What do you think?
Rate this book
The Skeletons in God's Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War
Is God a sadistic torturer? Coldhearted judge? Genocidal maniac? Unfortunately, our popular caricatures often make him out to be.There are some questions no Christian wants to be asked. Many today believe hell, judgment and holy war are "skeletons in God's closet," tough topics that, if looked at closely, would reveal a cruel, vindictive tyrant rather than a good and loving God. And we aren't comfortable with the answers we've been given."How can a loving God send people to Hell?""Isn't it arrogant to believe Jesus is the only way to God?""Why is there so much violence in the Old Testament?" In this book, we'll pull these bones out into the open to exchange popular caricatures for the beauty and power of the real thing. We'll discover these topics were never really skeletons at all . . . but proclamations of a God who is good "in his very bones," not just in what he does, but in who he is. We'll fling the wide the closet door and sing loudly, boldly and God is good and coming to redeem his world.
339 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 14, 2014
297 people are currently reading
1866 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
August 10, 2017
I find it hard to assign a starred rating to this book. Some parts were certainly five-star quality. But there other parts that, because of theological problems, bring the rating down considerably. I couldn't recommend this book without some serious qualifications.
First, the good: Butler takes three issues in the Bible that might paint a problematic view of God to some and turns them around, showing that, indeed, these are good things. The issues are hell, judgment, and holy war. Butler shows that each of these things shows that God is good, that he cares about good and evil and he cares about his people. All of that is great. Pages 62-67 are worth the price of the book, as Butler shows that the so-called "traditional" view of hell is right and even better than other options. If God doesn't judge and allows sin into his renewed creation, it would be like bringing "our old lovers into God's honeymoon suite. and our old lovers want to tear that suite apart." Annhiliationism basically says, "Marry me or I'll kill you." Instead, God lets those who don't love him and trust him go their own way forever. Universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved in the end) basically has God saying, "Marry me or I'll lock you in the basement until you learn to love me."
Also good is Butler's clear care for the poor and those who have faced injustice in this world. He clearly has a heart for the needy and the hurting. His book is interesting because he mixes in personal experiences with theological reflections.
I should also add that Butler seems like a genuinely great guy. I asked if it would be okay to email him some personal takes on what I thought were problematic areas of the book. He invited that criticism and wrote back. Below, I'll post part of my email, since these areas of concern are why I give the book a three-star review. But before I do, I will say this: the five-star parts are great, and to the theologically discerning I say, by all means, read this book. But I found some issues, including the ones below, to be problematic. I found some errors in the book (on smaller issues, such as what the name "Jerusalem" means), and it seems that Butler didn't do significant research on some issues, such as Matthew 25:31-46. No one has to write a book. And if we're going to write about such momentous issues as the character of God and how one is reconciled to God (as well as who are the ones so reconciled), we ought to be careful, do our homework, and communicate clearly.
*********
[What I wrote to Butler:]
1. "God's people." There are a few times that you say that some of God's people will be judged (removed from God's presence, put outside the city, etc.). Here's an example: "God's judgment is a surprise. It involves a weeding out from within the people of God and a gathering in from outside the people of God. Many among God's people are being judged while many outside are dancing into Jesus' holy city" (p. 125). This type of language appeared a few other places, like the first paragraph of p. 136 and the bottom of p. 145.
Here's my concern: I think it would have been clearer and more accurate to write, "It involves a weeding out from within the apparent people of God . . . . Many who thought they were among God's people are being judged . . . ."
I think we can distinguish between the real people of God--people who are united to Jesus by faith in him and by means of the power of the Holy Spirit--and people who would claim to belong to God's people. And the reason I would stress that is for people to come to Jesus and put their trust in him. I think the call for repentance and faith is very important.
Yes, many Jewish religious leaders assumed they automatically belonged to God's people. I think we see that most clearly in John 3 and 8. Nicodemus comes to Jesus assuming he's already part of God's kingdom and Jesus tells him that to even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter into it, one must be born again of the Holy Spirit. And in John 8, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are of their father, the devil, because the want no part of the truth and are rejecting God's witness. To use Paul's language in Galatians 3, the true children of Abraham are those who have faith in Jesus.
This may seem nit-picky, but I think it's important to stress that while there are people who claim to be Christians and yet are not united to Christ, one must put their trust in Jesus to enter into the kingdom. The connection between union with Christ, being regenerated by the Spirit, confessing Jesus is Lord, and trusting him for salvation are so intricately connected that I would never want to hint that people who don't put their faith in Jesus can somehow be part of the city of God. I don't think the Bible ever hints at that.
2. This leads me to my second concern, which is your reading of Matthew 25:31-46. You write, "When a dictator tortures his people, he tortures the Son of God" (p. 148). I think that's true to an extent, but Matthew 25:31-46 doesn't support this claim.
I think other passages in the Bible more clearly show that how we treat the poor is a reflection of our view of God. Passages such as:
Proverbs 14:31 (ESV)
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 17:5 (ESV)
Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker;
he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.
But a very careful reading of Matt. 25:31-46 doesn't support this.
First, Jesus says that the "sheep" gave him food and drink and clothing, and they visited him when he was sick and in prison (vv. 35-36). They ask, "When did we do this?" (vv. 37-39). And King Jesus will reply, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (v. 40). Right away, we see that there is a limitation on "the least of these." It's not "the least of all humanity." It's "the least of these my brothers." Who are Jesus' brothers but the children of God? And who are God's children but those who have the Holy Spirit and cry out to him, "Abba! Father!" Again, we come back to union with Christ, the Spirit, and a confession of faith.
So the "least of these" must be Christians. But is Jesus being even more specific? In Matthew 10, Jesus sends out his disciples to preach. At the end of the chapter, Jesus says,
40 “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41 The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
While the Greek word for "little ones" differs from "least of these," they are conceptually the same. In Matthew 25, Jesus is referring to how people received his disciples who were preaching the gospel. Those who receive the gospel will care for these disciples. And, I'm sure, they will care for Christians in general and, more broadly, other people. But if we were judged on our works, we would all be found "outside the city."
Let me get full-on nerdy and post a couple of passages from commentaries on Matthew. The first is from Craig Keener; The second is from Craig Blomberg.
But in the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable probably addresses not serving the poor on the whole but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ “brothers” (12:50; 28:10; cf. also the “least”—5:19; 11:11; 18:3–6, 10–14); likewise, one unwittingly treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (10:40–42), who should be received with hospitality, food, and drink (10:8–13, 42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (10:18–19), and sickness to physical conditions stirred by the hardship of the mission (cf. Phil 2:27–30; perhaps Gal 4:13–14; 2 Tim 4:20). Being “poorly clothed” appears in Paul’s lists of sufferings (Rom 8:35), including his most detailed extant apostolic peristasis catalogue (1 Cor 4:11); it may also recall the public humiliation of Jesus’ crucifixion (27:35), although the impossibility of “clothing” Jesus at that point weighs against the allusion.
The king thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom (24:14; 28:19–20). True messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name (cf. Matthey 1980). That the “siblings” are here “disciples” is the majority view in church history and among contemporary New Testament scholars, although those who hold “siblings” to be disciples divide sharply over whether they are specifically missionaries or poor fellow disciples in general
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 605–606.
Who are these brothers? The majority view throughout church history has taken them to be some or all of Christ’s disciples since the word “least” (elachistōn) is the superlative form of the adjective “little [ones]” (mikroi), which without exception in Matthew refers to the disciples (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; cf. also 5:19; 11:11), while “brothers” in this Gospel (and usually in the New Testament more generally) when not referring to literal, biological siblings, always means spiritual kin (5:22–24, 47; 7:3–5; 12:48–50; 18:15 (2×), 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10). There may be a theological sense in which all humans are brothers and God’s children, though not all are redeemed, but nothing of that appears here or, with this terminology, elsewhere in Matthew. The minority view throughout church history, which is probably a majority view today, especially in churches with a healthy social ethic, is that these “brothers” are any needy people in the world. Thus the passage becomes a strong call to demonstrate “fruit in keeping with repentance” (3:8). Though one need not see any works-righteousness ethic present, many have read the text precisely that way. Yet while there is ample teaching in many parts of Scripture on the need to help all the poor of the world (most notably in Amos, Micah, Luke, and James), it is highly unlikely that this is Jesus’ point here. Rather, his thought will closely parallel that of 10:42. The sheep are people whose works demonstrate that they have responded properly to Christ’s messengers and therefore to his message, however humble the situation or actions of those involved. That itinerant Christian missionaries regularly suffered in these ways and were in frequent need of such help is classically illustrated with the example of Paul (see esp. 2 Cor 11:23–27) and the teaching of the Didache (ca. A.D. 95).
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 377–378.
I think these are the right readings of this passage. Of course, this passage, like so many others, is debated. But it makes the best sense of context (within the book of Matthew and within Christian theology as a whole).
Now, I think there are some other parts of your reading that are problematic. You write, on page 153, "the goats don't seem to recognize they are goats and the sheep don't seem to recognize they are sheep until Jesus tells them." This really isn't true. The sheep are not surprised they are sheep. They are surprised that their care for the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned was actually service rendered to Jesus. It's possible the goats are surprised to be goats, but their surprise, according to this passage, is that their failure to respond rightly to "the least of these my brothers" was a failure to respond rightly to Jesus.
There is warrant in Scripture for claiming that there will be people who assumed they were God's people but who will find out they were wrong. As you acknowledge, Matthew 7:21-23 speaks to that. But I don't see the reverse being true: people who didn't know Jesus and are surprised they are actually sheep. That's Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" theory, is it not? And where do we find grounding for such beliefs in the Bible? I don't think we do. It runs contrary to the union with Christ-Holy Spirit-regeneration-faith-confession matrix that I've already discussed. You write, on page 156, "Jesus says he has other sheep: they are his. Even though they apparently haven't met him yet." In the context of John 10, yes, they haven't met him yet. But Jesus is talking about Gentiles who will put their trust in him. Don't forget John 10:27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
I'm sorry to hammer on chapter 10, but I do think it's so important for us to urge others to put their trust in Jesus. I don't see how the Bible holds out hope that people who have rejected God, or shrugged their shoulders at Jesus, will find themselves in the city. I think it's nice to hope for such a thing, but people who have rejected God (I'm thinking of Rom. 1:18ff., how all are without excuse) and have not put their trust in Jesus will be allowed to go their own way.
3. This point is shorter, don't worry! Somewhere toward the end of the book (it must be chapter 17), you talk about the lake of fire. You stress that God is judging "Babylon" as an empire, but not people. You write, "The lake of fire does not depict the torture of individuals, but rather God's judgment on empire" (pp. 278-279). I'll accept that God is not "torturing" individuals but removing them from the city, protecting his people and letting those who reject him go their own way. But you suggest--I'm not sure that you explicitly state as much--that individuals aren't in the lake of fire. You don't quote or refer to Revelation 20:15 and 21:8, which state explicitly that they do. You say that the city of God is people. I think that is basically true. But cannot Babylon also be people (Satan, demons, people who reject God)? It seems that is actually what the Bible teaches. I don't know that we can say that God judges and empire or a structure without saying that he judges people.
I could say a lot more, but this message is already far too long. I hope I've been clear in my concerns. I suppose underlying my concerns is an observation that sometimes we are embarrassed to call people to repentance and faith in Jesus. But we shouldn't be. I think God is very clear that we should do that. I would never want to give anyone the impression that they can ignore that message and then somehow find themselves being inside God's city. That is at the heart of my concerns.
First, the good: Butler takes three issues in the Bible that might paint a problematic view of God to some and turns them around, showing that, indeed, these are good things. The issues are hell, judgment, and holy war. Butler shows that each of these things shows that God is good, that he cares about good and evil and he cares about his people. All of that is great. Pages 62-67 are worth the price of the book, as Butler shows that the so-called "traditional" view of hell is right and even better than other options. If God doesn't judge and allows sin into his renewed creation, it would be like bringing "our old lovers into God's honeymoon suite. and our old lovers want to tear that suite apart." Annhiliationism basically says, "Marry me or I'll kill you." Instead, God lets those who don't love him and trust him go their own way forever. Universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved in the end) basically has God saying, "Marry me or I'll lock you in the basement until you learn to love me."
Also good is Butler's clear care for the poor and those who have faced injustice in this world. He clearly has a heart for the needy and the hurting. His book is interesting because he mixes in personal experiences with theological reflections.
I should also add that Butler seems like a genuinely great guy. I asked if it would be okay to email him some personal takes on what I thought were problematic areas of the book. He invited that criticism and wrote back. Below, I'll post part of my email, since these areas of concern are why I give the book a three-star review. But before I do, I will say this: the five-star parts are great, and to the theologically discerning I say, by all means, read this book. But I found some issues, including the ones below, to be problematic. I found some errors in the book (on smaller issues, such as what the name "Jerusalem" means), and it seems that Butler didn't do significant research on some issues, such as Matthew 25:31-46. No one has to write a book. And if we're going to write about such momentous issues as the character of God and how one is reconciled to God (as well as who are the ones so reconciled), we ought to be careful, do our homework, and communicate clearly.
*********
[What I wrote to Butler:]
1. "God's people." There are a few times that you say that some of God's people will be judged (removed from God's presence, put outside the city, etc.). Here's an example: "God's judgment is a surprise. It involves a weeding out from within the people of God and a gathering in from outside the people of God. Many among God's people are being judged while many outside are dancing into Jesus' holy city" (p. 125). This type of language appeared a few other places, like the first paragraph of p. 136 and the bottom of p. 145.
Here's my concern: I think it would have been clearer and more accurate to write, "It involves a weeding out from within the apparent people of God . . . . Many who thought they were among God's people are being judged . . . ."
I think we can distinguish between the real people of God--people who are united to Jesus by faith in him and by means of the power of the Holy Spirit--and people who would claim to belong to God's people. And the reason I would stress that is for people to come to Jesus and put their trust in him. I think the call for repentance and faith is very important.
Yes, many Jewish religious leaders assumed they automatically belonged to God's people. I think we see that most clearly in John 3 and 8. Nicodemus comes to Jesus assuming he's already part of God's kingdom and Jesus tells him that to even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter into it, one must be born again of the Holy Spirit. And in John 8, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are of their father, the devil, because the want no part of the truth and are rejecting God's witness. To use Paul's language in Galatians 3, the true children of Abraham are those who have faith in Jesus.
This may seem nit-picky, but I think it's important to stress that while there are people who claim to be Christians and yet are not united to Christ, one must put their trust in Jesus to enter into the kingdom. The connection between union with Christ, being regenerated by the Spirit, confessing Jesus is Lord, and trusting him for salvation are so intricately connected that I would never want to hint that people who don't put their faith in Jesus can somehow be part of the city of God. I don't think the Bible ever hints at that.
2. This leads me to my second concern, which is your reading of Matthew 25:31-46. You write, "When a dictator tortures his people, he tortures the Son of God" (p. 148). I think that's true to an extent, but Matthew 25:31-46 doesn't support this claim.
I think other passages in the Bible more clearly show that how we treat the poor is a reflection of our view of God. Passages such as:
Proverbs 14:31 (ESV)
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 17:5 (ESV)
Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker;
he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.
But a very careful reading of Matt. 25:31-46 doesn't support this.
First, Jesus says that the "sheep" gave him food and drink and clothing, and they visited him when he was sick and in prison (vv. 35-36). They ask, "When did we do this?" (vv. 37-39). And King Jesus will reply, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (v. 40). Right away, we see that there is a limitation on "the least of these." It's not "the least of all humanity." It's "the least of these my brothers." Who are Jesus' brothers but the children of God? And who are God's children but those who have the Holy Spirit and cry out to him, "Abba! Father!" Again, we come back to union with Christ, the Spirit, and a confession of faith.
So the "least of these" must be Christians. But is Jesus being even more specific? In Matthew 10, Jesus sends out his disciples to preach. At the end of the chapter, Jesus says,
40 “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41 The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
While the Greek word for "little ones" differs from "least of these," they are conceptually the same. In Matthew 25, Jesus is referring to how people received his disciples who were preaching the gospel. Those who receive the gospel will care for these disciples. And, I'm sure, they will care for Christians in general and, more broadly, other people. But if we were judged on our works, we would all be found "outside the city."
Let me get full-on nerdy and post a couple of passages from commentaries on Matthew. The first is from Craig Keener; The second is from Craig Blomberg.
But in the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable probably addresses not serving the poor on the whole but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ “brothers” (12:50; 28:10; cf. also the “least”—5:19; 11:11; 18:3–6, 10–14); likewise, one unwittingly treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (10:40–42), who should be received with hospitality, food, and drink (10:8–13, 42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (10:18–19), and sickness to physical conditions stirred by the hardship of the mission (cf. Phil 2:27–30; perhaps Gal 4:13–14; 2 Tim 4:20). Being “poorly clothed” appears in Paul’s lists of sufferings (Rom 8:35), including his most detailed extant apostolic peristasis catalogue (1 Cor 4:11); it may also recall the public humiliation of Jesus’ crucifixion (27:35), although the impossibility of “clothing” Jesus at that point weighs against the allusion.
The king thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom (24:14; 28:19–20). True messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name (cf. Matthey 1980). That the “siblings” are here “disciples” is the majority view in church history and among contemporary New Testament scholars, although those who hold “siblings” to be disciples divide sharply over whether they are specifically missionaries or poor fellow disciples in general
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 605–606.
Who are these brothers? The majority view throughout church history has taken them to be some or all of Christ’s disciples since the word “least” (elachistōn) is the superlative form of the adjective “little [ones]” (mikroi), which without exception in Matthew refers to the disciples (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; cf. also 5:19; 11:11), while “brothers” in this Gospel (and usually in the New Testament more generally) when not referring to literal, biological siblings, always means spiritual kin (5:22–24, 47; 7:3–5; 12:48–50; 18:15 (2×), 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10). There may be a theological sense in which all humans are brothers and God’s children, though not all are redeemed, but nothing of that appears here or, with this terminology, elsewhere in Matthew. The minority view throughout church history, which is probably a majority view today, especially in churches with a healthy social ethic, is that these “brothers” are any needy people in the world. Thus the passage becomes a strong call to demonstrate “fruit in keeping with repentance” (3:8). Though one need not see any works-righteousness ethic present, many have read the text precisely that way. Yet while there is ample teaching in many parts of Scripture on the need to help all the poor of the world (most notably in Amos, Micah, Luke, and James), it is highly unlikely that this is Jesus’ point here. Rather, his thought will closely parallel that of 10:42. The sheep are people whose works demonstrate that they have responded properly to Christ’s messengers and therefore to his message, however humble the situation or actions of those involved. That itinerant Christian missionaries regularly suffered in these ways and were in frequent need of such help is classically illustrated with the example of Paul (see esp. 2 Cor 11:23–27) and the teaching of the Didache (ca. A.D. 95).
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 377–378.
I think these are the right readings of this passage. Of course, this passage, like so many others, is debated. But it makes the best sense of context (within the book of Matthew and within Christian theology as a whole).
Now, I think there are some other parts of your reading that are problematic. You write, on page 153, "the goats don't seem to recognize they are goats and the sheep don't seem to recognize they are sheep until Jesus tells them." This really isn't true. The sheep are not surprised they are sheep. They are surprised that their care for the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned was actually service rendered to Jesus. It's possible the goats are surprised to be goats, but their surprise, according to this passage, is that their failure to respond rightly to "the least of these my brothers" was a failure to respond rightly to Jesus.
There is warrant in Scripture for claiming that there will be people who assumed they were God's people but who will find out they were wrong. As you acknowledge, Matthew 7:21-23 speaks to that. But I don't see the reverse being true: people who didn't know Jesus and are surprised they are actually sheep. That's Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" theory, is it not? And where do we find grounding for such beliefs in the Bible? I don't think we do. It runs contrary to the union with Christ-Holy Spirit-regeneration-faith-confession matrix that I've already discussed. You write, on page 156, "Jesus says he has other sheep: they are his. Even though they apparently haven't met him yet." In the context of John 10, yes, they haven't met him yet. But Jesus is talking about Gentiles who will put their trust in him. Don't forget John 10:27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
I'm sorry to hammer on chapter 10, but I do think it's so important for us to urge others to put their trust in Jesus. I don't see how the Bible holds out hope that people who have rejected God, or shrugged their shoulders at Jesus, will find themselves in the city. I think it's nice to hope for such a thing, but people who have rejected God (I'm thinking of Rom. 1:18ff., how all are without excuse) and have not put their trust in Jesus will be allowed to go their own way.
3. This point is shorter, don't worry! Somewhere toward the end of the book (it must be chapter 17), you talk about the lake of fire. You stress that God is judging "Babylon" as an empire, but not people. You write, "The lake of fire does not depict the torture of individuals, but rather God's judgment on empire" (pp. 278-279). I'll accept that God is not "torturing" individuals but removing them from the city, protecting his people and letting those who reject him go their own way. But you suggest--I'm not sure that you explicitly state as much--that individuals aren't in the lake of fire. You don't quote or refer to Revelation 20:15 and 21:8, which state explicitly that they do. You say that the city of God is people. I think that is basically true. But cannot Babylon also be people (Satan, demons, people who reject God)? It seems that is actually what the Bible teaches. I don't know that we can say that God judges and empire or a structure without saying that he judges people.
I could say a lot more, but this message is already far too long. I hope I've been clear in my concerns. I suppose underlying my concerns is an observation that sometimes we are embarrassed to call people to repentance and faith in Jesus. But we shouldn't be. I think God is very clear that we should do that. I would never want to give anyone the impression that they can ignore that message and then somehow find themselves being inside God's city. That is at the heart of my concerns.
May 26, 2015
Reading this book is like one really long sigh of relief.
I think the concept of hell -- along with how people use the idea as an emotional weapon against others (think: "Gays go to hell!") -- is one of the the things Christians struggle with most. I think it is also one of the main things keeping people from God in the first place. Who wants to know a god that plays favorites? And why would you want to hang out with him for all eternity?
The fact that this way of thinking also comes across as incredibly racist/nationalist/whatever hasn't escaped me, either. As much as I enjoyed reading David Platt's "Radical," I was extremely put off by the chapter about how we Americans have to hurry up and do global mission work because two billion people have never even heard the name of Jesus and if we don't intervene, they're going to go straight to hell. (And not to mention these all happen to be people of color...) No wonder why people outside the church think Christians are narrow-minded.
I started struggling with this as a teenager, and the most satisfactory answers I could find were in the writings of C.S. Lewis. (The author actually references "The Great Divorce" a few times!) Lewis was much more open-minded in his theology, but being a man of modesty, always reminded his readers that he was just a regular guy and not to take him too seriously. Well, "The Skeletons in God's Closet" is the book I've been waiting for. Not that Joshua Butler isn't also modest, but he has thoroughly investigated each of his claims before committing them to paper -- and has plenty of sources, Scriptural and otherwise, to back them up.
I am relieved to find out that we get most of our folk theology about the nature of hell from Dante's "Inferno" and the (in)famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I am relieved that our folk theology is largely wrong.
I am relieved that invading Iraq and Afghanistan and accidentally killing innocent people and calling it "collateral damage" is absolutely NOT the will of God and can never be called a crusade or holy war.
I am relieved that most cultural teachings about these tough subjects have nothing to do with what is actually recorded in the Bible.
I am relieved that God is every bit as good as I thought he was and then some.
Everyone should read this book.
I think the concept of hell -- along with how people use the idea as an emotional weapon against others (think: "Gays go to hell!") -- is one of the the things Christians struggle with most. I think it is also one of the main things keeping people from God in the first place. Who wants to know a god that plays favorites? And why would you want to hang out with him for all eternity?
The fact that this way of thinking also comes across as incredibly racist/nationalist/whatever hasn't escaped me, either. As much as I enjoyed reading David Platt's "Radical," I was extremely put off by the chapter about how we Americans have to hurry up and do global mission work because two billion people have never even heard the name of Jesus and if we don't intervene, they're going to go straight to hell. (And not to mention these all happen to be people of color...) No wonder why people outside the church think Christians are narrow-minded.
I started struggling with this as a teenager, and the most satisfactory answers I could find were in the writings of C.S. Lewis. (The author actually references "The Great Divorce" a few times!) Lewis was much more open-minded in his theology, but being a man of modesty, always reminded his readers that he was just a regular guy and not to take him too seriously. Well, "The Skeletons in God's Closet" is the book I've been waiting for. Not that Joshua Butler isn't also modest, but he has thoroughly investigated each of his claims before committing them to paper -- and has plenty of sources, Scriptural and otherwise, to back them up.
I am relieved to find out that we get most of our folk theology about the nature of hell from Dante's "Inferno" and the (in)famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I am relieved that our folk theology is largely wrong.
I am relieved that invading Iraq and Afghanistan and accidentally killing innocent people and calling it "collateral damage" is absolutely NOT the will of God and can never be called a crusade or holy war.
I am relieved that most cultural teachings about these tough subjects have nothing to do with what is actually recorded in the Bible.
I am relieved that God is every bit as good as I thought he was and then some.
Everyone should read this book.
November 21, 2018
My goodness this was a stimulating read. Some things I disagreed with, and others I would explain differently, but overall it’s a masterclass in pastoral apologetics for a secular age. Butler is not preaching to saints so much as seeking to persuade skeptics. I think Derek Rishmawy is right: “Skeletons in God’s Closet” is sort of like the book that “Love Wins” tried to be but failed.
In an age of entrenched skepticism, tribalism, and expressive individualism, I am grateful for this powerful (though not perfect) resource. Easily one of the most important Christian books I’ve read this year.
In an age of entrenched skepticism, tribalism, and expressive individualism, I am grateful for this powerful (though not perfect) resource. Easily one of the most important Christian books I’ve read this year.
October 17, 2014
A special thank you to Thomas Nelson--W Publishing and NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review. (nice cover)
The Skeletons in God’s Closet, The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War is an insightful and thought-provoking book, packed with tough questions, fresh ideas with profound and enlightening perspectives to age old thinking about heaven, earth, and hell, written by talented, Joshua Ryan Butler.
Wow, this is one powerful and eye-opening book; one you cannot rush through or skip around. Since this is an ARC, I definitely want to purchase a copy for reference, to refer to often, as I found myself bookmarking something on almost every page. There is so much here to grasp, with extensive research and references to scriptures, with profound meaning. Set aside some time. The closet is heavy. Opening the door is intimidating. Our culture is asking questions, and many of our answers are within the pages of this well-written book.
God seems to want to keep the closet door open. God keeps flinging it wide open and inviting us to look inside as much as we may keep trying to shut it. We think God has some skeletons in the closet. At least, that’s what many of us fear. God’s skeletons are those deep, dark doctrines we’d rather avoid. Hell. Judgement. Holy war. Those parts of God’s story that, if we really took a close look at, we’re afraid would radically change the way we feel about Him.
In the meantime, our faith grow lukewarm and stale as we go through the motions of church services and verbal assent, while our hearts stay distant and unengaged. Regardless, God’s closet door doesn’t seem to stay shut.
The tough topics explored in THE SKELTONS IN GOD’S CLOSET are powerfully and profoundly relevant to life in our contemporary culture. These are not just pieces of the Christian faith we can learn to live with; they are profound plotlines in the story of the whole we literally cannot live without.
GOD IS GOOD! This is the central message and driving theme of the book. Not just sometimes good, but extravagantly, mercifully, gloriously, better than we can ask or imagine good. All the time!
As Butler points out, not only does God NOT have skeletons, God himself is good in his very bones; not just in what he does, but in who he is, not only in his actions but in the architecture of his character, the beauty of his being, the depths of his divine affection for the world.
Heaven and earth are the setting, the context, the stage, in which the ensuring drama of human history is about to unfold. It is not absent from the world, waiting to make its entrance only at the end of history. Heaven is a part of God’s creation here and now.
Heaven and earth-not heaven and hell-are counterparts, created with and for each other, and bound together in inseparable relationship. Hell is not part of God’s creation. Hell does not show up until later. Sin, death, and hell, when they do enter the story, are presented not as good things, created by God, but rather as invasive intruders into God’s good world.
GOD Is on a mission to get the hell out of earth! This is where the author breaks down the each story and meanings are remarkably different.
In the first story, the problematic one, this phrase means that God is on a mission to abandon the earth, to “get the hell out of Dodge,” and take a bunch of us with him. In the construal, Jesus and his followers are on a mission to escape the world, to make a break for our heavenly home and leave this mess behind. Unfortunately, Christianity has at times-especially in recent times-framed things this way and in doing so, horribly distorted the gospel story. The phrase also can be taken a second way.
In the second story, told-the biblical one, it can be taken to mean that God cares deeply for his world, that the Creator loves his creation, that our heavenly Father has dramatic compassion for the humanity he has brought up from the dust. In the second story, it means that God is grieved by the sin, death, and power of hell that afflicts the world, and he is sacrificially involved in the removal of all that destroys and alienates his world from himself.
A different take when God’s agenda is to get the hell out of earth (meaning reconciling Heaven and earth). What do they need to be reconciled from? From the divisive and destructive powers that have caused the problem in the first place.
In the gospel story, heaven and earth are currently torn by sin. Our world is being ravaged by the destructive power of hell. God is not the one who unleashes hell’s destruction, we are. In the Biblical story, we are the author’s of hell’s fury. God does not create the power of hell; we do. God does not rape kids and murder his neighbors; we do. God is not the one with skeletons in his closet; we are.
The Game Changer: So what happened between the Old and new Testaments to change all this? What was the catalyst that moved hell’s location from underground to outside the city? What was the game changer that shifted our fate from an unconscious death to being raised in life?
The answer: the resurrection of Christ. All will be raised!
Jesus resurrection is like that: it shifts our fate from unconscious death to risen life. Death can no longer hold him. And Death can no longer hold us. Though Him all will be raised. This is not a skeleton in God’s closet; this is God’s good response to our skeletons in the ground. Jesus is victorious over the grave.
God does not ask us, “Are you good enough to get into my kingdom?” He asks us instead, “Will you let me heal you?” this is the radical message at the center of the gospel of grace; not our works but his grace, not our behavior but his mercy. He wants to heal us. The question is whether we will let him, whether we will receive his healing.
God is good. Gloriously good. It is God’s goodness that gives rise to reconciliation; as hope for the fragmentation we have inflicted upon his world. And it is his goodness that gives rise to restoration; as hope amid the destruction we have unleashed in his glorious world. Resurrection. Reconciliation. Restoration. He is coming for His world.
Highly recommend to anyone of any religion or culture, wanting to learn more!
Judith D. Collins Must Read Books
The Skeletons in God’s Closet, The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War is an insightful and thought-provoking book, packed with tough questions, fresh ideas with profound and enlightening perspectives to age old thinking about heaven, earth, and hell, written by talented, Joshua Ryan Butler.
Wow, this is one powerful and eye-opening book; one you cannot rush through or skip around. Since this is an ARC, I definitely want to purchase a copy for reference, to refer to often, as I found myself bookmarking something on almost every page. There is so much here to grasp, with extensive research and references to scriptures, with profound meaning. Set aside some time. The closet is heavy. Opening the door is intimidating. Our culture is asking questions, and many of our answers are within the pages of this well-written book.
God seems to want to keep the closet door open. God keeps flinging it wide open and inviting us to look inside as much as we may keep trying to shut it. We think God has some skeletons in the closet. At least, that’s what many of us fear. God’s skeletons are those deep, dark doctrines we’d rather avoid. Hell. Judgement. Holy war. Those parts of God’s story that, if we really took a close look at, we’re afraid would radically change the way we feel about Him.
In the meantime, our faith grow lukewarm and stale as we go through the motions of church services and verbal assent, while our hearts stay distant and unengaged. Regardless, God’s closet door doesn’t seem to stay shut.
The tough topics explored in THE SKELTONS IN GOD’S CLOSET are powerfully and profoundly relevant to life in our contemporary culture. These are not just pieces of the Christian faith we can learn to live with; they are profound plotlines in the story of the whole we literally cannot live without.
GOD IS GOOD! This is the central message and driving theme of the book. Not just sometimes good, but extravagantly, mercifully, gloriously, better than we can ask or imagine good. All the time!
As Butler points out, not only does God NOT have skeletons, God himself is good in his very bones; not just in what he does, but in who he is, not only in his actions but in the architecture of his character, the beauty of his being, the depths of his divine affection for the world.
Heaven’s primary counterpart in the gospel story is not hell; it is earth. Heaven and earth are threaded throughout the Biblical drama of creation, rebellion, and redemption.
* Heaven and earth are created by God
* Heaven and earth are torn by sin
* Heaven and earth are destined for reconciliation
Heaven and earth are the setting, the context, the stage, in which the ensuring drama of human history is about to unfold. It is not absent from the world, waiting to make its entrance only at the end of history. Heaven is a part of God’s creation here and now.
Heaven and earth-not heaven and hell-are counterparts, created with and for each other, and bound together in inseparable relationship. Hell is not part of God’s creation. Hell does not show up until later. Sin, death, and hell, when they do enter the story, are presented not as good things, created by God, but rather as invasive intruders into God’s good world.
GOD Is on a mission to get the hell out of earth! This is where the author breaks down the each story and meanings are remarkably different.
In the first story, the problematic one, this phrase means that God is on a mission to abandon the earth, to “get the hell out of Dodge,” and take a bunch of us with him. In the construal, Jesus and his followers are on a mission to escape the world, to make a break for our heavenly home and leave this mess behind. Unfortunately, Christianity has at times-especially in recent times-framed things this way and in doing so, horribly distorted the gospel story. The phrase also can be taken a second way.
In the second story, told-the biblical one, it can be taken to mean that God cares deeply for his world, that the Creator loves his creation, that our heavenly Father has dramatic compassion for the humanity he has brought up from the dust. In the second story, it means that God is grieved by the sin, death, and power of hell that afflicts the world, and he is sacrificially involved in the removal of all that destroys and alienates his world from himself.
A different take when God’s agenda is to get the hell out of earth (meaning reconciling Heaven and earth). What do they need to be reconciled from? From the divisive and destructive powers that have caused the problem in the first place.
In the gospel story, heaven and earth are currently torn by sin. Our world is being ravaged by the destructive power of hell. God is not the one who unleashes hell’s destruction, we are. In the Biblical story, we are the author’s of hell’s fury. God does not create the power of hell; we do. God does not rape kids and murder his neighbors; we do. God is not the one with skeletons in his closet; we are.
The Game Changer: So what happened between the Old and new Testaments to change all this? What was the catalyst that moved hell’s location from underground to outside the city? What was the game changer that shifted our fate from an unconscious death to being raised in life?
The answer: the resurrection of Christ. All will be raised!
Jesus resurrection is like that: it shifts our fate from unconscious death to risen life. Death can no longer hold him. And Death can no longer hold us. Though Him all will be raised. This is not a skeleton in God’s closet; this is God’s good response to our skeletons in the ground. Jesus is victorious over the grave.
God does not ask us, “Are you good enough to get into my kingdom?” He asks us instead, “Will you let me heal you?” this is the radical message at the center of the gospel of grace; not our works but his grace, not our behavior but his mercy. He wants to heal us. The question is whether we will let him, whether we will receive his healing.
God is good. Gloriously good. It is God’s goodness that gives rise to reconciliation; as hope for the fragmentation we have inflicted upon his world. And it is his goodness that gives rise to restoration; as hope amid the destruction we have unleashed in his glorious world. Resurrection. Reconciliation. Restoration. He is coming for His world.
Highly recommend to anyone of any religion or culture, wanting to learn more!
Judith D. Collins Must Read Books
June 21, 2018
I would love to wrestle through this book chapter-by-chapter with some Christian friends. There's so much thought-provoking stuff in here!
Section 1 ("How can a loving God send people to Hell?") was AMAZING. Seriously incredible. "Paradigm-shifting" is a descriptor so commonly given to books that I usually gloss over it while rolling my eyes - but this section truly was paradigm-shifting. I found myself saying again and again, "How have I never heard Hell described this way before?" He shows that in Scripture, Hell is not an "underground torture chamber", but a merciful removal of sin's power from our hearts and our world. If you read anything from this book, read this section!
Section 3 ("How can a good God command the genocidal slaughter of Canaanites in the Old Testament?") was excellent as well. For me, this is in my top 2 or 3 most haunting and troubling questions I've had to wrestle with in my Christian life. Everything I'd read up until now seemed like a strained, feeble defense of something we should have no business trying to defend (i.e. genocide). But this book was so helpful! Rather than attempting to defend a brutal caricature, the author shows in a myriad of ways that God's purpose in the Old Testament conquest passages was not the removal and genocide of a peaceful nation of civilians, but a long-overdue judgment on the brutal warlords that had oppressed the weak and marginalized for over 400 years. I still have a ton of questions about this and need to wrestle through it with some friends, but it was definitely the most compassionate, enlightening thing I've ever read on the topic.
Section 2 ("How can a just God only save Christians and judge non-Christians?") was more confusing than helpful, I'd say. Throughout the section, he'd make statements that sound somewhat inclusivist/universalist (e.g. "This does not mean that God's grace is not big enough to encompass the Buddhist in the midst of a misdirected pursuit."), but then follow them up with statements that sound a lot more exclusivist/traditional (e.g. "Jesus' reconciliation [of Heaven and Earth] judges, by its very nature, all other worldly visions of salvation and calls those who pursue them to turn and receive the kingdom."). There were definitely interesting ideas in here that I'll be thinking about for a while, but again I'd say it was more confusing than helpful.
Overall, I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone who has wrestled with those three questions. It was very readable and engaging, full of stories and anecdotes from history, literature, and the modern world. You can tell the author is passionate about justice and truth and believes the words he is writing, which makes all the difference for me when reading a book about Christianity.
Section 1 ("How can a loving God send people to Hell?") was AMAZING. Seriously incredible. "Paradigm-shifting" is a descriptor so commonly given to books that I usually gloss over it while rolling my eyes - but this section truly was paradigm-shifting. I found myself saying again and again, "How have I never heard Hell described this way before?" He shows that in Scripture, Hell is not an "underground torture chamber", but a merciful removal of sin's power from our hearts and our world. If you read anything from this book, read this section!
Section 3 ("How can a good God command the genocidal slaughter of Canaanites in the Old Testament?") was excellent as well. For me, this is in my top 2 or 3 most haunting and troubling questions I've had to wrestle with in my Christian life. Everything I'd read up until now seemed like a strained, feeble defense of something we should have no business trying to defend (i.e. genocide). But this book was so helpful! Rather than attempting to defend a brutal caricature, the author shows in a myriad of ways that God's purpose in the Old Testament conquest passages was not the removal and genocide of a peaceful nation of civilians, but a long-overdue judgment on the brutal warlords that had oppressed the weak and marginalized for over 400 years. I still have a ton of questions about this and need to wrestle through it with some friends, but it was definitely the most compassionate, enlightening thing I've ever read on the topic.
Section 2 ("How can a just God only save Christians and judge non-Christians?") was more confusing than helpful, I'd say. Throughout the section, he'd make statements that sound somewhat inclusivist/universalist (e.g. "This does not mean that God's grace is not big enough to encompass the Buddhist in the midst of a misdirected pursuit."), but then follow them up with statements that sound a lot more exclusivist/traditional (e.g. "Jesus' reconciliation [of Heaven and Earth] judges, by its very nature, all other worldly visions of salvation and calls those who pursue them to turn and receive the kingdom."). There were definitely interesting ideas in here that I'll be thinking about for a while, but again I'd say it was more confusing than helpful.
Overall, I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone who has wrestled with those three questions. It was very readable and engaging, full of stories and anecdotes from history, literature, and the modern world. You can tell the author is passionate about justice and truth and believes the words he is writing, which makes all the difference for me when reading a book about Christianity.
May 18, 2021
Exceptional.
To cover intricate and difficult topics, like hell and holy war, with finesse is no easy task, but Butler manages it well. Highly accessible and engaging, this book had some great insights and helps Christians parse out the differences between a biblical view of hell and the Western cultural caricatures.
To cover intricate and difficult topics, like hell and holy war, with finesse is no easy task, but Butler manages it well. Highly accessible and engaging, this book had some great insights and helps Christians parse out the differences between a biblical view of hell and the Western cultural caricatures.
August 8, 2023
A re-read for the cousin book club. Hopefully it will facilitate good conversations.
March 16, 2022
I think this author is brilliant, and handled really tough topics gracefully and Biblically. In the middle of the book there were a couple chapters that had some concepts I have hesitations to, but overall I thought it was incredible. I would definitely read more from Joshua.
December 22, 2021
With moments of brilliance and moments of cringe-inducing theology, The Skeletons in God’s Closet is both good and bad. Even with the bad theology, if it were shorter I would recommend reading it, but with the repetition and bad theology, it’s tough to recommend.
Let’s start with the good: a different perspective on tough concepts in the Bible. It’s not easy to tackle challenging topics like hell, judgment, and the wiping out of the Canaanites, and it’s certainly not easy to do these topics justice at a popular level. I’ve read academic treatments of these topics and know that there are solid responses to these ‘problems’ if one is willing to read and engage serious research. My forays into these topics have left me even more confident in the validity of the Bible and the depths of God’s love. But at a popular level, it’s not easy to address these challenging topics in a convincing way that doesn’t just sugarcoat or whitewash some legitimate concerns that people have about hell, judgment, and apparent genocide in Scripture.
Given that, I applaud Mr. Butler for tackling these challenging topics and offering sensible solutions that hold water. Very well done on that, Mr. Butler!
Mr. Butler takes his time making his points, so you have to bear with him as he offers flowery speech and reminds people how experienced he is in this world; how many people groups and cultures he is intimately familiar with. Skim if you want to, but he has nuggets of gold in this book.
About halfway through the book I became alarmed at some really bad theology. It’s buried in the part about ‘Do people go to hell if they’ve never heard of Jesus?’, which is a really good question and a tough one to answer quickly. I can’t recall that he ever really does answer it, which is odd considering that the Psalmist and Paul both address God’s general revelation through nature. It seems that is a good starting point for answering a question about people going to heaven apart from knowing about Jesus, but instead, Mr. Butler goes off on a rant about how people from other religions are probably closer to God, closer to getting into heaven than most Christians are…if they only forsake a key doctrine of their religion. Essentially, and I may have missed something on account of the flowery speech and rabbit trails, Mr. Butler seems to say that poor adherents of other religions will be streaming into heaven, probably ahead of Christians, who he consistently portrays as hypocritical and pharisaical.
Further, Mr. Butler seems to imply that people who have rejected God but who have been abused and neglected probably will enter into heaven and will be surprised to find that they really haven’t rejected God — they’ve just rejected said hypocritical Christians and thought they rejected God. He may be right, but it sounds like a load of wishful thinking and conjecture rather than anything biblical.
In addition to some sketchy theology, there is an eagerness to attack Christianity that is unsettling. Yes, he does so intentionally to get Christians to examine their own faith (a good thing), but he stretches pretty far in places so as to seem to be pandering to non-Christians who might be reading the book. And though he is a pastor, he seems to be pretty down on the church. Again, I get his point, but it seems like his disgruntledness against the church goes more in the vein of ‘let’s get rid of the church’ rather than ‘let’s reform the church’.
For better or for worse, The Skeletons in God’s Closet is a thought-provoking book that contains many good ideas. I found it helpful in rethinking hell and judgment, and it certainly achieves its purpose in examining some tough issues in Christian theology. Read this to be challenged, but please don’t read it as a book on theology per se.
Let’s start with the good: a different perspective on tough concepts in the Bible. It’s not easy to tackle challenging topics like hell, judgment, and the wiping out of the Canaanites, and it’s certainly not easy to do these topics justice at a popular level. I’ve read academic treatments of these topics and know that there are solid responses to these ‘problems’ if one is willing to read and engage serious research. My forays into these topics have left me even more confident in the validity of the Bible and the depths of God’s love. But at a popular level, it’s not easy to address these challenging topics in a convincing way that doesn’t just sugarcoat or whitewash some legitimate concerns that people have about hell, judgment, and apparent genocide in Scripture.
Given that, I applaud Mr. Butler for tackling these challenging topics and offering sensible solutions that hold water. Very well done on that, Mr. Butler!
Mr. Butler takes his time making his points, so you have to bear with him as he offers flowery speech and reminds people how experienced he is in this world; how many people groups and cultures he is intimately familiar with. Skim if you want to, but he has nuggets of gold in this book.
About halfway through the book I became alarmed at some really bad theology. It’s buried in the part about ‘Do people go to hell if they’ve never heard of Jesus?’, which is a really good question and a tough one to answer quickly. I can’t recall that he ever really does answer it, which is odd considering that the Psalmist and Paul both address God’s general revelation through nature. It seems that is a good starting point for answering a question about people going to heaven apart from knowing about Jesus, but instead, Mr. Butler goes off on a rant about how people from other religions are probably closer to God, closer to getting into heaven than most Christians are…if they only forsake a key doctrine of their religion. Essentially, and I may have missed something on account of the flowery speech and rabbit trails, Mr. Butler seems to say that poor adherents of other religions will be streaming into heaven, probably ahead of Christians, who he consistently portrays as hypocritical and pharisaical.
Further, Mr. Butler seems to imply that people who have rejected God but who have been abused and neglected probably will enter into heaven and will be surprised to find that they really haven’t rejected God — they’ve just rejected said hypocritical Christians and thought they rejected God. He may be right, but it sounds like a load of wishful thinking and conjecture rather than anything biblical.
In addition to some sketchy theology, there is an eagerness to attack Christianity that is unsettling. Yes, he does so intentionally to get Christians to examine their own faith (a good thing), but he stretches pretty far in places so as to seem to be pandering to non-Christians who might be reading the book. And though he is a pastor, he seems to be pretty down on the church. Again, I get his point, but it seems like his disgruntledness against the church goes more in the vein of ‘let’s get rid of the church’ rather than ‘let’s reform the church’.
For better or for worse, The Skeletons in God’s Closet is a thought-provoking book that contains many good ideas. I found it helpful in rethinking hell and judgment, and it certainly achieves its purpose in examining some tough issues in Christian theology. Read this to be challenged, but please don’t read it as a book on theology per se.
July 26, 2021
This is a thoughtful look at Christian beliefs that are particularly difficult for our current culture to accept. For example, Butler reevaluates what he describes as a traditional "caricature" of hell, i.e. a fiery place where God tortures people. Instead it is something outside of the presence of God for people who do not want to be with Him -- the punishment is simply leaving people to their own desires and devices. There is a lot that resonates here, and it's reminiscent of C.S. Lewis's writings.
How far, though, does Butler diverge from traditional views? It's hard to say. He dances around issues rather than taking a clear position. He seems to deemphasize the idea that God will ultimately judge each person individually and punish those who reject Him. This idea is, of course, a core Christian belief and the reason that we need God's grace in the first place. The Bible can't be fit into a trendy political correctness, and we lose a lot of its power when we attempt to do so. But again, it's not entirely clear what is Butler's perspective, and the book can be read as an exploration of Christian ideas, rather than a rejection of them.
How far, though, does Butler diverge from traditional views? It's hard to say. He dances around issues rather than taking a clear position. He seems to deemphasize the idea that God will ultimately judge each person individually and punish those who reject Him. This idea is, of course, a core Christian belief and the reason that we need God's grace in the first place. The Bible can't be fit into a trendy political correctness, and we lose a lot of its power when we attempt to do so. But again, it's not entirely clear what is Butler's perspective, and the book can be read as an exploration of Christian ideas, rather than a rejection of them.
September 7, 2015
This books has given me a paradigm shift in my faith. Provided entirely satisfying answers to a lot of problems I had with what I thought was Christianity. Turns out my problems were with what modern Christianity has morphed into in the last 100 years AND which has very little to do with the Bible or any of Jesus's teachings. So happy someone like Joshua Ryan Butler came along seeking answers in the bible to some big questions (like what the bible actually says about Hell and judgement) and came up with some affirming truths.
February 10, 2021
Wow just wow. You want your mind to be blown? Read this book. Butler shows that so many characterizations we have of hell, judgment and God as a vindictive killer are completely misguided. The characterizations are literally flipped upside down when you recognize the emphasis of Scripture. This book is so humbling to read- come in with questions for God that feel substantial and leave deeply humbled at Gods patience, mercy, and posture of welcoming love for people. More in love with God after this read!
March 22, 2022
I appreciate the compassion coming from this book. There was a lot of good parts. I especially enjoyed the explanation of the holy war. It wasn’t as in depth as Paul Copan’s book “Is God a Moral Monster?” but it’s definitely more of an easy read.
I don’t know as he ever actually answered the question as to who he believes will be in hell…. That part didn’t seem to be too clear.
I didn’t agree with everything, but overall, a thoughtful, compassionate outlook.
I don’t know as he ever actually answered the question as to who he believes will be in hell…. That part didn’t seem to be too clear.
I didn’t agree with everything, but overall, a thoughtful, compassionate outlook.
April 6, 2020
A book that attempts to answer many of the questions that tend to keep people away from Christ. From why is God such a cruel Old Testament God of holy wars, to why does God torture people in hell. The book attempts to answer these questions. In the end, I was left with a feeling of how much I still have to learn about God’s goodness, judgment, and new creation.
November 9, 2022
I really appreciated about half of these ideas. I do respect that he used passages from the Bible to support his views. He always went back to the bible and shared unique interpretations, but some of his intellect was dizzying and repetitive.
April 1, 2017
Such an incredible read!!! Highly highly recommended!!!
May 30, 2020
I listened and then read this book. I grew up in a church where you didnt really discuss things like hell (just a place sinner go to) so this was very insight and I learned a great deal from this book. He really breaks things down and makes them easy to understand.
February 1, 2021
I’m not exactly sure what to rate this. I feel like I need to reread the section on hell to wrap my mind around it. I thought the section on holy war and the Israelites and Canaan was amazing, though! All in all, I felt like I learned a lot and had my paradigm expanded.
October 14, 2014
What aspects of Christianity make it hard for you to really, fully follow Jesus? Maybe it’s how the Church treats LGBT people. Or a congregation’s attitude toward women in ministry. Maybe it’s Bible’s complicated, complex history of transmission, and the way texts are handled by some denominations.
Or maybe there are some foundational doctrines that just give you the willies. Doctrines that, if you look too closely at them, it’ll actually turn out that God isn’t very good at all, that God is a spiteful, tribal war god who only loves those that love him and punishes everyone else for eternity.
Josh Butler calls these doctrines the “Skeletons in God’s Closet”, and in his new book, he’s dragging them out into the light of day.
For this book, Josh focuses on three particular doctrines many Christians find troubling: Hell, the Last Judgment and Holy War. Are there more? Most certainly. Is three enough for one book? Unquestionably.
In The Skeletons in God’s Closet, Josh carefully works through each of these issues. He claims that each issue is a “skeleton” because it’s become caricatured in the larger cultural discussion. So, for instance, Hell is a counterpart of Heaven, one of two possible eternal destinations that awaits us after death – one reserved for those who weren’t good enough.
With each issue, Josh works carefully through Scripture, Church tradition, reason and his own experiences to reframe the conversation. He offers profound insights from across the Christian tradition, and establishes a more orthodox understanding of these issues.
As Josh claims in the introduction:
"God is good… In the chapters that follow, I will seek to demonstrate that God’s goodness is continuous with, not contradictory to, these tough topics of hell, judgment and holy war. Indeed, that it is precisely because of God’s goodness, not in spite of it, that these topics arise."
How well does Josh reframe these skeletons? Do they become avatars of hope?
To a large extent, Josh succeeds. His treatments of these issue elevates the discussion to a serious-but-accessible level Evangelicals need. I don’t know very many people who take their faith seriously who don’t honestly struggle with these very issue. Josh’s words will be a welcome guide (especially if you use the free discussion guide he offers to do this as a group study!).
You probably won’t agree with everything Josh offers. In particular, I wasn’t wholly convinced by his discussion of the Canaanite genocides (though his treatment is excellent, and immeasurably better than what comes from some pastors). Either way, The Skeletons in God’s Closet will help you to think more clearly about some very difficult topics. That alone is worth your time.
It’s also worth mentioning that The Skeletons in God’s Closet is not exactly an apologetics book. Josh doesn’t write to non-Christians to defend the faith. This book is written to Christians. Josh doesn’t defend the authority of Scripture; he assumes you’re already in the same neighborhood as he is.
That’s not to say those who don’t share Josh’s (and my) Evangelical outlook won’t find the book profitable. This is some of the clearest, most accessible writing I’m aware of that directly and purposefully deals with these challenging doctrines. Even if you’re not an Evangelical but you’d like to hear an excellent representation of Orthodox Christian engagement that doesn’t shy away from the potential ugliness of these issues, The Skeletons in God’s Closet is a book you need you be reading.
Or maybe there are some foundational doctrines that just give you the willies. Doctrines that, if you look too closely at them, it’ll actually turn out that God isn’t very good at all, that God is a spiteful, tribal war god who only loves those that love him and punishes everyone else for eternity.
Josh Butler calls these doctrines the “Skeletons in God’s Closet”, and in his new book, he’s dragging them out into the light of day.
For this book, Josh focuses on three particular doctrines many Christians find troubling: Hell, the Last Judgment and Holy War. Are there more? Most certainly. Is three enough for one book? Unquestionably.
In The Skeletons in God’s Closet, Josh carefully works through each of these issues. He claims that each issue is a “skeleton” because it’s become caricatured in the larger cultural discussion. So, for instance, Hell is a counterpart of Heaven, one of two possible eternal destinations that awaits us after death – one reserved for those who weren’t good enough.
With each issue, Josh works carefully through Scripture, Church tradition, reason and his own experiences to reframe the conversation. He offers profound insights from across the Christian tradition, and establishes a more orthodox understanding of these issues.
As Josh claims in the introduction:
"God is good… In the chapters that follow, I will seek to demonstrate that God’s goodness is continuous with, not contradictory to, these tough topics of hell, judgment and holy war. Indeed, that it is precisely because of God’s goodness, not in spite of it, that these topics arise."
How well does Josh reframe these skeletons? Do they become avatars of hope?
To a large extent, Josh succeeds. His treatments of these issue elevates the discussion to a serious-but-accessible level Evangelicals need. I don’t know very many people who take their faith seriously who don’t honestly struggle with these very issue. Josh’s words will be a welcome guide (especially if you use the free discussion guide he offers to do this as a group study!).
You probably won’t agree with everything Josh offers. In particular, I wasn’t wholly convinced by his discussion of the Canaanite genocides (though his treatment is excellent, and immeasurably better than what comes from some pastors). Either way, The Skeletons in God’s Closet will help you to think more clearly about some very difficult topics. That alone is worth your time.
It’s also worth mentioning that The Skeletons in God’s Closet is not exactly an apologetics book. Josh doesn’t write to non-Christians to defend the faith. This book is written to Christians. Josh doesn’t defend the authority of Scripture; he assumes you’re already in the same neighborhood as he is.
That’s not to say those who don’t share Josh’s (and my) Evangelical outlook won’t find the book profitable. This is some of the clearest, most accessible writing I’m aware of that directly and purposefully deals with these challenging doctrines. Even if you’re not an Evangelical but you’d like to hear an excellent representation of Orthodox Christian engagement that doesn’t shy away from the potential ugliness of these issues, The Skeletons in God’s Closet is a book you need you be reading.
April 25, 2023
I delved into this book primarily to gain a deeper understanding of Butler's perspective on the concept of hell, which has always been a challenging topic for me to comprehend. Nonetheless, this book serves as a valuable introduction to a more rational and empathetic interpretation of why God would permit such a place to exist.
My takeaway from this book is that hell is essentially a location where evil is isolated from the rest of society, allowing individuals to live in peace and safety. The inhabitants of hell are not necessarily subjected to torture, contrary to the comical caricatures and misconceptions perpetuated by images of a red, horned figure with a long tail and trident. Instead, the notion of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is more closely associated with those who harbor resentment towards God, rejecting His divine nature, His ways, and anything associated with Him. They choose to embrace evil and dwell in that state.
A thought that occurred to me while reading this book is that the concept of hell is not as difficult to grasp when compared to the function of our prison system, which similarly isolates certain individuals, sometimes sentencing them to life in prison without parole for the safety and well-being of others.
It is logical, then, that when God unites Earth and Heaven, some individuals, as Butler articulates in a manner akin to C.S. Lewis, simply do not desire God. Consequently, a designated place exists for them.
...
Here is a list of the book's key ideas on hell...
"WHAT IS THE BIGGER STORY HELL FITS INTO? God’s mission is not to get us out of earth and into heaven or hell, but rather to reconcile heaven and earth from the destructive power of sin, death, and hell. This gives rise to a radically different understanding of hell from the caricature.
WHERE DOES THE POWER OF HELL COME FROM? We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world.
WHERE IS THE POWER OF HELL GOING?
Jesus will liberate his capital and establish his kingdom in the earth. When he does, the power of hell will be cast “outside the city,” away from the seat of power, influence, and authority, where it can no longer hurt or destroy.
WHY DOES HELL EXIST? God’s purpose is not torture, but protection: God contains the destructive power of sin to protect the flourishing of his new creation.
DOES JESUS’ PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN DEPICT THE “UNDERGROUND TORTURE CHAMBER”? No, it depicts God’s coming Great Reversal for the world and confronts the destructive power of our sin.
HOW DOES HELL WORK? Hell is not a chamber God locks from the outside against our repentant will, but a closet we latch from the inside through our unrepentant will, in our desire for freedom from God, freedom from others, and freedom from the self—the nature of sin.
My takeaway from this book is that hell is essentially a location where evil is isolated from the rest of society, allowing individuals to live in peace and safety. The inhabitants of hell are not necessarily subjected to torture, contrary to the comical caricatures and misconceptions perpetuated by images of a red, horned figure with a long tail and trident. Instead, the notion of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is more closely associated with those who harbor resentment towards God, rejecting His divine nature, His ways, and anything associated with Him. They choose to embrace evil and dwell in that state.
A thought that occurred to me while reading this book is that the concept of hell is not as difficult to grasp when compared to the function of our prison system, which similarly isolates certain individuals, sometimes sentencing them to life in prison without parole for the safety and well-being of others.
It is logical, then, that when God unites Earth and Heaven, some individuals, as Butler articulates in a manner akin to C.S. Lewis, simply do not desire God. Consequently, a designated place exists for them.
...
Here is a list of the book's key ideas on hell...
"WHAT IS THE BIGGER STORY HELL FITS INTO? God’s mission is not to get us out of earth and into heaven or hell, but rather to reconcile heaven and earth from the destructive power of sin, death, and hell. This gives rise to a radically different understanding of hell from the caricature.
WHERE DOES THE POWER OF HELL COME FROM? We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world.
WHERE IS THE POWER OF HELL GOING?
Jesus will liberate his capital and establish his kingdom in the earth. When he does, the power of hell will be cast “outside the city,” away from the seat of power, influence, and authority, where it can no longer hurt or destroy.
WHY DOES HELL EXIST? God’s purpose is not torture, but protection: God contains the destructive power of sin to protect the flourishing of his new creation.
DOES JESUS’ PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN DEPICT THE “UNDERGROUND TORTURE CHAMBER”? No, it depicts God’s coming Great Reversal for the world and confronts the destructive power of our sin.
HOW DOES HELL WORK? Hell is not a chamber God locks from the outside against our repentant will, but a closet we latch from the inside through our unrepentant will, in our desire for freedom from God, freedom from others, and freedom from the self—the nature of sin.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 8, 2020
Simply excellent! Read it. One of the best books I've read this year. It was paradigm shifting and thought provoking. This would be an excellent book for discussion group.
My only critiques are that Butler is repetitive at points, almost to the point of copy + paste, and that at times, I want him to be much more specific than he is in describing key scriptural points/theology.
That being said, what an excellent work on hell, judgment, and violence in the Bible. He is a master of metaphors, and has demolished bad caricatures of God from scripture.
My only critiques are that Butler is repetitive at points, almost to the point of copy + paste, and that at times, I want him to be much more specific than he is in describing key scriptural points/theology.
That being said, what an excellent work on hell, judgment, and violence in the Bible. He is a master of metaphors, and has demolished bad caricatures of God from scripture.
March 27, 2021
3.5 stars.
This book may not have the most satisfying answers for everyone, but it definitely has more satisfying answers the a lot of the nonsense you’ll hear.
Hell, holy war, and divine judgment? How could anyone defend such things from a moral standpoint? It's not easy, but it’s necessary at a certain point.
One option is to throw throw these ideas out in disgust, and maybe the Bible with them eventually. Another is to throw down the "it's in the Bible, I believe it, that settles it" answer. However satisfying that may be for the person saying it, it doesn't convince anyone else (and it's probably not indicative of any sort of deep, considered faith either).
A third option I would like to suggest for those feeling cognitive dissonance: Live in the tension. For the long haul. And then seek out careful answers by people like Butler.
This is a really bang-up job of explaining, with a scholar's care, where the moral compass can potentially point us, regarding things like hell and holy war. No one will be completely satisfied here. Some of his answers hit the nail on the head. Others are not perfect, but can be treated as a general direction to proceed in our thinking. That's the point with tension: sometimes you get a general direction, not a perfect explanation.
All of Butler's answers are filled with pastoral care. One thing he never does is the Biblicist's romantic notion of "you should just believe the Bible without explanation." For that I appreciate him.
This book may not have the most satisfying answers for everyone, but it definitely has more satisfying answers the a lot of the nonsense you’ll hear.
Hell, holy war, and divine judgment? How could anyone defend such things from a moral standpoint? It's not easy, but it’s necessary at a certain point.
One option is to throw throw these ideas out in disgust, and maybe the Bible with them eventually. Another is to throw down the "it's in the Bible, I believe it, that settles it" answer. However satisfying that may be for the person saying it, it doesn't convince anyone else (and it's probably not indicative of any sort of deep, considered faith either).
A third option I would like to suggest for those feeling cognitive dissonance: Live in the tension. For the long haul. And then seek out careful answers by people like Butler.
This is a really bang-up job of explaining, with a scholar's care, where the moral compass can potentially point us, regarding things like hell and holy war. No one will be completely satisfied here. Some of his answers hit the nail on the head. Others are not perfect, but can be treated as a general direction to proceed in our thinking. That's the point with tension: sometimes you get a general direction, not a perfect explanation.
All of Butler's answers are filled with pastoral care. One thing he never does is the Biblicist's romantic notion of "you should just believe the Bible without explanation." For that I appreciate him.
February 27, 2020
Some gems in this book but ultimately misses the mark. Some significant Biblical passages are missed (Rev 20:15 for example) and his idea of Hell is formed by CS Lewis more than the bible in chapter 6.
For all his claiming that the church and people have a caricature of Hell, he then proceeds to caricature one of, if not the most biblically sound view of Hell - annihilation, better understood if you Google conditional Immortality. This is a view held by theological greats like John Stott and potentially early church fathers like Arnobius, Athanasius and Iraeneus. Butler gives only a couple of pages to this view which shows how little he has engaged with the scriptural arguments. If annihilation is 'love me or I'll kill you', Joshua's interpretation is 'love me or you'll be tormented forever'. It is best not to respond with caricatures.
Preston Sprinkle wrote erasing hell with Francis Chan defending a similar view to Butler. Preston went back to the bible and now holds to conditional Immortality. I hope Butler does the same.
I very much like his image of Hell being kicked out of the new creation, unfortunately it still hangs around from butler's perspective. If you want a better understanding of Hell see https://www.thehellproject.online.
For all his claiming that the church and people have a caricature of Hell, he then proceeds to caricature one of, if not the most biblically sound view of Hell - annihilation, better understood if you Google conditional Immortality. This is a view held by theological greats like John Stott and potentially early church fathers like Arnobius, Athanasius and Iraeneus. Butler gives only a couple of pages to this view which shows how little he has engaged with the scriptural arguments. If annihilation is 'love me or I'll kill you', Joshua's interpretation is 'love me or you'll be tormented forever'. It is best not to respond with caricatures.
Preston Sprinkle wrote erasing hell with Francis Chan defending a similar view to Butler. Preston went back to the bible and now holds to conditional Immortality. I hope Butler does the same.
I very much like his image of Hell being kicked out of the new creation, unfortunately it still hangs around from butler's perspective. If you want a better understanding of Hell see https://www.thehellproject.online.
October 12, 2017
Definitely gave me plenty to think about, though there were parts I didn’t agree with...
October 18, 2020
This book has helped me so much. It helped me think through some things I’d had wrestled with and wondered about for years. His way of wording things and painting a picture is powerful and helpful.
Read
June 26, 2021Didn’t answer the questions in a way that I found useful. I think we have a different idea of God. I’m not going to rate it because somebody else might find it useful.
April 29, 2021
Most people don't understand the Bible. It's about an ancient civilization set amongst other ancient civilizations of whom we in the west know nothing about. Moreover, thousands of years of misunderstandings stand between us and the truth of God's word. The end result is that caricatures of vital doctrines have taken the place for many of the doctrine itself. These "severely exaggerated, distorted, and oversimplified" theologies actually prove dangerous to our witness and our own beliefs about the Lord because they are key to our understanding of how salvation works; these key doctrines concern hell, holy war, and judgment day. Beginning with hell, Joshua Butler reconstructs for us the true biblical teaching on these crucial subjects.
In the beginning, the author tells us, God created heaven and earth, not heaven and hell. This is key because it is important to note (according to Butler) that God's original intention for mankind did not include hell. We pretty much already know this from Genesis but something that the author doesn't note is that hell predates Earth. Satan was thrown from heaven and is awaiting final judgement (2 Peter 2:4) before mankind was created. Moving on from that, the author goes on to spin the premise that, "Hell gains entrance into God’s good world through us. We are the agents of destruction, the architects of demolition. God is not the architect of hell, the creator of its soul-destroying power; we are. We unleash its wildfire flame into God’s good world."
He points to the early chapters of Genesis where we go from seeing a (somewhat) repentant Cain admitting to killing his brother to seeing a grandson of Cain boasting about murder to then seeing a world so full of violence that God was forced to start over with just one family. The purpose to that act: God is on a mission to get the hell out of earth. Literally. God's redemptive plan is to remove all that sin has brought into his good creation.
Chapter 1 key thought: God’s mission is not to get us out of earth and into heaven or hell, but rather to reconcile heaven and earth from the destructive power of sin, death, and hell. This gives rise to a radically different understanding of hell from the caricature.
Chapter 2 advises us that. The power of hell is alive and well in our world. Butler points to slave traders, sex traffickers, drug dealers and tells us We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world. I thought this was a good point to emphasize since Humanism tries to paint mankind with white wash of "misunderstanding", cleansing us of the sins of the world. But the violence of the twentieth century - from the trenches filled with poisonous gas of WWI to the concentration camps of WWII to the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge should have cured us of this illusion. We are a dangerous, violent species prone to destroy the only home we have in the pursuit of profit. In the book Caste the author underlines the fact that slavery wasn't the work of a few bad actors but of a large portion of the population finding it acceptable, a fact which reinforces what Butler is saying. I think this underlying idea of the goodness of man is one that will need to be permanently removed if we are ever to see improvement here on earth. Butler tells us In the Gospels, Jesus relates the power of hell to three primary issues: lust, violence, and religious hypocrisy. therefore By locating the vices of hell in the human heart, Jesus has leveled the playing field and identified our need not first and foremost as better behavior, but rather as reconciliation with God. Primary idea for Chapter 2: We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world.
Chapter 3 is all about the descriptions of hell in the Bible and realizing that they refer to blood fields - places where children/people were sacrificed to idols and the ground made unholy by this impurity. This is why they were "outside the city", because people knew better than to pollute their homes with this nastiness. Chapter 3 Key Idea is that when Jesus returns, he will push the hell that is within us, out. Not just out of the physical bodies of believers but that all who continue to carry hell within them (non-believers) will be thrust out of God's holy city (heaven/New Jerusalem etc.).
Chapter 4's key idea is pretty simple: WHY DOES HELL EXIST? God’s purpose is not torture, but protection: God contains the destructive power of sin to protect the flourishing of his new creation.
Chapter 5 deals with the great reversal, in which God's justice turns upside down the haves/have nots. Butler uses the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to illustrate this.
This key doctrine - that God's intent is not to torture sinners in hell but to remove those who refuse to repent so that heaven might contain no evil within it - is what Butler uses to build the rest of his doctrines on holy war and holy judgment. I felt the judgment chapters were a bit weak - they make it seem as though God is powerless and it is mankind that decides their own judgment but he definitely makes a strong argument for the mercy of God.
Easily the best part of the book for me explained the holy wars of ancient Israel. I went to a school where I learned ancient history so I already understood more or less that Israel was a nation of slaves conquering a nation of slavers and human sacrificers, not a group of bullies taking over someone elses's land but for those unaware of that, this would make an excellent read.
Overall I think this is an important book for all Christians to at least look through.
In the beginning, the author tells us, God created heaven and earth, not heaven and hell. This is key because it is important to note (according to Butler) that God's original intention for mankind did not include hell. We pretty much already know this from Genesis but something that the author doesn't note is that hell predates Earth. Satan was thrown from heaven and is awaiting final judgement (2 Peter 2:4) before mankind was created. Moving on from that, the author goes on to spin the premise that, "Hell gains entrance into God’s good world through us. We are the agents of destruction, the architects of demolition. God is not the architect of hell, the creator of its soul-destroying power; we are. We unleash its wildfire flame into God’s good world."
He points to the early chapters of Genesis where we go from seeing a (somewhat) repentant Cain admitting to killing his brother to seeing a grandson of Cain boasting about murder to then seeing a world so full of violence that God was forced to start over with just one family. The purpose to that act: God is on a mission to get the hell out of earth. Literally. God's redemptive plan is to remove all that sin has brought into his good creation.
Chapter 1 key thought: God’s mission is not to get us out of earth and into heaven or hell, but rather to reconcile heaven and earth from the destructive power of sin, death, and hell. This gives rise to a radically different understanding of hell from the caricature.
Chapter 2 advises us that. The power of hell is alive and well in our world. Butler points to slave traders, sex traffickers, drug dealers and tells us We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world. I thought this was a good point to emphasize since Humanism tries to paint mankind with white wash of "misunderstanding", cleansing us of the sins of the world. But the violence of the twentieth century - from the trenches filled with poisonous gas of WWI to the concentration camps of WWII to the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge should have cured us of this illusion. We are a dangerous, violent species prone to destroy the only home we have in the pursuit of profit. In the book Caste the author underlines the fact that slavery wasn't the work of a few bad actors but of a large portion of the population finding it acceptable, a fact which reinforces what Butler is saying. I think this underlying idea of the goodness of man is one that will need to be permanently removed if we are ever to see improvement here on earth. Butler tells us In the Gospels, Jesus relates the power of hell to three primary issues: lust, violence, and religious hypocrisy. therefore By locating the vices of hell in the human heart, Jesus has leveled the playing field and identified our need not first and foremost as better behavior, but rather as reconciliation with God. Primary idea for Chapter 2: We are the ones, not God, who unleash the destructive power of hell in the world.
Chapter 3 is all about the descriptions of hell in the Bible and realizing that they refer to blood fields - places where children/people were sacrificed to idols and the ground made unholy by this impurity. This is why they were "outside the city", because people knew better than to pollute their homes with this nastiness. Chapter 3 Key Idea is that when Jesus returns, he will push the hell that is within us, out. Not just out of the physical bodies of believers but that all who continue to carry hell within them (non-believers) will be thrust out of God's holy city (heaven/New Jerusalem etc.).
Chapter 4's key idea is pretty simple: WHY DOES HELL EXIST? God’s purpose is not torture, but protection: God contains the destructive power of sin to protect the flourishing of his new creation.
Chapter 5 deals with the great reversal, in which God's justice turns upside down the haves/have nots. Butler uses the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to illustrate this.
This key doctrine - that God's intent is not to torture sinners in hell but to remove those who refuse to repent so that heaven might contain no evil within it - is what Butler uses to build the rest of his doctrines on holy war and holy judgment. I felt the judgment chapters were a bit weak - they make it seem as though God is powerless and it is mankind that decides their own judgment but he definitely makes a strong argument for the mercy of God.
Easily the best part of the book for me explained the holy wars of ancient Israel. I went to a school where I learned ancient history so I already understood more or less that Israel was a nation of slaves conquering a nation of slavers and human sacrificers, not a group of bullies taking over someone elses's land but for those unaware of that, this would make an excellent read.
Overall I think this is an important book for all Christians to at least look through.
January 12, 2024
I was originally skeptical of this book. It appeared to be a bit too concerned to smooth out the rough edges and offense from the biblical picture of hell, judgment and holy war. It seemed to assume a bit too confidently that our intuitions and emotional responses to these things are infallible.
But the more I read, the more I really appreciated and benefited from the book. It is fairly expansive in scope, covering a lot of ground, seemingly attempting to leave no stone (question) unturned. And Butler is a gifted writer, especially good at taking difficult and complex topics and presenting them in a very accessible way. While a larger book, it is not a hard-to-read book.
I especially appreciated the argument that heaven and hell are not counterparts. Rather, God’s passion and purpose is to create a place where his people can fully experience his goodness and glory, which requires the casting out the sin and evil that inhibits it.
I was convicted that perhaps the way many of us conceive of and teach about God’s priorities and purpose in this (myself included) might be a bit imbalanced. Or, more accurately, unbiblically balanced. God’s ultimate goal is to create a good and forever world, with the judgment of sin a necessary subplot. Judgment of sin is necessary, right, and good, but new creation is the goal.
I also appreciated his unpacking of the images in Revelation towards the end of the book, and mostly agreed with his presentation. Overall, there are many thoughtful reflections as he guides you through these topics.
While I came around to really appreciating the book, I didn’t agree with everything, and think at times he does go too far attempting to make hard biblical truths palatable to our senses. While I agree that we must work hard to see God as good, and agree that there has been confusion and bad teaching on many of these things, I also think some of our struggle with the Bible’s picture of hell and judgment is due to our faulty intuitions and innate emotional responses. Butler spends most of the time (not all) showing how our understanding of Scripture has been faulty. But surely we also need to assess how we ourselves are faulty, in ways that we don’t fully realize. He does some of this, but not as much as I think is warranted. In other words, it is not only our understanding of the Bible that needs adjusted, but our minds, heart, emotions and intuitions as well.
One other slight pushback: his typical way of presenting these issues is to start with an extreme caricature (of hell, judgment, holy war), and then show how the Bible’s teaching is drastically different. While the approach has some benefits, and he recognizes these are caricatures, the black and white presentation can ignore some of the nuance that the Bible actually portrays.
For example, he presents hell as either an underground torture chamber (the caricature) or God’s protection of his people from all evil (the biblical view). While the caricature is clearly not-biblical, the biblical picture is not as simple as he presents.
This connects with the idea that hell is only a choice, and that those there will to be there, rather than submit to God, summed up by C.S. Lewis: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."
Much of Bultler’s argument depends on the assumption that this is true. And he even goes so far as to say that hell is an act of God’s mercy, as it “limits the extent of sin’s growth as an act of God’s mercy toward those ‘who will let him do nothing better for them.’” 61
Again, I’m not convinced the biblical picture is so simple.
But these are valuable discussions to be having, and the book forced me to think about them in some helpful ways.
But the more I read, the more I really appreciated and benefited from the book. It is fairly expansive in scope, covering a lot of ground, seemingly attempting to leave no stone (question) unturned. And Butler is a gifted writer, especially good at taking difficult and complex topics and presenting them in a very accessible way. While a larger book, it is not a hard-to-read book.
I especially appreciated the argument that heaven and hell are not counterparts. Rather, God’s passion and purpose is to create a place where his people can fully experience his goodness and glory, which requires the casting out the sin and evil that inhibits it.
I was convicted that perhaps the way many of us conceive of and teach about God’s priorities and purpose in this (myself included) might be a bit imbalanced. Or, more accurately, unbiblically balanced. God’s ultimate goal is to create a good and forever world, with the judgment of sin a necessary subplot. Judgment of sin is necessary, right, and good, but new creation is the goal.
I also appreciated his unpacking of the images in Revelation towards the end of the book, and mostly agreed with his presentation. Overall, there are many thoughtful reflections as he guides you through these topics.
While I came around to really appreciating the book, I didn’t agree with everything, and think at times he does go too far attempting to make hard biblical truths palatable to our senses. While I agree that we must work hard to see God as good, and agree that there has been confusion and bad teaching on many of these things, I also think some of our struggle with the Bible’s picture of hell and judgment is due to our faulty intuitions and innate emotional responses. Butler spends most of the time (not all) showing how our understanding of Scripture has been faulty. But surely we also need to assess how we ourselves are faulty, in ways that we don’t fully realize. He does some of this, but not as much as I think is warranted. In other words, it is not only our understanding of the Bible that needs adjusted, but our minds, heart, emotions and intuitions as well.
One other slight pushback: his typical way of presenting these issues is to start with an extreme caricature (of hell, judgment, holy war), and then show how the Bible’s teaching is drastically different. While the approach has some benefits, and he recognizes these are caricatures, the black and white presentation can ignore some of the nuance that the Bible actually portrays.
For example, he presents hell as either an underground torture chamber (the caricature) or God’s protection of his people from all evil (the biblical view). While the caricature is clearly not-biblical, the biblical picture is not as simple as he presents.
This connects with the idea that hell is only a choice, and that those there will to be there, rather than submit to God, summed up by C.S. Lewis: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."
Much of Bultler’s argument depends on the assumption that this is true. And he even goes so far as to say that hell is an act of God’s mercy, as it “limits the extent of sin’s growth as an act of God’s mercy toward those ‘who will let him do nothing better for them.’” 61
Again, I’m not convinced the biblical picture is so simple.
But these are valuable discussions to be having, and the book forced me to think about them in some helpful ways.
March 8, 2025
I really liked this book's honesty. The author straight-up says "If I didn't think God was good, I wouldn't want to follow him - some passages and ideas we have about God today, however, directly contradict the idea of God being good, like, holy war, judgement and hell. So here is why our perception of these things is kind of backwards, and here is why I don't think we understand these ideas correctly", in the book, Butler takes a look at what modern people imagine, when they think about hell, judgement and holy war, and he shows that often, what people associate with these concepts has nothing to do with what the bible actually talks about. E.g. he dismisses the idea that hell is a place where people are being tortured for eternity, or that people actually "go to heaven", when they die, and instead looks into how a lot of these passages are actually supposed to be understood.
There were some passages that I think were missing from this book, which probably *also* trouble people, but I understand that he couldn't cover the whole bible. But one part where I was a bit confused, was where he tried to in detail explain, that in Jericho, there probably weren't any civilian deaths, as this was a military fortress, when there are other passages in the bible where there VERY much are civilian deaths.
I don't even want to say that there isn't a way to read these passages as well, that makes them more understandable, because Butler seems like a really cool guy, and I kind of trust, that he didn't just skip over some parts because they didn't fit his narrative, but it certainly doesn't address ALL of the "Skeletons in God's closet", that a modern audience might see in the bible. I would be very interested in a follow-up book to this which discusses other topics, that a modern audience may find problematic.
But overall, this book is really well-done, and even if you don't come out of it convinced that everything he says is correct, it still offers an interesting different perspective on the topics.
There were some passages that I think were missing from this book, which probably *also* trouble people, but I understand that he couldn't cover the whole bible. But one part where I was a bit confused, was where he tried to in detail explain, that in Jericho, there probably weren't any civilian deaths, as this was a military fortress, when there are other passages in the bible where there VERY much are civilian deaths.
I don't even want to say that there isn't a way to read these passages as well, that makes them more understandable, because Butler seems like a really cool guy, and I kind of trust, that he didn't just skip over some parts because they didn't fit his narrative, but it certainly doesn't address ALL of the "Skeletons in God's closet", that a modern audience might see in the bible. I would be very interested in a follow-up book to this which discusses other topics, that a modern audience may find problematic.
But overall, this book is really well-done, and even if you don't come out of it convinced that everything he says is correct, it still offers an interesting different perspective on the topics.
November 30, 2014
Will God torment people in hell forever and ever just because they had the wrong religion? Should we celebrate a God who ordered the Israelites to slaughter every Canaanite—-man, woman, and child? These are important questions for a lot of people. As Rick McKinley says in the book’s Foreword, many think that “God’s hiding skeletons in his closet, showing us a smiling face of love but holding a whip behind his back in case we don’t do as we’re told” (page xv).
Christian pastor Joshua Ryan Butler tackles these questions in The Skeletons in God’s Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War. Regarding hell, Butler’s belief is similar to what I have read a number of Christians say: that people who will be in hell will be there by their own choice, since they will refuse to repent and obey the rules of God’s kingdom, and God cannot allow them to come into the holy city and morally pollute it. As C.S. Lewis said, the door of hell is locked from the inside.
What sets Butler’s book apart, and what ultimately makes it worth the read, is that Butler actually supports this view with Scripture. Butler looks at the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16), and what he sees is that the rich man in Hades still wants Lazarus in a subordinate position and clings to his sinful attitude after losing everything. Yet, Butler notes, Abraham still loves the rich man enough to call him “son.” In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), Butler observes that the Father pleads to the resentful older son to come to the party celebrating the prodigal younger son’s return, yet the older son refuses. The older son’s attitude locks him in a miserable hell.
Butler also answers questions about hell. What is the worm that does not die? What are the darkness, God’s wrath, and the weeping and gnashing of teeth? Butler points out examples in which some of these concepts describe a spiritual state. For Butler, hell will be God allowing people who reject him to keep on in their independence, resulting in their spiritual darkness and misery. Butler does not believe that God will torture people in an underground chamber.
Butler’s Scriptural case regarding hell was the best part of his book. Also to be commended are his thoughtful engagement with theologians and scholarship, his uncanny ability to guess what questions people might ask in response to what he is saying, his bold insights about social justice and the evils of corporate greed, and his honest and reasonable thoughts about just war and pacifism, even as he draws from thinkers whose views he does not entirely accept.
In some cases, I was not convinced by Butler’s argument. This was particularly the case with his discussion of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I respected his engagement with scholarship, but I was not convinced by his view (held by scholar Richard Hess) that the Canaanite cities the Israelites conquered lacked civilians and were military centers. Moreover, Butler depicted the Conquest as a group of underdogs who had left oppression in Egypt and were challenging powerful oppressors in Canaan, after God had patiently endured the sins of these Amorites. While there may be something to this, I do not think that it exhausts the meaning of the Conquest. Deuteronomy 20 shows that the Hebrew word ir referred to cities that had women and children, and that one reason for the Conquest was so that the Israelites would not learn the religion of the Canaanites. In my opinion, there is a tradition within the Hebrew Bible that God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites so that the Canaanites would not be around to tempt the Israelites with Canaanite religion. There were other traditions in the Hebrew Bible as well, however—-that God himself would fight the Canaanites, or that Canaanites were still around to tempt the Israelites.
There were other qualms I had about the book, as well. First, notwithstanding Butler’s insightful Scriptural case for his view on hell, he seemed to leave certain passages untouched. He argued that the Lake of Fire in Revelation was about God overthrowing the Babylonian system, not hell, and yet Revelation 20:15 states that those not found in the Book of Life at the judgment were cast into the Lake of Fire. Butler seems to contend that God will not turn away people who are pleading to enter the holy city, and yet Luke 13:25-27 appears to depict a scenario of people asking the master to open the door, yet the master refuses. (Perhaps Butler could respond that the master knew these people were not spiritually ready to enter.)
Second, there were times when Butler seemed to contradict himself. He said that God was fighting for the Israelites, yet acknowledged that the Israelites were fighting. He noted that the biblical historians depicted the Israelites as underdogs, and yet Butler said that they were bragging about the Conquest with hyperbole. Butler said that the Canaanite cities were military centers, yet at one point seemed to suggest that any civilians in those cities fled before the Israelites came. On the subject of hell, there were some loose ends. Butler disagreed with universalism and annihilationism, yet it was not always easy to tell if he repudiated such concepts entirely. His arguments about the worm that does not die and the fire that goes up forever were similar to things that annihilationists have said, and Butler even talked about the destructive nature of sin. Moreover, Butler did not seem to think that Christ’s second coming closes the door to opportunities for people to be saved. After Christ returns, he said, many from the nations will come to the holy city.
Third, I did not always feel hopeful in reading the book. Butler acknowledged his own flaws, yet he also said that one can tell a true Christian by his or her love. I somewhat felt as if I need to be perfect to enter God’s kingdom. But what if I am sinful, and I do not know the way out of my sins? I wish that Butler had spent more time on this topic. I would be unfair to say that he does not address it, however, for he does talk a lot about the mercy and grace of Christ and the transformation in one’s attitude that can come when one embraces the Gospel and looks to Christ. But the book also had a bit of a “shape up or ship out” tone (not that he uses those words).
Note: I received a complimentary review copy of this book through the BookLook Bloggers (http://booklookbloggers.com/) book review bloggers program. The program does not require for my review to be positive, and my review reflects my honest reaction to the book.
Christian pastor Joshua Ryan Butler tackles these questions in The Skeletons in God’s Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War. Regarding hell, Butler’s belief is similar to what I have read a number of Christians say: that people who will be in hell will be there by their own choice, since they will refuse to repent and obey the rules of God’s kingdom, and God cannot allow them to come into the holy city and morally pollute it. As C.S. Lewis said, the door of hell is locked from the inside.
What sets Butler’s book apart, and what ultimately makes it worth the read, is that Butler actually supports this view with Scripture. Butler looks at the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16), and what he sees is that the rich man in Hades still wants Lazarus in a subordinate position and clings to his sinful attitude after losing everything. Yet, Butler notes, Abraham still loves the rich man enough to call him “son.” In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), Butler observes that the Father pleads to the resentful older son to come to the party celebrating the prodigal younger son’s return, yet the older son refuses. The older son’s attitude locks him in a miserable hell.
Butler also answers questions about hell. What is the worm that does not die? What are the darkness, God’s wrath, and the weeping and gnashing of teeth? Butler points out examples in which some of these concepts describe a spiritual state. For Butler, hell will be God allowing people who reject him to keep on in their independence, resulting in their spiritual darkness and misery. Butler does not believe that God will torture people in an underground chamber.
Butler’s Scriptural case regarding hell was the best part of his book. Also to be commended are his thoughtful engagement with theologians and scholarship, his uncanny ability to guess what questions people might ask in response to what he is saying, his bold insights about social justice and the evils of corporate greed, and his honest and reasonable thoughts about just war and pacifism, even as he draws from thinkers whose views he does not entirely accept.
In some cases, I was not convinced by Butler’s argument. This was particularly the case with his discussion of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I respected his engagement with scholarship, but I was not convinced by his view (held by scholar Richard Hess) that the Canaanite cities the Israelites conquered lacked civilians and were military centers. Moreover, Butler depicted the Conquest as a group of underdogs who had left oppression in Egypt and were challenging powerful oppressors in Canaan, after God had patiently endured the sins of these Amorites. While there may be something to this, I do not think that it exhausts the meaning of the Conquest. Deuteronomy 20 shows that the Hebrew word ir referred to cities that had women and children, and that one reason for the Conquest was so that the Israelites would not learn the religion of the Canaanites. In my opinion, there is a tradition within the Hebrew Bible that God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites so that the Canaanites would not be around to tempt the Israelites with Canaanite religion. There were other traditions in the Hebrew Bible as well, however—-that God himself would fight the Canaanites, or that Canaanites were still around to tempt the Israelites.
There were other qualms I had about the book, as well. First, notwithstanding Butler’s insightful Scriptural case for his view on hell, he seemed to leave certain passages untouched. He argued that the Lake of Fire in Revelation was about God overthrowing the Babylonian system, not hell, and yet Revelation 20:15 states that those not found in the Book of Life at the judgment were cast into the Lake of Fire. Butler seems to contend that God will not turn away people who are pleading to enter the holy city, and yet Luke 13:25-27 appears to depict a scenario of people asking the master to open the door, yet the master refuses. (Perhaps Butler could respond that the master knew these people were not spiritually ready to enter.)
Second, there were times when Butler seemed to contradict himself. He said that God was fighting for the Israelites, yet acknowledged that the Israelites were fighting. He noted that the biblical historians depicted the Israelites as underdogs, and yet Butler said that they were bragging about the Conquest with hyperbole. Butler said that the Canaanite cities were military centers, yet at one point seemed to suggest that any civilians in those cities fled before the Israelites came. On the subject of hell, there were some loose ends. Butler disagreed with universalism and annihilationism, yet it was not always easy to tell if he repudiated such concepts entirely. His arguments about the worm that does not die and the fire that goes up forever were similar to things that annihilationists have said, and Butler even talked about the destructive nature of sin. Moreover, Butler did not seem to think that Christ’s second coming closes the door to opportunities for people to be saved. After Christ returns, he said, many from the nations will come to the holy city.
Third, I did not always feel hopeful in reading the book. Butler acknowledged his own flaws, yet he also said that one can tell a true Christian by his or her love. I somewhat felt as if I need to be perfect to enter God’s kingdom. But what if I am sinful, and I do not know the way out of my sins? I wish that Butler had spent more time on this topic. I would be unfair to say that he does not address it, however, for he does talk a lot about the mercy and grace of Christ and the transformation in one’s attitude that can come when one embraces the Gospel and looks to Christ. But the book also had a bit of a “shape up or ship out” tone (not that he uses those words).
Note: I received a complimentary review copy of this book through the BookLook Bloggers (http://booklookbloggers.com/) book review bloggers program. The program does not require for my review to be positive, and my review reflects my honest reaction to the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews