw Starego Testamentu. Np. św. Pawłowi się przypisuje tezę, że wiele praw Izrael dostał za karę, za „bunt złotego cielca”.Podejście judaistyczne wydało Talmud, 613 praw judaizmu i podkreśliło bardziej znaczenie badania Prawa nad jego przestrzeganiem. (Dodajmy tu dodatkowy problem: wiele praw wymaga istnienia Świątyni w Jerozolimie i nie da się ich przestrzegać bez niej. Szacują, że z 613 praw judaizmu przestrzegalne dziś jest może 400…) A autorzy mają jeszcze inną koncepcję @jak je rozpoznać — że liczy się ciągłość. Innymi słowy, jeśli w Biblii się jakieś prawo „napisało” to jest nieważne, ale jeśli wraca w wielu księgach, np. jeśli powtarza je Jezus w NT, to jest ważne. Podają przykład nierozerwalności małżeństwa — „jest” w Księdze Rodzaju, jest w Ewangeliach, ale zaprzecza mu Prawo i Mojżesz, no to się je przeskakuje.
Poniekąd odpowiada to na pytanie @skąd to wiemy, dodam tylko, że na potrzeby obrony Boga, autorzy przywołują bardzo liberalną wizję natchnienia autorów Biblijnych: Bóg stworzył warunki, że pisali tak jak On chciał. Plus minus. Co oczywiście zostawia bardzo dużo swobody na to, że „komuś się napisało, ale to wcale nie od Boga pochodzi”.
@kogo ono obowiązuje: To akurat kwestia dość prosta, bo w klątwie wojennej chodziło o wymordowanie Kanaanejczyków, których istnienie stanowiło zagrożenie dla właściwej religii Izraela.Innymi słowy: prawo to dotyczyć ma jednego, dość krótkiego wycinka historii i jest to wyraźnie napisane. (Zostawiam na boku, że autorzy próbują zanegować tu wszystkie krytyki pod adresem religii, więc jednocześnie negują, że obowiązywało w ogóle; i wskazują kiedy obowiązywało; a potem jeszcze podkreślają, że dobrze, że obowiązywało. Co niekoniecznie tworzy logicznie spójną obronę.) Inna rzecz, że „oprzyrządowanie” klątwy wojennej jest w Torze całkiem mocno osadzone, więc pewne lekceważenie, że to tylko raz Bóg nakazywał ludobójstwo; i tylko w jednym historycznym momencie, a w ogóle to Mahomet był zły, więc odczepcie się od naszego Boga, nie jest tak do końca słuszne.
Nie chciałbym odpowiadać na pytanie, @czy Bóg jest moralny — autorzy tu przytaczają dowód na istnienie Boga św. Anzelma (@jak to uzasadnić), a ja tylko zauważę, że pewna moralność, która jest zapisana w Prawie potrafi być bardzo różna od naszego rozumienia — przestępstwa pospolite są karane indywidualne, tak jak to w całej tradycji europejskiego prawa; ale przestępstwa religijne ściągają winę na wspólnotę — przynajmniej na rodzinę. Więc tak, w tej logice, za wyznawanie niewłaściwego boga, można być pociągniętym do odpowiedzialności i skazanym na śmierć wraz z żoną, dziećmi, wnukami, a nawet inwentarzem: krowami, owcami, wołami i osłami…
Zostało ostatnie pytanie — @czy to miało miejsce w historii — które jest najmniej kontrowersyjne. Autorzy wskazują na niekonsekwencje opowieści biblijnej, ale jakkolwiek ich argumentacja nie byłaby szukaniem wymówek, tak akurat w ostatecznych wnioskach spotykają się z archeologami — Izraelczycy byli przede wszystkim Kanaanejczykami, a masowych mordów dokonanych przez napływający lud nie było. Chciałbym napisać, że to tylko fantazja kapłanów, jak to być powinno, by na lud nie oddziaływały złe przykłady z sąsiedztwa. (Tak to się też tłumaczy, choć nie w tej książce…) Jednak utrudnia takie jednoznaczne postawienie kropki zdanie historyków, spotkane przy lekturze komentarzy do Księgi Jozuego, że choć nie ma śladów podboju przez Izrael i ludobójstwa dokonanego na Kanaannejczykach, to sama instytucja klątwy wojennej, łączącej się z wymordowaniem mieszkańców danego terenu, była, owszem, znana w tej epoce i tym regionie świata…
W tym rozkazie koncentrują się liczne zagadnienia: co jest poleceniem Boga, skąd o tym wiemy, kogo ono obowiązuje, jak je rozpoznać, czy Bóg jest moralny, jak to można uzasadnić, oraz — czy to miało miejsce w historii.
Brzmi ciekawie i jest tu dużo ciekawych zagwozdek, które autorzy zauważają. Tyle, że z argumentacją panów Copana i Flannagana jest źle — oni starają się bronić chrześcijaństwa i Boga przed zarzutami, stosując wszelkie możliwe kruczki i właściwie nigdzie nie wchodząc w poważną dyskusję z przeciwnikami. Bo, wyobraźmy sobie twarz Dawkinsa, któremu ktoś tłumaczy, że nie każdy rozkaz Boga jest rozkazem Boga, ale jak Bóg potwierdzi go cudami 2G (wysoko w skali cudów, przytoczonej przez Copana i Flannagana), to owszem, rozkaz obowiązuje…
***
OK, ale napisałem o książce, że mi się nie podoba, choć to jedna z takich pozycji, że jak się na nią irytuję, tak czegoś się z niej nauczyłem. Choć może niezupełnie tego, co autorzy pragnęli. Ale odniosę się do samych zagadnień, skoro już je wymieniłem.
@co jest poleceniem Boga: Faktycznie, mamy dziś jako chrześcijanie problem, bo Biblia roi się od zaleceń i praw, których nie przestrzegamy. Ulubiony mój przykład — kaszanka. Spożywanie krwi jest absolutnie sprzeczne z nakazami Biblii, więcej — zostało w Nowym Testamencie podtrzymane. A my kaszankę jemy. I nawet nie wiemy, że coś jest tu nie tak.
Różne są sposoby rozwiązania tego dylematu — nie samej kaszanki, ale kwestii aktualności praw Starego Testamentu. Np. św. Pawłowi się przypisuje tezę, że wiele praw Izrael dostał za karę, za „bunt złotego cielca”.Podejście judaistyczne wydało Talmud, 613 praw judaizmu i podkreśliło bardziej znaczenie badania Prawa nad jego przestrzeganiem. (Dodajmy tu dodatkowy problem: wiele praw wymaga istnienia Świątyni w Jerozolimie i nie da się ich przestrzegać bez niej. Szacują, że z 613 praw judaizmu przestrzegalne dziś jest może 400…) A autorzy mają jeszcze inną koncepcję @jak je rozpoznać — że liczy się ciągłość. Innymi słowy, jeśli w Biblii się jakieś prawo „napisało” to jest nieważne, ale jeśli wraca w wielu księgach, np. jeśli powtarza je Jezus w NT, to jest ważne. Podają przykład nierozerwalności małżeństwa — „jest” w Księdze Rodzaju, jest w Ewangeliach, ale zaprzecza mu Prawo i Mojżesz, no to się je przeskakuje.
Poniekąd odpowiada to na pytanie @skąd to wiemy, dodam tylko, że na potrzeby obrony Boga, autorzy przywołują bardzo liberalną wizję natchnienia autorów Biblijnych: Bóg stworzył warunki, że pisali tak jak On chciał. Plus minus. Co oczywiście zostawia bardzo dużo swobody na to, że „komuś się napisało, ale to wcale nie od Boga pochodzi”.
@kogo ono obowiązuje: To akurat kwestia dość prosta, bo w klątwie wojennej chodziło o wymordowanie Kanaanejczyków, których istnienie stanowiło zagrożenie dla właściwej religii Izraela.Innymi słowy: prawo to dotyczyć ma jednego, dość krótkiego wycinka historii i jest to wyraźnie napisane. (Zostawiam na boku, że autorzy próbują zanegować tu wszystkie krytyki pod adresem religii, więc jednocześnie negują, że obowiązywało w ogóle; i wskazują kiedy obowiązywało; a potem jeszcze podkreślają, że dobrze, że obowiązywało. Co niekoniecznie tworzy logicznie spójną obronę.) Inna rzecz, że „oprzyrządowanie” klątwy wojennej jest w Torze całkiem mocno osadzone, więc pewne lekceważenie, że to tylko raz Bóg nakazywał ludobójstwo; i tylko w jednym historycznym momencie, a w ogóle to Mahomet był zły, więc odczepcie się od naszego Boga, nie jest tak do końca słuszne.
Nie chciałbym odpowiadać na pytanie, @czy Bóg jest moralny — autorzy tu przytaczają dowód na istnienie Boga św. Anzelma (@jak to uzasadnić), a ja tylko zauważę, że pewna moralność, która jest zapisana w Prawie potrafi być bardzo różna od naszego rozumienia — przestępstwa pospolite są karane indywidualne, tak jak to w całej tradycji europejskiego prawa; ale przestępstwa religijne ściągają winę na wspólnotę — przynajmniej na rodzinę. Więc tak, w tej logice, za wyznawanie niewłaściwego boga, można być pociągniętym do odpowiedzialności i skazanym na śmierć wraz z żoną, dziećmi, wnukami, a nawet inwentarzem: krowami, owcami, wołami i osłami…
Zostało ostatnie pytanie — @czy to miało miejsce w historii — które jest najmniej kontrowersyjne. Autorzy wskazują na niekonsekwencje opowieści biblijnej, ale jakkolwiek ich argumentacja nie byłaby szukaniem wymówek, tak akurat w ostatecznych wnioskach spotykają się z archeologami — Izraelczycy byli przede wszystkim Kanaanejczykami, a masowych mordów dokonanych przez napływający lud nie było. Chciałbym napisać, że to tylko fantazja kapłanów, jak to być powinno, by na lud nie oddziaływały złe przykłady z sąsiedztwa. (Tak to się też tłumaczy, choć nie w tej książce…) Jednak utrudnia takie jednoznaczne postawienie kropki zdanie historyków, spotkane przy lekturze komentarzy do Księgi Jozuego, że choć nie ma śladów podboju przez Izrael i ludobójstwa dokonanego na Kanaannejczykach, to sama instytucja klątwy wojennej, łączącej się z wymordowaniem mieszkańców danego terenu, była, owszem, znana w tej epoce i tym regionie świata…
May 27, 2017
I won this in a Goodreads giveaway.
After reading this, the answer is yes, the God depicted in the Torah did command wholesale slaughter. I understand the attempt to sugar coat and explain away the obvious, but circular logic as used in this book still won't change what we can all read for ourselves. Mythology of ancient humans is usually bloody and the Torah is not an exception. This book tries too hard to make it not so.
After reading this, the answer is yes, the God depicted in the Torah did command wholesale slaughter. I understand the attempt to sugar coat and explain away the obvious, but circular logic as used in this book still won't change what we can all read for ourselves. Mythology of ancient humans is usually bloody and the Torah is not an exception. This book tries too hard to make it not so.
January 2, 2021
This was not a helpful book. There were helpful things, and some good things to think through, but there are better ways to treat the subject than questioning the authority of Scripture from an Evangelical point of view. This is a lazy review. I bet Copan and Flannagan gave more reverence to it than I'm portraying in the review, but there are better options by far.
July 17, 2018
This is a hefty book. Probably one I will use as a reference for future note. The authors make a massively comprehensive argument rebutting the accusations of skeptics and atheists that the wars of Joshua were immoral genocides that inspired further acts of religious aggression throughout history. They make biblical, hermeneutical, theological, philosophical, ethical, legal, and historical arguments—this isn’t a book to put in the hands of the average lay person who has questions, but is something that needs to be digested and passed along by someone who can follow all the arguments.
I was overall impressed with the book. The arguments regarding the hyperbolic nature of the “herem” passages in Joshua and the “driving out” rather than “extermination” war tactics were convincing, as well as the repainting of the battles as “occasional disarming raids on military outposts.” However, as the book eases into philosophical and ethical concerns, it seems like they try to prove too much. They are really concerned with silencing the “new atheists” but seem to rely too much on their own modernistic worldview. Essentially, they want to prove to Richard Dawkins that, even if he rejects theism, they can provide a rational argument that he could accept for why God commands the killing of the Canaanites. I just don’t think that’s possible. And some of their arguments to establish this seem a little unpersuasive. For example, they attempt to show that according to the Geneva convention, what happened in Joshua would not technically violate its prohibitions on genocide. Is that true? I’m not sure—but I don’t think it really will convince any skeptic.
I was overall impressed with the book. The arguments regarding the hyperbolic nature of the “herem” passages in Joshua and the “driving out” rather than “extermination” war tactics were convincing, as well as the repainting of the battles as “occasional disarming raids on military outposts.” However, as the book eases into philosophical and ethical concerns, it seems like they try to prove too much. They are really concerned with silencing the “new atheists” but seem to rely too much on their own modernistic worldview. Essentially, they want to prove to Richard Dawkins that, even if he rejects theism, they can provide a rational argument that he could accept for why God commands the killing of the Canaanites. I just don’t think that’s possible. And some of their arguments to establish this seem a little unpersuasive. For example, they attempt to show that according to the Geneva convention, what happened in Joshua would not technically violate its prohibitions on genocide. Is that true? I’m not sure—but I don’t think it really will convince any skeptic.
October 23, 2018
Overall, I thought this book was helpful and well done. They do an extremely thorough job at dealing with this issue and all its various facets. I think they're reading of the conquest texts is basically right and puts an entirely different perspective on the issue. There's no mistaking that the various writings in the OT use hyperbolic language to describe conquest. This is a consistent literary convention and we have to understand this if we want to know what these texts are actually saying.
I also found their discussion of divine command theory quite interesting. I thought they did a fairly good job defining and defending a viable version of divine command theory.
Some minor issues in this book include the fact that it is at times too thorough. The authors clearly have a background in analytical philosophy. I was sometimes amused at how often they managed to turn everything into a syllogism. That being said, I think it worked well for this book, but it was an approach that took me off guard. Some of the tangential issues dealt with toward the end of the book felt too tangential to me. The seemed to spend more time than necessary to deal with issues such as the alleged similarity between the Joshua conquest and Islamic jihad or the idea that the Joshua conquest was the basis for the crusades. If they wanted to do these topics justice in their own right, it would require much more than just a single chapter, but of course that would be way overboard for this book.
All in all, I'd recommend this to anyone who is interested in this topic who is also not afraid to wade through some analytic philosophy.
I also found their discussion of divine command theory quite interesting. I thought they did a fairly good job defining and defending a viable version of divine command theory.
Some minor issues in this book include the fact that it is at times too thorough. The authors clearly have a background in analytical philosophy. I was sometimes amused at how often they managed to turn everything into a syllogism. That being said, I think it worked well for this book, but it was an approach that took me off guard. Some of the tangential issues dealt with toward the end of the book felt too tangential to me. The seemed to spend more time than necessary to deal with issues such as the alleged similarity between the Joshua conquest and Islamic jihad or the idea that the Joshua conquest was the basis for the crusades. If they wanted to do these topics justice in their own right, it would require much more than just a single chapter, but of course that would be way overboard for this book.
All in all, I'd recommend this to anyone who is interested in this topic who is also not afraid to wade through some analytic philosophy.
October 14, 2019
"Did God Really Command Genocide?" -- naturally, theologian and committed Christian Paul Copan believes the answer is no.
Those of us without prior emotional commitments to the texts he so assiduously seeks to exonerate obviously beg to differ, but it's quite clear that we're not the market for this sort of book.
This text, on the other hand, is intended for wavering Christians worried about the genocide applauded in their scriptures. One imagines they may find some degree of solace in this book, full to the brim as it is with eye-roll worthy special pleading. Indeed, as far as the explicit theological rationalisations go, most of them are standard fare "the bad stuff is metaphorical, the good stuff is what God really meant".
The conclusion here is of course pre-determined, Copan isn't going to come around and call genocide by its name. Whether the books is worth reading depends on how friendly you are to fast-and-loose contextual arguments for exonerating genocide. If that's your thing, then this is the book for you; go at it. I picked it up out of curiosity, and a hope that it contained some honesty on the slavery and genocide friendly nature of the text. Alas, same old same old. The only reaction can really be sadness.
Those of us without prior emotional commitments to the texts he so assiduously seeks to exonerate obviously beg to differ, but it's quite clear that we're not the market for this sort of book.
This text, on the other hand, is intended for wavering Christians worried about the genocide applauded in their scriptures. One imagines they may find some degree of solace in this book, full to the brim as it is with eye-roll worthy special pleading. Indeed, as far as the explicit theological rationalisations go, most of them are standard fare "the bad stuff is metaphorical, the good stuff is what God really meant".
The conclusion here is of course pre-determined, Copan isn't going to come around and call genocide by its name. Whether the books is worth reading depends on how friendly you are to fast-and-loose contextual arguments for exonerating genocide. If that's your thing, then this is the book for you; go at it. I picked it up out of curiosity, and a hope that it contained some honesty on the slavery and genocide friendly nature of the text. Alas, same old same old. The only reaction can really be sadness.
Read
July 8, 2016Did God Really Command Genocide? doesn't just attempt to answer the title question, it also addresses most of the meaningful questions surrounding divine command theory and just war ethics. The book sets itself up as a sort of dialectic with New Atheist thinkers who regularly accuse the Judeo-Christian God of being a warmonger, psychopath, or maybe worse.
Strengths of DGRCG?
The exegesis of the book of Joshua and other OT war texts is great. And it needed to be. The crux of the issue is how one understands these sections of the Bible. Is God asking Israel to engage in genocide? Does Israel commit genocide? Are the war commands meant for a very specific time and place, or are they meant to be guiding principles for life beyond settling Cannan? When these passages are handled by New Atheist thinkers it becomes almost immediately apparent that they are proof texting horribly or they are refusing to factor in nuances of ancient Near Eastern literature or they are disregarding the larger narrative thrust of the Pentateuch and early historical books. NA thinkers can dismiss solid exegesis as obfuscation or excuse-making, but my preference, if I were in their camp, would be to understand the text as best as possible before attacking it. Here are some notable observations that should be considered by anyone who reads the Bible and is concerned with what it says.
- Many war texts will say that a place or people were "utterly destroyed" only to find Israel interacting with those people in the very next verse or two. The text itself seems to suggest that genocide was not happening.
- There are distinct commands for how Israel is to deal with people in the land and people not in the land; aggression against the Jebusites, for instance, would not be pursued once the land has been settled.
- Noting the contrast in Joshua between Rahab (a gentile prostitute given the passover treatment) and Achan (an Israelite who jeopardizes Israel by breaking the Law), Copan and Flannagan point out that God's primary concern is not ethnicity, but fidelity to Him and His Law.
- Sections of the Pentateuch indicate that God will drive people out of the land of Cannan before Israel arrives.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the charge brought by New Atheists, is the fact that much of the war language in the OT ("...do not leave alive anything that breathes") is best understood as hyperbolic; not because it is more palatable that way, but because hyperbole in war is a common, easily recognizable literary feature of ancient Near Eastern literature. That is, we are not meant to understand these phrases literally.
By being thorough in their approach, Copan and Flannagan cast serious doubts on the New Athiest interpretation of scripture.
After the exegesis, I think the strongest part of DGRCG? is its treatment of the philosophy behind divine command theory. Focusing on Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma," which is often brought up by NA thinkers, Copan and Flannagan work to define why we can accept divine command theory in general as rational. They seem to hit what I have felt is the center fault line of the Euthyphro charge - a misunderstanding of the concept of God. Basically, if one defines theism in classical Judeo-Christian terms, divine command theory makes sense. If God has maximal knowledge and maximal authority, then it follows that God knows how to command. The Euthyphro challenge asserts that God's commands are arbitrary, but this presumes that there is a standard of right and wrong that exists outside of the ontology of God. Linguistically it can be hard to talk about "good" and "bad" without sounding as though they are freestanding absolutes, but the complexity of ethical theory indicates otherwise. Even in secular ethical theory it is recognized that there might be exceptions to almost every general rule, depending on circumstance, etc. If that is true, then it seems sensible to suggest that the being who created everything and who has maximal knowledge would know best how to adjudicate ethics, both generally and in specific situations, for his people.
Copan and Flannagan express this with much more detail and erudition than I ever could, but I think they make a fair case that divine command theory is not irrational or absurd.
Weaknesses of DGRCG?
Most of Copan and Flannagan's reasoning is solid as far as I can tell. I thought there were a few missteps surrounding their approach to understanding the reasons that God might give a certain command to Israel v. their reason for obeying the command. They handle a few Biblical texts where God appears to give a reasoning behind a command by suggesting that the reason given is the reason why Israel should obey and does not necessarily tell us God's reasoning for giving the command. While I think this distinction has some validity, I'm not entirely sure it needs to be applied to these texts. For instance, if I tell my child not to touch the hot stove, I will explain that if he touches it, he can get burned; the reason for giving the command and the reason he should obey the command are one and the same.
The last section covers the topic of religion and violence. It handles such questions as "Are Jihad and Yahweh wars the same?", "Were the Crusades inspired by Biblical War texts?", and "Does religion cause violence?"
While all of these questions are pertinent to the material that proceeds it, I think each question probably needs fuller treatment. I don't have any specific problems with how they approach these questions, but if we are going to make counter-claims about how and why the Crusades started, we probably need more than the 10 pages allotted to the subject here. It's a starting point, I guess, but it plays like an afterthought.
Overall
I would strongly recommend DGRCG? to anyone interested in Biblical war texts, religion and violence, and issues of divine command theory. It takes a wide-ranging discussion and consolidates it for the reader nicely.
Strengths of DGRCG?
The exegesis of the book of Joshua and other OT war texts is great. And it needed to be. The crux of the issue is how one understands these sections of the Bible. Is God asking Israel to engage in genocide? Does Israel commit genocide? Are the war commands meant for a very specific time and place, or are they meant to be guiding principles for life beyond settling Cannan? When these passages are handled by New Atheist thinkers it becomes almost immediately apparent that they are proof texting horribly or they are refusing to factor in nuances of ancient Near Eastern literature or they are disregarding the larger narrative thrust of the Pentateuch and early historical books. NA thinkers can dismiss solid exegesis as obfuscation or excuse-making, but my preference, if I were in their camp, would be to understand the text as best as possible before attacking it. Here are some notable observations that should be considered by anyone who reads the Bible and is concerned with what it says.
- Many war texts will say that a place or people were "utterly destroyed" only to find Israel interacting with those people in the very next verse or two. The text itself seems to suggest that genocide was not happening.
- There are distinct commands for how Israel is to deal with people in the land and people not in the land; aggression against the Jebusites, for instance, would not be pursued once the land has been settled.
- Noting the contrast in Joshua between Rahab (a gentile prostitute given the passover treatment) and Achan (an Israelite who jeopardizes Israel by breaking the Law), Copan and Flannagan point out that God's primary concern is not ethnicity, but fidelity to Him and His Law.
- Sections of the Pentateuch indicate that God will drive people out of the land of Cannan before Israel arrives.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the charge brought by New Atheists, is the fact that much of the war language in the OT ("...do not leave alive anything that breathes") is best understood as hyperbolic; not because it is more palatable that way, but because hyperbole in war is a common, easily recognizable literary feature of ancient Near Eastern literature. That is, we are not meant to understand these phrases literally.
By being thorough in their approach, Copan and Flannagan cast serious doubts on the New Athiest interpretation of scripture.
After the exegesis, I think the strongest part of DGRCG? is its treatment of the philosophy behind divine command theory. Focusing on Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma," which is often brought up by NA thinkers, Copan and Flannagan work to define why we can accept divine command theory in general as rational. They seem to hit what I have felt is the center fault line of the Euthyphro charge - a misunderstanding of the concept of God. Basically, if one defines theism in classical Judeo-Christian terms, divine command theory makes sense. If God has maximal knowledge and maximal authority, then it follows that God knows how to command. The Euthyphro challenge asserts that God's commands are arbitrary, but this presumes that there is a standard of right and wrong that exists outside of the ontology of God. Linguistically it can be hard to talk about "good" and "bad" without sounding as though they are freestanding absolutes, but the complexity of ethical theory indicates otherwise. Even in secular ethical theory it is recognized that there might be exceptions to almost every general rule, depending on circumstance, etc. If that is true, then it seems sensible to suggest that the being who created everything and who has maximal knowledge would know best how to adjudicate ethics, both generally and in specific situations, for his people.
Copan and Flannagan express this with much more detail and erudition than I ever could, but I think they make a fair case that divine command theory is not irrational or absurd.
Weaknesses of DGRCG?
Most of Copan and Flannagan's reasoning is solid as far as I can tell. I thought there were a few missteps surrounding their approach to understanding the reasons that God might give a certain command to Israel v. their reason for obeying the command. They handle a few Biblical texts where God appears to give a reasoning behind a command by suggesting that the reason given is the reason why Israel should obey and does not necessarily tell us God's reasoning for giving the command. While I think this distinction has some validity, I'm not entirely sure it needs to be applied to these texts. For instance, if I tell my child not to touch the hot stove, I will explain that if he touches it, he can get burned; the reason for giving the command and the reason he should obey the command are one and the same.
The last section covers the topic of religion and violence. It handles such questions as "Are Jihad and Yahweh wars the same?", "Were the Crusades inspired by Biblical War texts?", and "Does religion cause violence?"
While all of these questions are pertinent to the material that proceeds it, I think each question probably needs fuller treatment. I don't have any specific problems with how they approach these questions, but if we are going to make counter-claims about how and why the Crusades started, we probably need more than the 10 pages allotted to the subject here. It's a starting point, I guess, but it plays like an afterthought.
Overall
I would strongly recommend DGRCG? to anyone interested in Biblical war texts, religion and violence, and issues of divine command theory. It takes a wide-ranging discussion and consolidates it for the reader nicely.
October 25, 2025
A Good Defense of the Hebrew Bible from a Christian Perspective
This is a really good book about a difficult subject for both Jews and Christians. Conan and Flannagan do a good job dealing with the biblical sources in the light of several recent attempts to denigrate the Hebrew Bible. Of course I am coming from a Jewish perspective and I would have strengthened their case even more by citing Rabbinic texts which require offering terms of peace even for the 7 Canaanite nations, etc. But Christians and Jews can benefit from this book, as well as anyone interested in being informed about Joshua and the Canaanites.
Rabbi Dr. Eldon Clem
This is a really good book about a difficult subject for both Jews and Christians. Conan and Flannagan do a good job dealing with the biblical sources in the light of several recent attempts to denigrate the Hebrew Bible. Of course I am coming from a Jewish perspective and I would have strengthened their case even more by citing Rabbinic texts which require offering terms of peace even for the 7 Canaanite nations, etc. But Christians and Jews can benefit from this book, as well as anyone interested in being informed about Joshua and the Canaanites.
Rabbi Dr. Eldon Clem
January 25, 2022
This is a very mixed bag which is somewhat typical from the so called analytic theism/philosophy camp. One the one hand, the authors do well to show that Joshua and the conquest materials need not be interpreted literally. Strangely, the exegesis portion is the best part of the book. The rest of the book languishes in conservative falsehoods, from the virtues of violence and their sanction even by Jesus and the NT (!) to tortured defenses of divine command theory. Just read the exegetical sections and skip the rest.
August 16, 2020
This is a very thorough treatment of the topic-not only of purported Canaanite genocide in the Bible, but of violence the Bible in general. The authors approach the subject from a number of angles including hermeneutics, philosophy, and even international law.
It's not a difficult read but not light either, and the arguments go fairly deep But it is well worth the effort for anyone interested in the subject.
It's not a difficult read but not light either, and the arguments go fairly deep But it is well worth the effort for anyone interested in the subject.
September 22, 2020
This is a big book- I have really enjoyed Dr. Copan's other books as well. This book goes into depth with one of the questions that has really niggled at my brain for years. Is the God of the Tanakh; a mean; angry, vindictive guy, while the God of the new testament is a God of grace, mercy, kindness and compassion? Are they the same God? How?
Dr. Copan really goes in depth here and I loved this book!
Dr. Copan really goes in depth here and I loved this book!
October 31, 2021
A Biblical point of view of tough passages.
This book help me a lot to reach out those tough passages that I haven't gotten answers for it till I get this literature.
The Universal Moral rules are divinely stablish in the human sphere and wether we are Christian or not, we know it's there.
Now I can approach to those text and have a critical point of view to answers and debate with those who misinterpreted the scripture.
Totally recommended it.
This book help me a lot to reach out those tough passages that I haven't gotten answers for it till I get this literature.
The Universal Moral rules are divinely stablish in the human sphere and wether we are Christian or not, we know it's there.
Now I can approach to those text and have a critical point of view to answers and debate with those who misinterpreted the scripture.
Totally recommended it.
January 2, 2019
Did God command genocide?
This was a remarkable work to read through giving great insights into both the biblical passages as well as the contrasting opinions of philosophers on the issue. I think Christians and non-believers alike can appreciate the approach taken here.
This was a remarkable work to read through giving great insights into both the biblical passages as well as the contrasting opinions of philosophers on the issue. I think Christians and non-believers alike can appreciate the approach taken here.
April 21, 2019
Solid Examination of a Difficult Subject
A very thorough look; detailed analysis. Helpful chapter summaries at the end of each chapter with highlighted key points make this a good resource for study.
A very thorough look; detailed analysis. Helpful chapter summaries at the end of each chapter with highlighted key points make this a good resource for study.
September 12, 2020
All I’m going to say about this is that I found parts helpful, but much of the rest was more academic than I was anticipating, and I felt that I needed a more comprehensive understanding of philosophy and academic theology to properly follow their arguments.
May 10, 2021
They should have just called this "Matt & Paul write about William Lane Craig."
Apologetic arguments are not interesting and mostly ineffective. I'm glad I didn't have to read this for a class assignment.
Apologetic arguments are not interesting and mostly ineffective. I'm glad I didn't have to read this for a class assignment.
February 4, 2023
Some day I'm going to create a list of "essential" reading for Christians who want to see how rational and defensible our faith is and who want to be able to answer the questions that non-Christians have. When I make that list, this book will go on it.
April 26, 2020
Part Two (the book contains four parts) was 5 stars. The rest is not worth reading.
May 26, 2022
This is a great book, but be prepared for a long read. The authors deal with every objection soundly and show why it was necessary for God to punish the Canaanites.
February 10, 2016
This book addresses the same general issue as Copan's earlier book, Is God a Moral Monster?, but in a much more exhaustive manner. This book is much more demanding reading, so if someone wanted a more popular level discussion of the subject, yet worthwhile, I'd recommend the earlier one. Did God Really Command Genocide is a very detailed, meticulous discussion of many aspects of the question—textual, hermeneutical, philosophical, ethical, and theological. The authors engage a host of other writers and thinkers on the subject and related matters, such as "Speech Act Theory," Bradley's "Crucial Moral Principle," and various thinkers on "Divine Command Theory." They have a substantial discussion of what it means to say that the bible is the word of God. At issue are the Old Testament "difficult" warfare texts in which many have understood God to be commanding the annihilation of entire people groups (specifically among the Canaanites and the Amalekites). Copan and Flannagan argue that this is a misreading of the text. They argue that these controversial passages in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and First Samuel, are hagiographic hyperbole, and give considerable evidence that the writers of those texts intended for them to be understood as such. If so, then there is no reason to believe that God was commanding genocide. They also provide arguments from philosophy and contemporary ethics.
This does not obviate entirely, however, the problem of divine commands to warfare in these texts, and Copan and Flanaggan address of host of issues related to such commands, including, as I say, divine command theory, just war theory, the history of Israel and the Canaanites, and many other subjects.
In their effort to be thorough they are meticulous almost to the point of tedium. So it takes some discipline to read through their entire arguments at places. Their overall argument seems to me to be credible, though there are some tangential issues which I wish to think more about.
Near the end of the book they included some very worthwhile chapters on the related subjects of Just War Theory, pacifism, whether religion causes violence, a comparative analysis of Islamic and Yahweh wars, and a consideration of the Crusades and whether or not Old Testament war texts played any significant role in the Crusades. They demonstrate that the chief biblical texts motivating the Crusades were not the Old Testament war texts, but rather the teachings of Jesus on sacrificially loving your neighbor. While discussing the Crusades they also debunk five very popular myths about the Crusades that are widely believed in the popular culture but largely now discredited by scholarly research.
For those whose minds are made up about the question of the "God of the Old Testament" being a brutal, genocidal maniac, (people like Richard Dawkins and the "New Atheists"), I doubt that there is anything in this book that will change their minds. But for those who are open-minded and really wish to understand how these texts were originally intended to be understood by their original authors, and how they have been historically applied within the Jewish and Christian faiths, Copan and Flannagan have given much to think about. But it will take a little work to get through it all.
This does not obviate entirely, however, the problem of divine commands to warfare in these texts, and Copan and Flanaggan address of host of issues related to such commands, including, as I say, divine command theory, just war theory, the history of Israel and the Canaanites, and many other subjects.
In their effort to be thorough they are meticulous almost to the point of tedium. So it takes some discipline to read through their entire arguments at places. Their overall argument seems to me to be credible, though there are some tangential issues which I wish to think more about.
Near the end of the book they included some very worthwhile chapters on the related subjects of Just War Theory, pacifism, whether religion causes violence, a comparative analysis of Islamic and Yahweh wars, and a consideration of the Crusades and whether or not Old Testament war texts played any significant role in the Crusades. They demonstrate that the chief biblical texts motivating the Crusades were not the Old Testament war texts, but rather the teachings of Jesus on sacrificially loving your neighbor. While discussing the Crusades they also debunk five very popular myths about the Crusades that are widely believed in the popular culture but largely now discredited by scholarly research.
For those whose minds are made up about the question of the "God of the Old Testament" being a brutal, genocidal maniac, (people like Richard Dawkins and the "New Atheists"), I doubt that there is anything in this book that will change their minds. But for those who are open-minded and really wish to understand how these texts were originally intended to be understood by their original authors, and how they have been historically applied within the Jewish and Christian faiths, Copan and Flannagan have given much to think about. But it will take a little work to get through it all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews