What do you think?
Rate this book
Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News
Pastor Brian Zahnd began "to question the theology of a wrathful God who delights in punishing sinners, and has started to explore the real nature of Jesus and His Father. The book isn’t only an interesting look at the context of some modern theological ideas; it’s also offers some profound insight into God’s love and eternal plan." — Relevant Magazine (Named one of the Top 10 Books of 2017)
God is wrath? Or God is Love?
In his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards shaped predominating American theology with a vision of God as angry, violent, and retributive. Three centuries later, Brian Zahnd was both mesmerized and terrified by Edwards’s wrathful God. Haunted by fear that crippled his relationship with God, Zahnd spent years praying for a divine experience of hell.
What Zahnd experienced instead was the Father’s love—revealed perfectly through Jesus Christ—for all prodigal sons and daughters.
In Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God , Zahnd asks important questions like : Is seeing God primarily as wrathful towards sinners true or biblical? Is fearing God a normal expected behavior? And where might the natural implications of this theological framework lead us?
Thoughtfully wrestling with subjects like Old Testament genocide, the crucifixion of Jesus, eternal punishment in hell, and the final judgment in Revelation, Zanhd maintains that the summit of divine revelation for sinners is not God is wrath , but God is love .
God is wrath? Or God is Love?
In his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards shaped predominating American theology with a vision of God as angry, violent, and retributive. Three centuries later, Brian Zahnd was both mesmerized and terrified by Edwards’s wrathful God. Haunted by fear that crippled his relationship with God, Zahnd spent years praying for a divine experience of hell.
What Zahnd experienced instead was the Father’s love—revealed perfectly through Jesus Christ—for all prodigal sons and daughters.
In Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God , Zahnd asks important questions like : Is seeing God primarily as wrathful towards sinners true or biblical? Is fearing God a normal expected behavior? And where might the natural implications of this theological framework lead us?
Thoughtfully wrestling with subjects like Old Testament genocide, the crucifixion of Jesus, eternal punishment in hell, and the final judgment in Revelation, Zanhd maintains that the summit of divine revelation for sinners is not God is wrath , but God is love .
209 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
526 people are currently reading
2997 people want to read
About the author
Brian Zahnd
51 books396 followersBrian Zahnd is the founder and lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri. As the lead pastor, he is the primary preacher during our weekend services, and he oversees the direction of the church. Pastor Brian is a passionate reader of theology and philosophy, an avid hiker and mountain climber, and authority on all things Bob Dylan.
He and his wife, Peri, have three adult sons and five grandchildren. He is the author of several books, including Unconditional?, Beauty Will Save the World, A Farewell To Mars, and Water To Wine.
He and his wife, Peri, have three adult sons and five grandchildren. He is the author of several books, including Unconditional?, Beauty Will Save the World, A Farewell To Mars, and Water To Wine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 372 reviews
June 4, 2018
Though I was an atheist, I was, as many Americans are, a puritanical atheist, because much of the faith that faith that came to America was viewed through a puritanical lens. (Similarly, many Christians and evangelical Christians are puritanical Christians, whether we realize it or not). I was confronted with an horrified by the vengeful God of the Old Testament, and could not reconcile this Old Testament God with the Jesus of the New Testament. Even in my inchoate stages of faith, I could not reconcile God’s ‘change in personality’ through Jesus, as God was said to be immutable, and ever unchanging, always faithful. Eventually I began to view Jesus as some sort of intercession between a God who was righteously furious at me (and all sinners), but who had been saved by Jesus’ penal substitutionary atonement, and thus, Jesus would ‘protect’ me from God. I still didn’t understand how the triune God could be rationalized in such a way.
Little did I know that penal substitutionary atonement is not the only theory for why Jesus died on the cross. I was honestly stunned. As an atheist, I had no interest in learning about other viewpoints, as penal substitutionary atonement was barbaric enough that I could hardly conceive of it being reconciled with a loving God. I didn’t know about other theories of atonement like the East Orthodox Church’s theosis, the Catholic Church’s teachings on Christus Victor theory, or others such as Ansem’s satisfaction theory, Methodist governmental theory, the scapegoat theory, moral influence theory, and likely many more I don’t know about. I admit I only have a grasp, and at that, a basic one, of only a few. But I am comforted that the end-all-be-all is not Calvin’s penal substitutionary theory of atonement.
In this book Brian Zahnd presents a theory which I think best rationalizes and presents a case how God can be and has always been a loving God, yet still follows the Gospel in its condemnation of sin, cruelty, and self interest, and provides a clear picture of how and why such a view is supported by scripture. He doesn’t seem like the first person to come up with this type of idea from the various theologians he cites, and I look forward to continuing to learn.
This book has helped journey in faith for seeing God the Father, in particular, as a loving God revealed through Jesus, rather than an angry God mollified by the ritual sacrifice of His Son, and requiring his Son to intercede on our behalf in order to stay his continued wrath. It also helps to heal the idea that God may be forced by ‘the rules’ to love me, but really doesn’t particularly like me.
Little did I know that penal substitutionary atonement is not the only theory for why Jesus died on the cross. I was honestly stunned. As an atheist, I had no interest in learning about other viewpoints, as penal substitutionary atonement was barbaric enough that I could hardly conceive of it being reconciled with a loving God. I didn’t know about other theories of atonement like the East Orthodox Church’s theosis, the Catholic Church’s teachings on Christus Victor theory, or others such as Ansem’s satisfaction theory, Methodist governmental theory, the scapegoat theory, moral influence theory, and likely many more I don’t know about. I admit I only have a grasp, and at that, a basic one, of only a few. But I am comforted that the end-all-be-all is not Calvin’s penal substitutionary theory of atonement.
In this book Brian Zahnd presents a theory which I think best rationalizes and presents a case how God can be and has always been a loving God, yet still follows the Gospel in its condemnation of sin, cruelty, and self interest, and provides a clear picture of how and why such a view is supported by scripture. He doesn’t seem like the first person to come up with this type of idea from the various theologians he cites, and I look forward to continuing to learn.
This book has helped journey in faith for seeing God the Father, in particular, as a loving God revealed through Jesus, rather than an angry God mollified by the ritual sacrifice of His Son, and requiring his Son to intercede on our behalf in order to stay his continued wrath. It also helps to heal the idea that God may be forced by ‘the rules’ to love me, but really doesn’t particularly like me.
December 20, 2017
I am not giving this book a bad review because it is poorly written (it is a very engaging read) or because I disagree with the author's conclusions (which I certainly do), I am giving it a bad review because Zahnd may misrepresent his opponents more than any author I have ever read.
I was excited to read this, as I thought Zahnd could fairly demonstrate a reasonable perspective to justify his view of atonement and the nature of God. To my disappointment I found a book that, while clever and well-written, mostly takes on straw men, offers numerous false dichotomies, and calls out evangelicals for “proof-texting” while being an egregious offender of this very practice.
Zahnd has several assumptions I find troubling and disagree with, which include: (1) Jesus reveals the true nature of God, therefore anything inconsistent with the character of God as seen in Jesus Christ is an incorrect understanding of God’s character and work, including scripture. (2) The Old Testament contradicts itself, recognizing inconsistencies that are contradictory to the nature of Jesus is reasonable. (3) the false and anti-trinitarian dichotomy God did not kill Jesus, humanity did (4) The death of Christ is not Jesus satisfying the justice of God, but dying self-sacrificially to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims (5) This idea of substitutionary atonement comes from Calvin and the reformation, not from the historical understanding of the church. (6) Hell is not a place of God’s active punishment, but the lonely torment of choosing our own hell. (7) Finally, people misunderstand Revelation to be about the end times, but in reality, it is a symbolic account of Jesus defeating the Roman Empire and all beastly empires.
The troubling aspect of all these is that they all contain truth but go too far by offering numerous false dichotomies. For instance, Jesus's death was convincing and set an example, but surely it was more than that. Revelation contains a great deal of symbology that relates to events happening close to the time of the letter, but surely it contains some forward-looking elements to the 2nd coming as well.
The amount to which Zahnd says things as if "that's just the way it is" without thoughtfully engaging other views is obnoxious, to put it mildly. I think he would benefit from engaging others who hold different views than the hyper-fundamentalist, violent loving "evangelicals" he acts like anyone believes in substitutionary atonement are.
I appreciate Zahnd's concerns (violence, hatred, anger, racism, terrorism), I am just concerned he is offering the wrong solutions.
I was excited to read this, as I thought Zahnd could fairly demonstrate a reasonable perspective to justify his view of atonement and the nature of God. To my disappointment I found a book that, while clever and well-written, mostly takes on straw men, offers numerous false dichotomies, and calls out evangelicals for “proof-texting” while being an egregious offender of this very practice.
Zahnd has several assumptions I find troubling and disagree with, which include: (1) Jesus reveals the true nature of God, therefore anything inconsistent with the character of God as seen in Jesus Christ is an incorrect understanding of God’s character and work, including scripture. (2) The Old Testament contradicts itself, recognizing inconsistencies that are contradictory to the nature of Jesus is reasonable. (3) the false and anti-trinitarian dichotomy God did not kill Jesus, humanity did (4) The death of Christ is not Jesus satisfying the justice of God, but dying self-sacrificially to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims (5) This idea of substitutionary atonement comes from Calvin and the reformation, not from the historical understanding of the church. (6) Hell is not a place of God’s active punishment, but the lonely torment of choosing our own hell. (7) Finally, people misunderstand Revelation to be about the end times, but in reality, it is a symbolic account of Jesus defeating the Roman Empire and all beastly empires.
The troubling aspect of all these is that they all contain truth but go too far by offering numerous false dichotomies. For instance, Jesus's death was convincing and set an example, but surely it was more than that. Revelation contains a great deal of symbology that relates to events happening close to the time of the letter, but surely it contains some forward-looking elements to the 2nd coming as well.
The amount to which Zahnd says things as if "that's just the way it is" without thoughtfully engaging other views is obnoxious, to put it mildly. I think he would benefit from engaging others who hold different views than the hyper-fundamentalist, violent loving "evangelicals" he acts like anyone believes in substitutionary atonement are.
I appreciate Zahnd's concerns (violence, hatred, anger, racism, terrorism), I am just concerned he is offering the wrong solutions.
October 2, 2018
If the title of this book has the ring of familiarity, it may be from past attendance in an English literature class in which the reading of, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” by Jonathan Edwards was assigned reading. The similarity and one-word difference between this book's title and Edwards' sermon is intentional. Zahnd, the author of this book, is a preacher who once aspired to emulate Jonathan Edwards in his sermon content and delivery. He wanted to scare as many people as possible into heaven.
But Zahnd's understanding of God and the Bible has changed since then. As indicated by the title, he now understands God to be a loving God as seen in Jesus.
The author does not accept atonement theory as it has developed and been understood over the years—at least not what many people refer to as Penal Substitution theory, Satisfaction theory, or Substitutionary atonement. Zahnd doesn't use any of those words, but it's clear that's what he referring to when he says the following:
The author of Revelation was writing about the dangers of the Roman Empire and how "Jesus's lamb-like kingdom is the saving alternative to the beast-like empires of the world." This message is still applicable today because those empires are still with us. This also means that God's kingdom is not part of the civil religion that mixes religion with patriotism.
Zahnd uses generally common and simple language to make his points. Thus most readers will find this book easy to understand. He avoids using theological terms such as "penal substitution" for example. For readers interested in an academically rigorous defense of alternatives to "penal substitution" I recommend The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver.
But Zahnd's understanding of God and the Bible has changed since then. As indicated by the title, he now understands God to be a loving God as seen in Jesus.
People have never seen God until they see Jesus. Every other portrait of god, from whatever source, is subordinate to the revelation of god give to us in Jesus Christ.The Bible is the source of our knowledge of Jesus. But to truly understand the Bible's message the history and context of its writing needs to be recognized. The Bible was written by numerous human authors and consequently shows varied and growing understandings of who God is as these perceptions evolved over many years. The varied nature of the stories contained in the Bible lend themselves to being used to justify narrowly focused opinions.
Sometimes the bible is like a Rorschach test: our interpretation of the text reveals more about ourselves than about God. ....Zahnd believes the overarching focus of the Christian Bible is centered on the life of Jesus. The book elaborates on this view in a careful manner so that people who take scripture seriously should be able to accept it as convincing.
The Bible itself is not a perfect picture of God, but it does point us to the One who is. This is what orthodox Christianity has always said.
The author does not accept atonement theory as it has developed and been understood over the years—at least not what many people refer to as Penal Substitution theory, Satisfaction theory, or Substitutionary atonement. Zahnd doesn't use any of those words, but it's clear that's what he referring to when he says the following:
Especially odious are those theories that ultimately portray God as sharing the petty attributes of the primitive and pagan deities who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice.Well, if the purpose of the crucifixion isn’t a quid pro quo to mollify an angry God, what was its purpose? The author explains it as follows:
At the cross Jesus does not save us from God; at the cross Jesus reveals God as savior! ... ...In the final chapters of the book Zahnd addresses the meaning of the Book of Revelation. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a description of the end of the world nor is it a prediction of when it's going to happen. Nevertheless, Zahnd says the book has particular relevance today because of its "intensely political nature."
The cross is not about the satisfaction of an omnipotent vengeance. The cross is the revelation of divine mercy.
The author of Revelation was writing about the dangers of the Roman Empire and how "Jesus's lamb-like kingdom is the saving alternative to the beast-like empires of the world." This message is still applicable today because those empires are still with us. This also means that God's kingdom is not part of the civil religion that mixes religion with patriotism.
Zahnd uses generally common and simple language to make his points. Thus most readers will find this book easy to understand. He avoids using theological terms such as "penal substitution" for example. For readers interested in an academically rigorous defense of alternatives to "penal substitution" I recommend The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver.
August 24, 2017
Honestly, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God is one of the most eye-opening and challenging books about faith I have ever read. I grew up in the Bible Belt and I had know how much toxic and dangerous theology I had inherited from my local church environment.
Brian Zahnd's premise is as devastatingly simple as it is hopeful - Jesus is the perfect embodiment of God, and thus Jesus' life, death is the "perfect theology" we should strive to echo in our own lives. Along the way, Zahnd dismantles unhealthy views of the Bible ("A Christian can't cite Moses to silence Jesus."), the violence in the Old Testament, the victory of the cross, and the reasons we miss the point of the Book of Revelation (fans of Left Behind will be sorely disappointed by this last section).
Zahnd excels at revealing how an overemphasis on various atonement theories within the American church has a created a bloodthirsty God that can only be satisfied through the ritualistic sacrifice of his only Son - a view of God that's more pagan than Christian. Zahnd says "Jesus did not shed his blood to pay off God in the form of a ritual sacrifice. That's not what God wanted. Jesus shed his blood in faithful obedience to his Father's will, demonstrating divine forgiveness even as he was crucified!"
It's amazing how such a seemingly subtle shift in our understanding of the cross can change everything. Prior to reading this book I had unknowingly carried around the toxic idea that God initially hated me, and it wasn't until He killed his Son that he found the capacity to love me. Sinners in the Hands of the Loving God dissolves this view of God, and instead challenges me to see God Himself on the cross forgiving humanity even as we murder Him.
Do I agree with all of Zahnd's conclusions? Of course not (and what's the fun of reading a book about God that you know you're already going to 100% agree with?). But Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God revealed to me an entire new way of thinking about God and experiencing His presence - a way paved with love and mystery, not violence and shame.
This is an extremely accessible book (and, at 200 pages, short), but I wouldn't recommend it to newcomers of the faith. Zahnd presumes the reader has grown up within or at least had experience within the Southern evangelical faith community, and an uninitiated reader may become a little lost with his cultural references to modern evangelical culture.
Overall, if you've ever struggled with reconciling the angry God of the OT with the love of Jesus, or why the cross is such Good News if it involves so much spilt blood, then this is the book of for you. I'm sure students from certain seminaries can pick this book a part with a systematic theology cribbed from Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, but they can keep their angry God. I'm sticking with Jesus.
Brian Zahnd's premise is as devastatingly simple as it is hopeful - Jesus is the perfect embodiment of God, and thus Jesus' life, death is the "perfect theology" we should strive to echo in our own lives. Along the way, Zahnd dismantles unhealthy views of the Bible ("A Christian can't cite Moses to silence Jesus."), the violence in the Old Testament, the victory of the cross, and the reasons we miss the point of the Book of Revelation (fans of Left Behind will be sorely disappointed by this last section).
Zahnd excels at revealing how an overemphasis on various atonement theories within the American church has a created a bloodthirsty God that can only be satisfied through the ritualistic sacrifice of his only Son - a view of God that's more pagan than Christian. Zahnd says "Jesus did not shed his blood to pay off God in the form of a ritual sacrifice. That's not what God wanted. Jesus shed his blood in faithful obedience to his Father's will, demonstrating divine forgiveness even as he was crucified!"
It's amazing how such a seemingly subtle shift in our understanding of the cross can change everything. Prior to reading this book I had unknowingly carried around the toxic idea that God initially hated me, and it wasn't until He killed his Son that he found the capacity to love me. Sinners in the Hands of the Loving God dissolves this view of God, and instead challenges me to see God Himself on the cross forgiving humanity even as we murder Him.
Do I agree with all of Zahnd's conclusions? Of course not (and what's the fun of reading a book about God that you know you're already going to 100% agree with?). But Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God revealed to me an entire new way of thinking about God and experiencing His presence - a way paved with love and mystery, not violence and shame.
This is an extremely accessible book (and, at 200 pages, short), but I wouldn't recommend it to newcomers of the faith. Zahnd presumes the reader has grown up within or at least had experience within the Southern evangelical faith community, and an uninitiated reader may become a little lost with his cultural references to modern evangelical culture.
Overall, if you've ever struggled with reconciling the angry God of the OT with the love of Jesus, or why the cross is such Good News if it involves so much spilt blood, then this is the book of for you. I'm sure students from certain seminaries can pick this book a part with a systematic theology cribbed from Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, but they can keep their angry God. I'm sticking with Jesus.
August 22, 2017
I've barely slept since picking this book up because I can't stop mulling it over in my mind. This book is so much more than a writing on God loving humans. It confronts the evil in mans heart towards our fellow humans and condemns the use of using scriptures to justify violence and vengeance. My favorite line is, "the way you interpret scripture exposes more about your heart than it doesn't about God". It addresses the many contradictions in the scriptures and how man manipulates those contradictions to justify violence and hatred.
Jesus himself challenged the scriptures on his own authority. While Jesus quoted the Old Testament he omitted lines about violence and vengeance - a reason he was so unpopular and people acted violently towards him. He closed the book on vengeance to the dismay of those who relied on vengeance to make the bible "stand on its hind legs and dance a jig to whatever tune we play".
As this book states, if you want to find an angry and vengeful god in the Old Testament, you can. But only in choosing to ignore everything Jesus said and did when he was on earth.
"The Bible is subordinate to Christ. You cannot cite Moses or Elijah to silence Christ."
Jesus himself challenged the scriptures on his own authority. While Jesus quoted the Old Testament he omitted lines about violence and vengeance - a reason he was so unpopular and people acted violently towards him. He closed the book on vengeance to the dismay of those who relied on vengeance to make the bible "stand on its hind legs and dance a jig to whatever tune we play".
As this book states, if you want to find an angry and vengeful god in the Old Testament, you can. But only in choosing to ignore everything Jesus said and did when he was on earth.
"The Bible is subordinate to Christ. You cannot cite Moses or Elijah to silence Christ."
September 13, 2017
As a recovering fundamentalist, I have found this book to be very healing. Rather than the fire and brimstone gospel that has been touted to me so much, this book actually delves into Jesus, what he really taught and how God really is. God is love, not hate, not revenge. So, so important.
October 1, 2018
A Critical Review
I will never forget a very special evening with a small group of Christ-followers at the McLean home. My good friend, Don suggested that we read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards in one sitting – on our knees. And so a group of middle-aged adults gathered in Don’s living room alongside several children (whose knees were much more nimble) – and we read Edward’s classic sermon – on our knees. It is a moment I will not soon forget. We were humbled. We were drawn into the very presence of God. And like the 18th-century congregation in Enfield – we were cut to the quick.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not only one of the most well-known sermons in American history; it is one of the most powerful sermons ever preached on American soil. In one sermon, the Puritan divine highlights both the awesome wrath of a holy God and the matchless grace and tenderhearted love of Jesus Christ.
The sermon is derived from Deuteronomy 32:35 – “Their foot shall slide in due time.” The doctrine that Edwards sets forth is simple: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”
Edwards concludes with a strong application which is meant to awaken sinners and flee from the wrath of God. Current readers (along with the original Enfield congregation) are faced with a momentous decision as Edwards warns them to the sobering reality of God’s wrath: “There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor anything to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.”
Readers are challenged to take advantage of “the door of mercy wide open” which beckons them to receive the grace of God in Christ. The concluding words of the sermon leave sinners with an important decision; the most decision they will ever make: “Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: “Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.”
See my complete review at https://baldreformer.wordpress.com/20...
I will never forget a very special evening with a small group of Christ-followers at the McLean home. My good friend, Don suggested that we read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards in one sitting – on our knees. And so a group of middle-aged adults gathered in Don’s living room alongside several children (whose knees were much more nimble) – and we read Edward’s classic sermon – on our knees. It is a moment I will not soon forget. We were humbled. We were drawn into the very presence of God. And like the 18th-century congregation in Enfield – we were cut to the quick.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not only one of the most well-known sermons in American history; it is one of the most powerful sermons ever preached on American soil. In one sermon, the Puritan divine highlights both the awesome wrath of a holy God and the matchless grace and tenderhearted love of Jesus Christ.
The sermon is derived from Deuteronomy 32:35 – “Their foot shall slide in due time.” The doctrine that Edwards sets forth is simple: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”
Edwards concludes with a strong application which is meant to awaken sinners and flee from the wrath of God. Current readers (along with the original Enfield congregation) are faced with a momentous decision as Edwards warns them to the sobering reality of God’s wrath: “There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor anything to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.”
Readers are challenged to take advantage of “the door of mercy wide open” which beckons them to receive the grace of God in Christ. The concluding words of the sermon leave sinners with an important decision; the most decision they will ever make: “Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: “Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.”
See my complete review at https://baldreformer.wordpress.com/20...
October 7, 2019
This book will make people uncomfortable, because we are so conditioned to see God as constantly angry and to see us as constantly failing to earn his love and respect. This book is a quiet, beautiful look at the gentle heart of God reflected in the prodigal son’s father, and it was incredibly refreshing. I love Brian Zahnd’s sermons and I can’t wait to read more of his books.
July 4, 2017
Brian Zahnd was a big fan of the Angry God. As a young pastor, he carried around a handwritten copy of Sinner's in the Hands of an ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards's famous sermon. He memorized portions of the sermon, in order to give preaching more of an edge, so he could draw sinners to repentance as Edwards had done. However, Zahnd since discovered the Father revealed to us through Jesus Christ is not the violent, angry, retributive monster god articulated in Edwards's sermon.
Wrestling with issues like Old Testament genocide, Jesus crucifixion, eternal punishment in hell, and the final judgment, Zahnd re-presents to us the Christian God—a God who is Love, not wrath. But just because the God Zahnd now preaches is loving, not angry, doesn't mean he doesn't deal with sin. We are Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. The monsters are the things that keep us from finding our life in Him. Zahnd writes:
Zahnd's book unfolds in 10 chapters. Chapter 1 describes Zahnd's shift from believing in the mere angry God, to believing in the loving God. Chapter 2 examines how Jesus closed the book of vengeance by emphasizing the "Jubilee good news of pardon, amnesty, liberation, and restoration" (44) in his reading of the Old Testament. Chapter 3 discusses the importance of interpreting the violent and troubling passages through the lens of Jesus.
Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the meaning of Christ's crucifixion. Zahnd eschews interpretations of the cross that appeal to fear-mongering, instead, the cross emphasizes the love of God:
As such, Zahnd does not believe that the Father was a blood-thirsty God demanding Jesus death in order to save some. No, Zahnd argues:
In chapter 6, Zahnd describes the doctrine of Hell. As with the Angry God, Zahnd used to like Hell a lot but observes that many (evangelical) interpreters make Jesus' word's of judgment about the afterlife when he intends to talk about injustice and consequences in this life. He also challenges as fundamentalist fiction the notion that the sufferers of Auschwitz or godly non-Christians (like Abraham Heschel) are consigned to eternal torment (144-45).
chapters 7 through 9, describe Jesus, the Lamb of Revelation and the final judgment. Chapter 10 forms the conclusion: "Love alone is credible."
Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God is similar to other recent books which question the traditional Angry God of evangelicalism. I think of recent publications from Brad Jerzak, Greg Boyd, Thomas Oord, Keith Giles, Rob Bell. People who love John Piper (and are therefore more Reformed than God) will not like this all that much. If you feel, as many of my Reformed friends, that we are only drawn to God by feeling the weight and cost of our sinfulness, then you won't enjoy this book. However, if you believe, as I do that, that it is God's kindness that leads to repentance(Rom.2:4), then you will be challenged and inspired by Zahnd's words.
Zahnd does emphasize the here and now sometimes at the expense of the Hereafter. Of course, historically evangelicals have done the reverse, speaking only of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die-when-you-abide-in-the-great-by-and-by. Both this age and the age to come are part and parcel of the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus preached, and I think it is appropriate to speak of the former alongside the latter. I also wonder if Zahnd under-emphasizes some of God's anger. It is always the loving who get angry, and I think it makes sense to still speak of an angry God in that context. Still, it is not as though Zahnd ignores human sinfulness and its destructive power for human souls.
I have talked with too many people whose experience of evangelicalism is one of judgment, anger and wrath. I recommend this book (along with books like Brad Jersak's A More Christlike God) as representative as a more gracious depiction of biblical orthodoxy. I give this four stars. ★★★★
Notice of material connection: I received this book from Waterbrook Multnomah through the Blogging for Books program in exchange for my honest review
Wrestling with issues like Old Testament genocide, Jesus crucifixion, eternal punishment in hell, and the final judgment, Zahnd re-presents to us the Christian God—a God who is Love, not wrath. But just because the God Zahnd now preaches is loving, not angry, doesn't mean he doesn't deal with sin. We are Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. The monsters are the things that keep us from finding our life in Him. Zahnd writes:
Today my handmade copy of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is stored safely away among other memorabilia. I'm no longer mining it for material to terrorize sinners. The monster god has faded away and today I preach the beauty of God revealed in the face of Christ. But that doesn't mean there are no monsters. The monsters of war, violence, greed, exploitation, racism, genocide, and every other form of antihuman abuse continue to inflict our species with unimaginable suffering. If we try to manipulate these monsters for our own self-interest, they eventually turn on us and destroy us. (22).
Zahnd's book unfolds in 10 chapters. Chapter 1 describes Zahnd's shift from believing in the mere angry God, to believing in the loving God. Chapter 2 examines how Jesus closed the book of vengeance by emphasizing the "Jubilee good news of pardon, amnesty, liberation, and restoration" (44) in his reading of the Old Testament. Chapter 3 discusses the importance of interpreting the violent and troubling passages through the lens of Jesus.
Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the meaning of Christ's crucifixion. Zahnd eschews interpretations of the cross that appeal to fear-mongering, instead, the cross emphasizes the love of God:
I'm not afraid of God. I used to be, but I am no longer. I am no longer afraid of God because I have come to know God as he is revealed in Christ. I have come to know that God's single disposition toward me is not one of unconditional, unwavering love. The knowledge of God's love has made it impossible for me to be afraid of God. (97).
As such, Zahnd does not believe that the Father was a blood-thirsty God demanding Jesus death in order to save some. No, Zahnd argues:
When we say Jesus died for our sins, we mean something like this: We violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus revealed the heart of God by forgiving our sins. By saying "we" violently sinned our sins into Jesus, I mean that all of us are more or less implicated by our explicit or tacit support of the systems of violent power that frame our world. These are politically religious systems that orchestrated Jesus's death. At the cross we see how Adam and Eve's penchant for shifting blame and Cain's capacity for killing led to the ultimate crime : the murder of God (109).
In chapter 6, Zahnd describes the doctrine of Hell. As with the Angry God, Zahnd used to like Hell a lot but observes that many (evangelical) interpreters make Jesus' word's of judgment about the afterlife when he intends to talk about injustice and consequences in this life. He also challenges as fundamentalist fiction the notion that the sufferers of Auschwitz or godly non-Christians (like Abraham Heschel) are consigned to eternal torment (144-45).
chapters 7 through 9, describe Jesus, the Lamb of Revelation and the final judgment. Chapter 10 forms the conclusion: "Love alone is credible."
Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God is similar to other recent books which question the traditional Angry God of evangelicalism. I think of recent publications from Brad Jerzak, Greg Boyd, Thomas Oord, Keith Giles, Rob Bell. People who love John Piper (and are therefore more Reformed than God) will not like this all that much. If you feel, as many of my Reformed friends, that we are only drawn to God by feeling the weight and cost of our sinfulness, then you won't enjoy this book. However, if you believe, as I do that, that it is God's kindness that leads to repentance(Rom.2:4), then you will be challenged and inspired by Zahnd's words.
Zahnd does emphasize the here and now sometimes at the expense of the Hereafter. Of course, historically evangelicals have done the reverse, speaking only of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die-when-you-abide-in-the-great-by-and-by. Both this age and the age to come are part and parcel of the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus preached, and I think it is appropriate to speak of the former alongside the latter. I also wonder if Zahnd under-emphasizes some of God's anger. It is always the loving who get angry, and I think it makes sense to still speak of an angry God in that context. Still, it is not as though Zahnd ignores human sinfulness and its destructive power for human souls.
I have talked with too many people whose experience of evangelicalism is one of judgment, anger and wrath. I recommend this book (along with books like Brad Jersak's A More Christlike God) as representative as a more gracious depiction of biblical orthodoxy. I give this four stars. ★★★★
Notice of material connection: I received this book from Waterbrook Multnomah through the Blogging for Books program in exchange for my honest review
September 23, 2017
This is one of those books that I found myself highlighting paragraph after paragraph and needing different colours just so the highlighted sections would stand out. Brian has a gift for taking complex theological ideas and relating them in simple easy to understand and remember ways. His take on Revelations was different in some ways from what I've come across before and it really just made a lot of sense to me. Like pieces of a puzzle that I had been staring at for a long time finally found there spot in the bigger picture. Like he related how other's journeys, explorations, thoughts and ideas were cairns for his own journey, so this book is like that for me, a cairn, others have been here and explored these thoughts about God and Jesus and life and love. The journey isn't over, but these markers show we aren't alone.
September 9, 2017
If Sinners in the hands of an angry God goes to the extreme, the book, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, clearly goes to the other extreme. If you choose to magnify one attribute of God above all others, you will end up with a warped theology. To prove that God is not an angry God, the author takes great license in reconstructing Biblical teaching on basic beliefs. I would not recommend this book!
February 1, 2018
Thought-provoking, irritating, and concerning are all words I would use to describe Brian Zahnd’s book, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. Rev. Zahnd starts the book telling about his experiences as a child when much of the preaching centered around the wrath of God. People were scared into hell. His own favorite sermon was Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. He relates how he used to read the Chick Publication tracts (probably most of my readers are too young to remember them) and how they formed his imagination to believe in an angry God. Mr. Zahnd has reacted to all of this anger by swinging in the other direction. He has written this book to show how God is not angry, He is loving.
First, Mr. Zahnd has a lot of good things to say. However, he says a lot that I just can’t agree with. I’m not a theologian nor a pastor nor an intellectual, but I do know my Bible pretty well and I’m very uncomfortable with much in the book. I believe that some of his theology is spot on, some of it is sloppy, and some of it is heretical. It’s for that reason that I can’t recommend this book to anybody. I think that a little truth mixed in with a little error is more dangerous than just flat out error.
That’s the short summary of the book. If you want to read details about why I don’t like the book, please keep reading. Please note, I failed to make notes of the pages from which I quoted; I’ve gone back and filled in as many as I can, but I’m sure some are missing.
First, here are some of the things I liked about Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God:
Rev. Zahnd says he is uncomfortable with an evangelistic approach that frightens people into following Jesus. I cautiously agree. However, I think that without a conviction of our sin, we will not see our need for a Savior. I would like a more balanced approach than what I see Rev. Zahnd promoting.
Jesus is the face of the Father. If we want to know what God is like, we should look at Jesus.
God doesn’t hate you. I think we need to remember this. I do know many people, especially my West African friends who assume that bad things are happening in their lives are a direct correlation to a sin that they have confessed and God has forgiven. We need to stop thinking of God as One who pounces on us at every turn.
We shouldn’t use Scripture to excuse or justify the implementation of violence. I tend towards pacifism and agreed with a lot of what he said about what following the Prince of Peace should mean in our daily living.
Rev. Zahnd’s explanation of Jesus fulfilling the stories of the Widow of Zarephath and Naaman the leper were very helpful to me. In those Old Testament stories, God revealed himself to non-Jewish people. Jesus sites these two stories and the implication is that “I am the fulfillment of this. God is revealing himself, through me, to all people, including the Gentiles.”
We should read the Law and Prophets in the light of Christ.
There is a move in the Bible from violence to peace.
Christians are unique in worshipping a betrayed, tortured, crucified God. This is the original scandal of the Christian faith.
Jesus’ death doesn’t revoke revenge, but confers forgiveness.
A tendency to deify the state is particularly pronounced in rich and powerful nations that believe they have a divine right to rule.
Some general concerns I have about the book are:
Rev. Zahnd says we can make the Bible say almost anything we want. Which I fully agree with, but then he seems to do the same, citing verses that prove his point while not dealing with verses that contradict his point.
It seems that he is trying so desperately to help us understand God that he eliminates the things that we don’t understand or that are difficult to understand. It feels to me like he is trying to bring God down to our level. We can’t explain God or fully understand him. He is God and we are not.
He claims to accept orthodoxy, but he also rejects much that is orthodox. He accuses other believers of things I’ve never heard from believers such as that God changes His mind, God killed Jesus (I did look this up and there are Christian leaders who say this), God demanded child sacrifice, we use the Old Testament as an endorsement for violence, and Jesus was punished by God.
He says some off-the-wall stuff like, “Jesus delivers the Bible from its addiction to violent retaliation.” Jesus certainly was radical in what he said, but how can the Bible even be addicted to something?
And then I have a lot of questions which include:
Rev. Zahnd says the wrath of God is a metaphor (p 16, 17). Metaphors are used to describe things for which we just can’t find adequate words. So, we say that God is a rock to describe his strength and steadfastness. He is a chicken hiding her chicks under her wings to describe his loving care. But Rev. Zahnd says the wrath of God is also a metaphor. But I wonder, if wrath is a metaphor, then the authors who used those words were trying to describe something greater than they could explain. And if wrath is a metaphor, how do we know that love, kindness, mercy, and forgiveness aren’t also metaphors and can just be swiped away the way he wants to dismiss wrath? Is an emotion necessarily a metaphor?
Rev. Zahnd seems to implicate that since God is love, he can’t be anything else. But maybe this isn’t an either/or proposition, but a both/and proposition. There are many facets to God’s character and his ways are so far above and beyond our ways. A parent loves their child, but at times they need to punish them for their own sake.
Mr. Zahnd says we have nothing to fear from God. I think he’s partly right. If we are followers of Jesus, and our sins are forgiven, then indeed, we have nothing to fear from God. We are in a loving relationship with him. But time and time again in the Bible the reaction to an angel or to God appearing, or even to Jesus performing a miracle, was fear.
Multiple times Mr. Zahnd states that the Bible is not the perfect revelation of God; Jesus is. Again, why does this have to be either/or? Why not both/and? And how do we know about Jesus? Through the Bible.
Sometimes reading this book really made my head hurt. I was really confused by his explanation of Jesus’ sacrificial work on the cross. For example:
o He says that “at the cross Jesus doesn’t save us from God, he reveals him as Savior. At the cross, we don’t see what God does, but who he is.”(p. 82) My question is, yes, but from what is God saving us? John 3:16 tells us that he loves us so much that he gave us one and only son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but will have everlasting life.
o “The cross is the murder of an innocent man.” Yes, true enough, but there must be more to it than that. Otherwise why did Jesus come to earth? Rev. Zahnd would say to reveal God to us, but there has to be more to it than that.
o “God’s foreknowledge of this killing doesn’t mean that it was God’s will for Jesus to be murdered.” (p. 84) No, he didn’t want him to be murdered, but there was no other way to have a once-for-all sacrifice for sins.
o “God willed that Jesus be faithful to truth and love so that through Jesus’ violent and sinful death, we would be liberated from violence, sin, and death.” (p. 84) Is there no liberation for the punishment and consequences of our sin?
o “The cross is not a picture of payment; the cross is a picture of forgiveness.” (p. 86) Again, why does this have to be an either/or statement? Why can’t it be both/and?
o “God does not punish an innocent substitute for the petty sake of appeasement.” (p. 86) Rev. Zahnd’s sarcasm just gets really tiresome sometimes. Why does he refer to paying the price of sin with words like “petty” and “appeasement”? He also sarcastically claims that those who don’t believe like he does see God as harsh, severe, demanding, petulant, vicious, vengeful, malicious, malevolent, revengeful, a monster god, abusive, and violent. No, no, no. Let’s use words like broken-hearted, grieved, crushed, sad that his creation would turn from him and insist on their own sinful ways.
o “It is the nature of God to forgive, so he didn’t need Christ’s sacrifice to convince him to forgive.” Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t necessary to convince God of anything.
o The only justice God will accept as justice is actually setting the world right! (p. 103) My question, then, is how does God set the world right? I believe it is through the death of Jesus who paid the punishment of all our sin.
o “Jesus came to do God’s will”. (p. 105) Yes, I agree, but my question, based on the context (that God didn’t need Christ’s sacrifice to convince him to forgive) is What was God’s will? It was so that none will perish. Jesus’ death was not only physically agonizing, it was also agonizing because of the weight of sin he would bear, because God would forsake him, because he would go to the depths of hell for us.
o God doesn’t demand a blood sacrifice. Jesus did not shed his blood to buy God’s forgiveness. (p. 106) If we read back through the Old Testament, I believe it was God who made the first sacrifice as he called a sheep to make clothing for Adam and Eve. He accepted Abel’s blood sacrifice, but not Cain’s vegetable sacrifice. He commanded sacrifice in the book of the Law. That pagans corrupted the system of sacrifice to the point of offering children does not mean that God was playing into that system of child sacrifice.
o “If we claim that it was God who required the crucifixion of Jesus, we seek to clothe with false dignity the very structures of sin that Jesus deliberately stripped bare and put to open shame in his death!” (p. 107) Ummm, I’m not even sure what he’s saying here.
o “We violently sinned our sins into Jesus.” (p. 109) Umm, what? I don’t know what he’s getting at and then when he explains it, I still don’t understand.
o “Jesus taught that the Golden Rule is the narrow gate that leads to life. The narrow gate is … a life of love and mercy.” (p. 129) This sure sounds like salvation by works to me. If I love enough I’m in. How about “It is by grace you are saved through faith and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8, 9) First there must be faith and a decision to follow Jesus (I do believe that decision can come slowly over time), then love follows that. As Paul wrote in Galatians 5:6, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”
o “Hell is if you refuse to love you cannot enter the kingdom of God and will end up a lonely, tormented soul.” (p. 135) “Hell has something to do with refusing to receive and be transformed by the love of God.” (p. 137) “Hell is the love of God refused.” (p. 140) Again, this comes back to love being the way to salvation. But how do I know if I’m loving enough? If hating someone in my heart is murder, as Jesus said it is, then I’m hopeless at loving and I am among the wicked. There are plenty of people who are good and loving and kind, but they don’t follow Jesus. Rev. Zahnd says, though, that that doesn’t matter.
o Rev. Zahnd also talks at length about how the religious leaders of Jesus’ day couldn’t stand perfection, so they killed him. It had to do with their own wickedness not any plan of God (if I understand him correctly). So, what’s the point of the crucifixion if it isn’t to save from eternal damnation? If the crucifixion was because evil couldn’t stand a perfect Jesus, what if they hadn’t killed him? He could have accomplished the purpose to love and teach us to love without dying so violently. He could have died a natural death as an old man and we would have all considered him to be a prophet but nothing more. His death has to have been for a reason!
o The book ends with two chapters about Revelation. I think that his interpretation is correct up to a point, but I think there are layers of fulfillment of Revelation. He believes it was all fulfilled with the destruction of the Roman empire and the establishment of Christianity. I feel like if this is all we get, it’s all kind of hopeless. My observation of the world is that things are getting worse and worse, not better and better.
Overall, I was disappointed with this book. Ironically, the tone of the book borders on anger and cutting sarcasm and it just leaves me with way too many questions.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review. The opinions are entirely my own. You can read more about the book here and more about the author here.
First, Mr. Zahnd has a lot of good things to say. However, he says a lot that I just can’t agree with. I’m not a theologian nor a pastor nor an intellectual, but I do know my Bible pretty well and I’m very uncomfortable with much in the book. I believe that some of his theology is spot on, some of it is sloppy, and some of it is heretical. It’s for that reason that I can’t recommend this book to anybody. I think that a little truth mixed in with a little error is more dangerous than just flat out error.
That’s the short summary of the book. If you want to read details about why I don’t like the book, please keep reading. Please note, I failed to make notes of the pages from which I quoted; I’ve gone back and filled in as many as I can, but I’m sure some are missing.
First, here are some of the things I liked about Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God:
Rev. Zahnd says he is uncomfortable with an evangelistic approach that frightens people into following Jesus. I cautiously agree. However, I think that without a conviction of our sin, we will not see our need for a Savior. I would like a more balanced approach than what I see Rev. Zahnd promoting.
Jesus is the face of the Father. If we want to know what God is like, we should look at Jesus.
God doesn’t hate you. I think we need to remember this. I do know many people, especially my West African friends who assume that bad things are happening in their lives are a direct correlation to a sin that they have confessed and God has forgiven. We need to stop thinking of God as One who pounces on us at every turn.
We shouldn’t use Scripture to excuse or justify the implementation of violence. I tend towards pacifism and agreed with a lot of what he said about what following the Prince of Peace should mean in our daily living.
Rev. Zahnd’s explanation of Jesus fulfilling the stories of the Widow of Zarephath and Naaman the leper were very helpful to me. In those Old Testament stories, God revealed himself to non-Jewish people. Jesus sites these two stories and the implication is that “I am the fulfillment of this. God is revealing himself, through me, to all people, including the Gentiles.”
We should read the Law and Prophets in the light of Christ.
There is a move in the Bible from violence to peace.
Christians are unique in worshipping a betrayed, tortured, crucified God. This is the original scandal of the Christian faith.
Jesus’ death doesn’t revoke revenge, but confers forgiveness.
A tendency to deify the state is particularly pronounced in rich and powerful nations that believe they have a divine right to rule.
Some general concerns I have about the book are:
Rev. Zahnd says we can make the Bible say almost anything we want. Which I fully agree with, but then he seems to do the same, citing verses that prove his point while not dealing with verses that contradict his point.
It seems that he is trying so desperately to help us understand God that he eliminates the things that we don’t understand or that are difficult to understand. It feels to me like he is trying to bring God down to our level. We can’t explain God or fully understand him. He is God and we are not.
He claims to accept orthodoxy, but he also rejects much that is orthodox. He accuses other believers of things I’ve never heard from believers such as that God changes His mind, God killed Jesus (I did look this up and there are Christian leaders who say this), God demanded child sacrifice, we use the Old Testament as an endorsement for violence, and Jesus was punished by God.
He says some off-the-wall stuff like, “Jesus delivers the Bible from its addiction to violent retaliation.” Jesus certainly was radical in what he said, but how can the Bible even be addicted to something?
And then I have a lot of questions which include:
Rev. Zahnd says the wrath of God is a metaphor (p 16, 17). Metaphors are used to describe things for which we just can’t find adequate words. So, we say that God is a rock to describe his strength and steadfastness. He is a chicken hiding her chicks under her wings to describe his loving care. But Rev. Zahnd says the wrath of God is also a metaphor. But I wonder, if wrath is a metaphor, then the authors who used those words were trying to describe something greater than they could explain. And if wrath is a metaphor, how do we know that love, kindness, mercy, and forgiveness aren’t also metaphors and can just be swiped away the way he wants to dismiss wrath? Is an emotion necessarily a metaphor?
Rev. Zahnd seems to implicate that since God is love, he can’t be anything else. But maybe this isn’t an either/or proposition, but a both/and proposition. There are many facets to God’s character and his ways are so far above and beyond our ways. A parent loves their child, but at times they need to punish them for their own sake.
Mr. Zahnd says we have nothing to fear from God. I think he’s partly right. If we are followers of Jesus, and our sins are forgiven, then indeed, we have nothing to fear from God. We are in a loving relationship with him. But time and time again in the Bible the reaction to an angel or to God appearing, or even to Jesus performing a miracle, was fear.
Multiple times Mr. Zahnd states that the Bible is not the perfect revelation of God; Jesus is. Again, why does this have to be either/or? Why not both/and? And how do we know about Jesus? Through the Bible.
Sometimes reading this book really made my head hurt. I was really confused by his explanation of Jesus’ sacrificial work on the cross. For example:
o He says that “at the cross Jesus doesn’t save us from God, he reveals him as Savior. At the cross, we don’t see what God does, but who he is.”(p. 82) My question is, yes, but from what is God saving us? John 3:16 tells us that he loves us so much that he gave us one and only son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but will have everlasting life.
o “The cross is the murder of an innocent man.” Yes, true enough, but there must be more to it than that. Otherwise why did Jesus come to earth? Rev. Zahnd would say to reveal God to us, but there has to be more to it than that.
o “God’s foreknowledge of this killing doesn’t mean that it was God’s will for Jesus to be murdered.” (p. 84) No, he didn’t want him to be murdered, but there was no other way to have a once-for-all sacrifice for sins.
o “God willed that Jesus be faithful to truth and love so that through Jesus’ violent and sinful death, we would be liberated from violence, sin, and death.” (p. 84) Is there no liberation for the punishment and consequences of our sin?
o “The cross is not a picture of payment; the cross is a picture of forgiveness.” (p. 86) Again, why does this have to be an either/or statement? Why can’t it be both/and?
o “God does not punish an innocent substitute for the petty sake of appeasement.” (p. 86) Rev. Zahnd’s sarcasm just gets really tiresome sometimes. Why does he refer to paying the price of sin with words like “petty” and “appeasement”? He also sarcastically claims that those who don’t believe like he does see God as harsh, severe, demanding, petulant, vicious, vengeful, malicious, malevolent, revengeful, a monster god, abusive, and violent. No, no, no. Let’s use words like broken-hearted, grieved, crushed, sad that his creation would turn from him and insist on their own sinful ways.
o “It is the nature of God to forgive, so he didn’t need Christ’s sacrifice to convince him to forgive.” Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t necessary to convince God of anything.
o The only justice God will accept as justice is actually setting the world right! (p. 103) My question, then, is how does God set the world right? I believe it is through the death of Jesus who paid the punishment of all our sin.
o “Jesus came to do God’s will”. (p. 105) Yes, I agree, but my question, based on the context (that God didn’t need Christ’s sacrifice to convince him to forgive) is What was God’s will? It was so that none will perish. Jesus’ death was not only physically agonizing, it was also agonizing because of the weight of sin he would bear, because God would forsake him, because he would go to the depths of hell for us.
o God doesn’t demand a blood sacrifice. Jesus did not shed his blood to buy God’s forgiveness. (p. 106) If we read back through the Old Testament, I believe it was God who made the first sacrifice as he called a sheep to make clothing for Adam and Eve. He accepted Abel’s blood sacrifice, but not Cain’s vegetable sacrifice. He commanded sacrifice in the book of the Law. That pagans corrupted the system of sacrifice to the point of offering children does not mean that God was playing into that system of child sacrifice.
o “If we claim that it was God who required the crucifixion of Jesus, we seek to clothe with false dignity the very structures of sin that Jesus deliberately stripped bare and put to open shame in his death!” (p. 107) Ummm, I’m not even sure what he’s saying here.
o “We violently sinned our sins into Jesus.” (p. 109) Umm, what? I don’t know what he’s getting at and then when he explains it, I still don’t understand.
o “Jesus taught that the Golden Rule is the narrow gate that leads to life. The narrow gate is … a life of love and mercy.” (p. 129) This sure sounds like salvation by works to me. If I love enough I’m in. How about “It is by grace you are saved through faith and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8, 9) First there must be faith and a decision to follow Jesus (I do believe that decision can come slowly over time), then love follows that. As Paul wrote in Galatians 5:6, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”
o “Hell is if you refuse to love you cannot enter the kingdom of God and will end up a lonely, tormented soul.” (p. 135) “Hell has something to do with refusing to receive and be transformed by the love of God.” (p. 137) “Hell is the love of God refused.” (p. 140) Again, this comes back to love being the way to salvation. But how do I know if I’m loving enough? If hating someone in my heart is murder, as Jesus said it is, then I’m hopeless at loving and I am among the wicked. There are plenty of people who are good and loving and kind, but they don’t follow Jesus. Rev. Zahnd says, though, that that doesn’t matter.
o Rev. Zahnd also talks at length about how the religious leaders of Jesus’ day couldn’t stand perfection, so they killed him. It had to do with their own wickedness not any plan of God (if I understand him correctly). So, what’s the point of the crucifixion if it isn’t to save from eternal damnation? If the crucifixion was because evil couldn’t stand a perfect Jesus, what if they hadn’t killed him? He could have accomplished the purpose to love and teach us to love without dying so violently. He could have died a natural death as an old man and we would have all considered him to be a prophet but nothing more. His death has to have been for a reason!
o The book ends with two chapters about Revelation. I think that his interpretation is correct up to a point, but I think there are layers of fulfillment of Revelation. He believes it was all fulfilled with the destruction of the Roman empire and the establishment of Christianity. I feel like if this is all we get, it’s all kind of hopeless. My observation of the world is that things are getting worse and worse, not better and better.
Overall, I was disappointed with this book. Ironically, the tone of the book borders on anger and cutting sarcasm and it just leaves me with way too many questions.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review. The opinions are entirely my own. You can read more about the book here and more about the author here.
December 3, 2017
Like many towns, our hometown has a monument. But when I first moved here, it was horrible to look at. It was entombed inside a sarcophagus of filth, chewing gum, mould, moss and pigeon muck. Then, a few years later, the council finally came along with a shot-blaster and a thing of beauty suddenly emerged. Underneath all those generations of layered grime was a work of art to behold.
In a similar fashion God has become a repulsive image to behold. Certain circles of Christian theology, with their flat readings of the Bible, have heaped layers of bad theology upon bad theology resulting in a distorted and grotesque image; a blood-thirsty, cruel and bitterly angry Deity. So much so, that even Jesus’ beautiful disclosure of a loving God seems to have been lost in the mire of ideas and disfigured under grimy, insidious counter-narratives. Rightly, many atheists have rejected God in this basis of the ideas that have entombed the truth.
But along comes Brian Zahnd with his marvellous *Sinners in the Hands Of A Loving God*, and with a concise and fluid exegesis of the Bible he shot blasts through the filthy, grimy theology to re-reveal the beautiful image of God that we see displayed in the life of Christ. Zahnd prophetically reminds us that God is like Jesus; God has *always* been like Jesus.
This book is a gift for those of us who struggle to handle the violent images of God within the Scriptures. It’s bold and breathtaking; dislodging those ideas we have espoused of a tyrant, genocidal, divine megalomaniac. And mirroring the image that Brian is helping us to perceive—the image that is perfectly disclosed in Christ—there’s no wrath or condemnation in Brian’s tone. This book is dripping with grace and mercy and love. This is indeed a story of scandalously good news.
Brian’s writing has always resonated deeply with me. Personally, I think this is his best yet. And for many, I personally feel that this is the book that might well save your faith.
—Tristan Sherwin, author of *Love: Expressed*
In a similar fashion God has become a repulsive image to behold. Certain circles of Christian theology, with their flat readings of the Bible, have heaped layers of bad theology upon bad theology resulting in a distorted and grotesque image; a blood-thirsty, cruel and bitterly angry Deity. So much so, that even Jesus’ beautiful disclosure of a loving God seems to have been lost in the mire of ideas and disfigured under grimy, insidious counter-narratives. Rightly, many atheists have rejected God in this basis of the ideas that have entombed the truth.
But along comes Brian Zahnd with his marvellous *Sinners in the Hands Of A Loving God*, and with a concise and fluid exegesis of the Bible he shot blasts through the filthy, grimy theology to re-reveal the beautiful image of God that we see displayed in the life of Christ. Zahnd prophetically reminds us that God is like Jesus; God has *always* been like Jesus.
This book is a gift for those of us who struggle to handle the violent images of God within the Scriptures. It’s bold and breathtaking; dislodging those ideas we have espoused of a tyrant, genocidal, divine megalomaniac. And mirroring the image that Brian is helping us to perceive—the image that is perfectly disclosed in Christ—there’s no wrath or condemnation in Brian’s tone. This book is dripping with grace and mercy and love. This is indeed a story of scandalously good news.
Brian’s writing has always resonated deeply with me. Personally, I think this is his best yet. And for many, I personally feel that this is the book that might well save your faith.
—Tristan Sherwin, author of *Love: Expressed*
September 22, 2017
If I ever start a book club, this will be the first book we read.
October 26, 2017
What is God truly like? This is a question I have wrestled with. My whole life I have heard people say, and have said myself, that God is a God of love and of justice. Your sin deserves God’s eternal and unending punishment, or wrath. You can avoid this punishment by trusting in Jesus for in Jesus we see God’s love. In other words, God shows love to some and wrath to others.
To hold this understanding leads to some unavoidable questions. Does Jesus save us from a vengeful God? Is God’s love offered with a threatening fist raised to punish you if you do not accept? And if God tortures you for not accepting God’s love, how is God different from an abusive husband?
As I read Brian Zahnd’s book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, I felt like I was reading my own questions and struggles. I deeply resonate with this book, and I almost want to say any Christian who is honest about the tension between God’s wrath and love should too. Zahnd writes with honesty and passion that lays it all right out there for the reader. This is not an academic book, nor will it answer every question, especially every question critics are sure to bring to it (though, as a sort of coincidence, I just started reading Greg Boyd’s Crucifixion of the Warrior God which is very similar to Zahnd’s work and is more academic, if anyone is interested in that). I appreciate Zahnd’s honesty for not dancing around the issues. For example, is it wrong to murder children? Of course. Was Hitler wrong to exterminate millions of Jews. Absolutely. So why do we then waffle if it is God in scripture who does those things? Is God a monster to order the extermination of children? Did millions of Jews pass from Hitler’s ovens to the unending fiery flames of God’s ovens in hell?
The idea here is one option we have when dealing with God’s wrath. Maybe God is a monster. Zahnd rejects this. The options more Christians might take is that God changes. God might have commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites but now God has become love. God does not work that way anymore. Zahnd rejects this on the principle that God does not change. At the same time, Zahnd also shows that many Christians utilize the book of Revelation to show that God has not really changed but that God really is merely a God of wrath. If Revelation portrays Jesus as returning to slaughter his enemies, then the question of what God is like finds its answer: God is wrath. Here the acts of Jesus on the cross, as well as throughout his life, do not reveal what God is really like. Instead Jesus is sort of a reprieve between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the vengeful God of Revelation. God may offer forgiveness and love for a time, but this is merely temporary.
I think this understanding of God is too common among Christians in America. It is as if the Jesus in the Gospels, the Jesus who teaches love of enemy and then does it and demands we do the same, is too radical. Our human nature wants a vengeful God. The sad thing is that to fall back into a God of wrath is to take away what makes Jesus unique. Every culture and religion (okay, maybe not every one…I am using hyperbole here) has deities that enjoy wrath. Whether Babylon, Rome or America, these empires go to war with the belief that God blesses our weapons and fighting. The idea that God demands something different is so uncomfortable. So we welcome Jesus for forgiveness of our sins and a ticket to heaven, but find Jesus’ way too impractical for daily life.
Zahnd thus argues that the portrait of Jesus in Revelation does not contradict Jesus in the gospels. Instead, Jesus truly is the human face of God. Jesus revealed God. This is basic Trinitarian theology. Zahnd emphasizes over and over what this means though. The Bible is not a flat book where all parts are equal. The Bible is open to many interpretations, and you can easily find a violent God in there if you wish. But it is Jesus, God in the flesh, that regulates our understanding of the rest of the Bible. Because of how Jesus reveals God, we are forced not to say God is a monster or God changes, but to be open to the idea our understanding of the Old Testament has to change. This is one area where Zahnd could have spent more time, though it is also basically what Boyd’s book is about. In essence, we know what God is like in Jesus. When it comes to God’s love in Jesus and God’s order for wrath in the Old Testament, we go with Jesus. That may leave questions about what the Old Testament means, but those are questions we can live with since we now have Jesus in his proper place.
If questioning traditional interpretations of the Old Testament is not enough, Zahnd also questions traditional understandings of hell. First, I think he is right on in cautioning Christians against being confident of who is in hell. Jesus is Savior and Jesus will save all sorts of people. Second, he does not actually say much about the afterlife. Zahnd’s emphasis is on this life, including the hells we humans create. That said, it is clear that his understanding of God as Love means the door is never closed on anyone, in this life or the next. If a person turns away from their self-centeredness and desires to know God, God will welcome that person. As the book of Revelation says, the gates of the New Jerusalem are never closed, so presumably people can enter at any time. God’s love means God is, like the Father in the parable of the prodigal, always willing to welcome anyone. The problem is that we, like the son, are slow to go home. I suppose Zahnd is not a big enough name to get criticized the way Rob Bell did with Love Wins (which I am pretty sure many of his critics did not bother to read), but he sounds a lot like Bell here.
Overall, I loved this book. Even if you do not agree with some of Zahnd’s conclusions, I think the questions he is raising are worth your time. Does God send people to an eternal torture chamber, worse than anything Hitler devised? Does God change? How do we understand passages of the Old Testament, such as the Canaanite genocide, in light of Jesus? What, ultimately, is God really like? Is God’s love and forgiveness in Jesus just a parenthesis between lots and lots of wrath? Or is Jesus truly the human face of God?
Finally, most of my qualms with this book come down to editing. Zahnd’s foil here is Jonathan Edwards, the title of the book is even a modification of one of Edwards’ sermons. After the first chapter or so, Zahnd begins mentioning John Calvin and Calvin’s ideas. Unless I missed it, he never quoted Calvin. Perhaps Calvin is a stand in for Calvinism, though Calvinism is broad. Maybe Puritanism? John Piper? I am sure Calvin is closer in theology to Edwards than Zahnd, but bringing Calvin in with little introduction seemed sloppy. Likewise, there were a couple other references with no note. He mentioned William Wallace once, a clear allusion to Braveheart and a strain of Christianity that lifts up Wallace as an ideal man (John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart). Was this connection I made what Zahnd hoped for? Again, either editing or something would have cleared this up.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review
To hold this understanding leads to some unavoidable questions. Does Jesus save us from a vengeful God? Is God’s love offered with a threatening fist raised to punish you if you do not accept? And if God tortures you for not accepting God’s love, how is God different from an abusive husband?
As I read Brian Zahnd’s book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, I felt like I was reading my own questions and struggles. I deeply resonate with this book, and I almost want to say any Christian who is honest about the tension between God’s wrath and love should too. Zahnd writes with honesty and passion that lays it all right out there for the reader. This is not an academic book, nor will it answer every question, especially every question critics are sure to bring to it (though, as a sort of coincidence, I just started reading Greg Boyd’s Crucifixion of the Warrior God which is very similar to Zahnd’s work and is more academic, if anyone is interested in that). I appreciate Zahnd’s honesty for not dancing around the issues. For example, is it wrong to murder children? Of course. Was Hitler wrong to exterminate millions of Jews. Absolutely. So why do we then waffle if it is God in scripture who does those things? Is God a monster to order the extermination of children? Did millions of Jews pass from Hitler’s ovens to the unending fiery flames of God’s ovens in hell?
The idea here is one option we have when dealing with God’s wrath. Maybe God is a monster. Zahnd rejects this. The options more Christians might take is that God changes. God might have commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites but now God has become love. God does not work that way anymore. Zahnd rejects this on the principle that God does not change. At the same time, Zahnd also shows that many Christians utilize the book of Revelation to show that God has not really changed but that God really is merely a God of wrath. If Revelation portrays Jesus as returning to slaughter his enemies, then the question of what God is like finds its answer: God is wrath. Here the acts of Jesus on the cross, as well as throughout his life, do not reveal what God is really like. Instead Jesus is sort of a reprieve between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the vengeful God of Revelation. God may offer forgiveness and love for a time, but this is merely temporary.
I think this understanding of God is too common among Christians in America. It is as if the Jesus in the Gospels, the Jesus who teaches love of enemy and then does it and demands we do the same, is too radical. Our human nature wants a vengeful God. The sad thing is that to fall back into a God of wrath is to take away what makes Jesus unique. Every culture and religion (okay, maybe not every one…I am using hyperbole here) has deities that enjoy wrath. Whether Babylon, Rome or America, these empires go to war with the belief that God blesses our weapons and fighting. The idea that God demands something different is so uncomfortable. So we welcome Jesus for forgiveness of our sins and a ticket to heaven, but find Jesus’ way too impractical for daily life.
Zahnd thus argues that the portrait of Jesus in Revelation does not contradict Jesus in the gospels. Instead, Jesus truly is the human face of God. Jesus revealed God. This is basic Trinitarian theology. Zahnd emphasizes over and over what this means though. The Bible is not a flat book where all parts are equal. The Bible is open to many interpretations, and you can easily find a violent God in there if you wish. But it is Jesus, God in the flesh, that regulates our understanding of the rest of the Bible. Because of how Jesus reveals God, we are forced not to say God is a monster or God changes, but to be open to the idea our understanding of the Old Testament has to change. This is one area where Zahnd could have spent more time, though it is also basically what Boyd’s book is about. In essence, we know what God is like in Jesus. When it comes to God’s love in Jesus and God’s order for wrath in the Old Testament, we go with Jesus. That may leave questions about what the Old Testament means, but those are questions we can live with since we now have Jesus in his proper place.
If questioning traditional interpretations of the Old Testament is not enough, Zahnd also questions traditional understandings of hell. First, I think he is right on in cautioning Christians against being confident of who is in hell. Jesus is Savior and Jesus will save all sorts of people. Second, he does not actually say much about the afterlife. Zahnd’s emphasis is on this life, including the hells we humans create. That said, it is clear that his understanding of God as Love means the door is never closed on anyone, in this life or the next. If a person turns away from their self-centeredness and desires to know God, God will welcome that person. As the book of Revelation says, the gates of the New Jerusalem are never closed, so presumably people can enter at any time. God’s love means God is, like the Father in the parable of the prodigal, always willing to welcome anyone. The problem is that we, like the son, are slow to go home. I suppose Zahnd is not a big enough name to get criticized the way Rob Bell did with Love Wins (which I am pretty sure many of his critics did not bother to read), but he sounds a lot like Bell here.
Overall, I loved this book. Even if you do not agree with some of Zahnd’s conclusions, I think the questions he is raising are worth your time. Does God send people to an eternal torture chamber, worse than anything Hitler devised? Does God change? How do we understand passages of the Old Testament, such as the Canaanite genocide, in light of Jesus? What, ultimately, is God really like? Is God’s love and forgiveness in Jesus just a parenthesis between lots and lots of wrath? Or is Jesus truly the human face of God?
Finally, most of my qualms with this book come down to editing. Zahnd’s foil here is Jonathan Edwards, the title of the book is even a modification of one of Edwards’ sermons. After the first chapter or so, Zahnd begins mentioning John Calvin and Calvin’s ideas. Unless I missed it, he never quoted Calvin. Perhaps Calvin is a stand in for Calvinism, though Calvinism is broad. Maybe Puritanism? John Piper? I am sure Calvin is closer in theology to Edwards than Zahnd, but bringing Calvin in with little introduction seemed sloppy. Likewise, there were a couple other references with no note. He mentioned William Wallace once, a clear allusion to Braveheart and a strain of Christianity that lifts up Wallace as an ideal man (John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart). Was this connection I made what Zahnd hoped for? Again, either editing or something would have cleared this up.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review
October 11, 2017
This was the first book that I've read within a day in a LONG time. Let that speak for what it's worth. I would also like to add, however, that just because I was able to read it fairly quickly and that in itself lends as a witness to the readability and intrigue of said book, it does not necessarily reflect my agreement with all of the material presented. That being said, I firmly believe that this is a book that most Christians (if not all) should read, not because what he said is necessarily completely true (though Zahnd believes it to be so and does a decent job backing his reasons for believing that) but simply because the subject matter is a HIGHLY important one.
What Zahnd presents in "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God" is a conclusion of his personal journey as a Christian/minister from the first time encountering the famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" to today. Beginning with a direct challenge with the widely popular view of an angry, wrathful God, he weaves through a conversation with Biblical texts, historical theology, and church tradition to produce an intriguing and thought provoking contribution to the Christianity today.
By challenging the reader to interpret and filter what we read in Scripture through the lens of Jesus Himself, Zahnd comes to a picture of God that is vastly different from what was portrayed in Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon (and thus many theologians and pastors since). Overall Zahnd did a nice job collecting his thoughts and conclusions and presenting them in a logical, easy to follow progression through the course of the book. If I have one major criticism of his progression (other than some of his conclusion), I felt that he digressed a little from the main premise of his book in chapters 7-9 (dealing with parts of Revelation specifically), and thus could have condensed those 3 chapters more into 1 or 2.
Chapters 4 & 5 were BY FAR my favorite chapters to read, chew on, and wrestle with (Titled 'The Crucified God' and 'Who Killed Jesus?' respectively). Even if one were to end up disagreeing with everything he presents in these two chapters, Zahnd's conclusions and 'paper trail' for how he arrived at those conclusions are worth reading, exploring, and contemplating.
The chapter on hell (chapter 6) presents his conclusions on eternal punishment and how one might end up in either heaven or hell. From what I understand (and as always, I could have misunderstood), I would venture to say Zahn ends up on the spectrum close to the position re-made popular by Rob Bell not TOO long ago, though with some pretty significant differences (i.e. Bell- eventually Jesus redeems everyone... a Christian Universalist view made originating with Origen (ironic, huh?); Zahnd- Since God is love and the invitation of love is never retracted, one can still respond to that love even after death just as much as one can scorn and reject that love after death. In other words, only you can keep yourself in hell by continuing to reject love and as long as you do so, there you will remain.)
Some of the 'theological structure' that Zahnd builds regarding Scripture seems a little flimsy/suspect at times due to some perceived inconsistencies and 'weak' spots. This is simply my opinion and impression based upon what I feel you'll arrive at if you take EVERYTHING he says to the absolute end.
In conclusion, did Zahnd change my mind today? No. Did he give me things to ponder and think about as I read Scripture and grow in my relationship with Jesus? Absolutely. At the very least, I'd say Zahnd was successful in one of the main motives of which he set out to achieve. After reading 'Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God', you have to at least take a moment and rejoice how loving and awesome our God is.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review.
What Zahnd presents in "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God" is a conclusion of his personal journey as a Christian/minister from the first time encountering the famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" to today. Beginning with a direct challenge with the widely popular view of an angry, wrathful God, he weaves through a conversation with Biblical texts, historical theology, and church tradition to produce an intriguing and thought provoking contribution to the Christianity today.
By challenging the reader to interpret and filter what we read in Scripture through the lens of Jesus Himself, Zahnd comes to a picture of God that is vastly different from what was portrayed in Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon (and thus many theologians and pastors since). Overall Zahnd did a nice job collecting his thoughts and conclusions and presenting them in a logical, easy to follow progression through the course of the book. If I have one major criticism of his progression (other than some of his conclusion), I felt that he digressed a little from the main premise of his book in chapters 7-9 (dealing with parts of Revelation specifically), and thus could have condensed those 3 chapters more into 1 or 2.
Chapters 4 & 5 were BY FAR my favorite chapters to read, chew on, and wrestle with (Titled 'The Crucified God' and 'Who Killed Jesus?' respectively). Even if one were to end up disagreeing with everything he presents in these two chapters, Zahnd's conclusions and 'paper trail' for how he arrived at those conclusions are worth reading, exploring, and contemplating.
The chapter on hell (chapter 6) presents his conclusions on eternal punishment and how one might end up in either heaven or hell. From what I understand (and as always, I could have misunderstood), I would venture to say Zahn ends up on the spectrum close to the position re-made popular by Rob Bell not TOO long ago, though with some pretty significant differences (i.e. Bell- eventually Jesus redeems everyone... a Christian Universalist view made originating with Origen (ironic, huh?); Zahnd- Since God is love and the invitation of love is never retracted, one can still respond to that love even after death just as much as one can scorn and reject that love after death. In other words, only you can keep yourself in hell by continuing to reject love and as long as you do so, there you will remain.)
Some of the 'theological structure' that Zahnd builds regarding Scripture seems a little flimsy/suspect at times due to some perceived inconsistencies and 'weak' spots. This is simply my opinion and impression based upon what I feel you'll arrive at if you take EVERYTHING he says to the absolute end.
In conclusion, did Zahnd change my mind today? No. Did he give me things to ponder and think about as I read Scripture and grow in my relationship with Jesus? Absolutely. At the very least, I'd say Zahnd was successful in one of the main motives of which he set out to achieve. After reading 'Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God', you have to at least take a moment and rejoice how loving and awesome our God is.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review.
January 5, 2021
BZ... what a guy. A good loving perspective that fights the cruel nature that God is portrayed in sometimes. Had me believing I was some sort of universalist at the end and I'm alright with that...I think haha
November 20, 2023
If I were to choose one or two books that sum up a lot of my theology right now, I would put this one at the top of the list. I can't tell you how refreshing and life-giving it was to read this after having wrestled with all of these questions myself, refusing to settle for the surface-level explanations, for the last several years. It's been my favorite read of the year thus far and I highly recommend it. If you have access to Hoopla through your library card, I found the audiobook on there (it's free to listen to through Hoopla) and it's a reasonably short listen. If the book resonates with you, I think you'll also like Love Wins by Rob Bell and Original Blessing by Danielle Shroyer.
I have come to most of the same "conclusions" (I hold that word loosely these days) the author shares in this book on my own over time but had not heard anyone else speak about having similar views / values until very recently. I found this a thoroughly encouraging read.
I have come to most of the same "conclusions" (I hold that word loosely these days) the author shares in this book on my own over time but had not heard anyone else speak about having similar views / values until very recently. I found this a thoroughly encouraging read.
February 17, 2023
Another gem from Brian Z… his message is healing in ways I didn’t know I needed it. If you are conflicted about the two “views” of God - one as angry & wrathful and the other as loving & merciful - this book will enlighten and relieve that tension. For SO many who have been / are seriously hurt by an “angry-God” theology, this is a book you don’t want to miss.
March 8, 2025
An excellent book! A must-read.
April 6, 2023
Brian Zahnd is a gift to this world! He is honest, vulnerable, and doesn’t mince his words where he sees spiritual harm being perpetuated. The love of God is the central theme of the gospel, and Zahnd is trying to help us remember that! I think every Christian should read this book.
August 22, 2017
Zanhd eloquently and sharply dismantles one common, broken image of God and introduces us to the reassuring truth of the love revealed in Jesus. This isn't "comprehensive" in that it won't answer every question or unpack every challenging text of scripture. But as a primer on Christocentric hermeneutics, it's a perfect way to reorient yourself to the grace, mercy and kindness of the Jesus Way.
June 8, 2020
I could have finished this book in a few days, but I had a lot to think about between chapters. I was recommended this book by a friend who has good things to say about Brian Zahnd, and I was very pleased with it.
The book details Zahnd's views of God as a loving God—and lays out his anecdotal and more theological concepts of redemption, atonement, hell/heaven, and the love of God present here on earth, including a rich dive into Revelation.
The book juxtaposes the often traditional, reformed, wrathful view many contemporary Christians have of God and the (in my opinion) more accurate and deep version of grace and love through Jesus that God truly embodies. Along with discussions of scripture and interpretation, Zahnd makes a solid case for a truer, richer religious faith—if even his writing includes a tad too many exclamation points.
This short book was a refreshing breath of fresh air. Not earth-shattering to me at this point in my walk, but still meaningful and richly important to faith altogether. I imagine it could be liberating to many Christians.
The book details Zahnd's views of God as a loving God—and lays out his anecdotal and more theological concepts of redemption, atonement, hell/heaven, and the love of God present here on earth, including a rich dive into Revelation.
The book juxtaposes the often traditional, reformed, wrathful view many contemporary Christians have of God and the (in my opinion) more accurate and deep version of grace and love through Jesus that God truly embodies. Along with discussions of scripture and interpretation, Zahnd makes a solid case for a truer, richer religious faith—if even his writing includes a tad too many exclamation points.
This short book was a refreshing breath of fresh air. Not earth-shattering to me at this point in my walk, but still meaningful and richly important to faith altogether. I imagine it could be liberating to many Christians.
November 28, 2023
Whew, this is one of those books that I picked up, read the first page, and immediately knew I would like. The reviews of it seemed promising - people saying that it answered a bunch of their questions, giving them a better view of God and the Bible. What I didn't realize was how much this book would resonate with me. I didn't want to put it down.
Zahnd, with the precision of a skilled surgeon, deftly removed many deep-seated, cancerous thoughts that had taken root from a decade of grappling with God and the Bible in a conservative environment. I could feel cognitive dissonance leaving my brain, my heart racing with excitement at each turn of the page.
To anyone grappling with understanding the Bible, God, salvation, heaven, and hell, or attempting to reconcile God's love with God being full of wrath/anger, I strongly recommend giving this book a try. This is one that will almost certainly stick with me for the rest of my life.
Zahnd, with the precision of a skilled surgeon, deftly removed many deep-seated, cancerous thoughts that had taken root from a decade of grappling with God and the Bible in a conservative environment. I could feel cognitive dissonance leaving my brain, my heart racing with excitement at each turn of the page.
To anyone grappling with understanding the Bible, God, salvation, heaven, and hell, or attempting to reconcile God's love with God being full of wrath/anger, I strongly recommend giving this book a try. This is one that will almost certainly stick with me for the rest of my life.
January 1, 2024
I with utmost urgency recommend this book to any and everyone. Brian Zahnd writes in a consistent and entertaining way throughout the entirety of this work. To find someone who struggled with the thoughts of an angry God just as I, and has seemed come out of that grapple victorious, this was a relaxing read for me. But even if you don’t find yourself in that category I still highly recommend Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God to you. I believe Zahnd captures the meaning of christianity perfectly in these pages and will leave the reader with no doubt in their mind as to how they should perceive God and even the world from here on out. As love and with love. You can sense the importance with the author intends to get this message out, and after reading this I too feel burdened by this importance. God is love, read the damn book. Great work of literature.
April 1, 2019
Trash. Basura.
A book full to the brim of half truths and half baked conclusions. False dichotomies abound within these bounded page. For instance, the author constantly refers to “anger” as an enemy of “love”. That’s false. Anger isn’t love’s enemy, anger is often love’s expression.
That’s just one example of many.
It’s been said that “half truth, masquerading as a whole truth, is a complete untruth.” That statement could very well describe the contents of this book.
A book full to the brim of half truths and half baked conclusions. False dichotomies abound within these bounded page. For instance, the author constantly refers to “anger” as an enemy of “love”. That’s false. Anger isn’t love’s enemy, anger is often love’s expression.
That’s just one example of many.
It’s been said that “half truth, masquerading as a whole truth, is a complete untruth.” That statement could very well describe the contents of this book.
March 3, 2023
2/5
There is a lot of interesting stuff in here, and some of it is quite good. In particular I liked the discussion about Jesus' "fulfillment" relationship with the law and the prophets from the Old Testament. Jesus is discussed as the Word of God, of whom the scriptures are a witness. Zahnd argues that Jesus is the primary thing we should look to for guidance on how to live, and that we should never "cite Moses to silence Jesus." A lengthy discussion follows on the story of Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah on the mountain and the apostle Peter's reaction to it that I thought was quite excellent.
The book really falls apart from me when Zahnd starts to talk about the Old Testament more generally. One starts to see quotes such as "Jesus saves the Bible from itself" and "Jesus delivers the Bible from its addiction to violent retaliation." Although Zahnd goes out of his way to claim that he has a very high opinion of scripture and views it as inspired, he does not explicitly say what he means by this. What he is explicit about, however, is that he believes that the Old Testament is a history of Israel coming to grips with who God is. The God as described in the Old Testament does not exist. God didn't tell Israel to take possession of Canaan, the Israelites just had a warped perception of God that they used to justify their behavior, and that is what has been passed down to us in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Wrath of God described in the Old Testament is not literal, it is a metaphor for the consequences of our own sinful actions coming back to bite us, not some kind of retributive justice from God.
How does Zahnd jump to such interesting conclusions? By arguing against a strawman of right-wing fundamentalist positions, and using a false dichotomy to present this as the only alternative to his views. There is very little intellectual honesty to be found here and it is quite a shame. I would have loved to see Zahnd defend his views against competent theological opposition.
To end this too long review here is a short list of some other positions argued for here, all of which are unfortunately done so in a similar manner to what I have already written about. I used a similar list from another review to organize:
(1) Jesus reveals the true nature of God, therefore anything God does in the OT that contradicts this is simply a misconception of the character of God on the part of the Israelites.
(2) The Old Testament contradicts itself, which proves point (1).
(3) God did not send Jesus to die on the cross, but to show His true self to the world. While He foreknew that humans would kill Jesus this was not a part of His plan.
(4) The death of Christ is not Jesus satisfying the justice of God, but dying self-sacrificially to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims.
(5) The idea of substitutionary atonement comes from Calvin and the reformation, not from the historical understanding of the church.
(6) Hell is not a place of God’s active punishment, but the lonely torment of choosing our own hell. (7) People misunderstand Revelation to be about the end times, but in reality, it is a symbolic account of Jesus defeating the Roman Empire and all beastly empires.
While I am sympathetic to (6) and (7), they are argued for very poorly, and I could recommend several better books for these subjects.
There is a lot of interesting stuff in here, and some of it is quite good. In particular I liked the discussion about Jesus' "fulfillment" relationship with the law and the prophets from the Old Testament. Jesus is discussed as the Word of God, of whom the scriptures are a witness. Zahnd argues that Jesus is the primary thing we should look to for guidance on how to live, and that we should never "cite Moses to silence Jesus." A lengthy discussion follows on the story of Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah on the mountain and the apostle Peter's reaction to it that I thought was quite excellent.
The book really falls apart from me when Zahnd starts to talk about the Old Testament more generally. One starts to see quotes such as "Jesus saves the Bible from itself" and "Jesus delivers the Bible from its addiction to violent retaliation." Although Zahnd goes out of his way to claim that he has a very high opinion of scripture and views it as inspired, he does not explicitly say what he means by this. What he is explicit about, however, is that he believes that the Old Testament is a history of Israel coming to grips with who God is. The God as described in the Old Testament does not exist. God didn't tell Israel to take possession of Canaan, the Israelites just had a warped perception of God that they used to justify their behavior, and that is what has been passed down to us in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Wrath of God described in the Old Testament is not literal, it is a metaphor for the consequences of our own sinful actions coming back to bite us, not some kind of retributive justice from God.
How does Zahnd jump to such interesting conclusions? By arguing against a strawman of right-wing fundamentalist positions, and using a false dichotomy to present this as the only alternative to his views. There is very little intellectual honesty to be found here and it is quite a shame. I would have loved to see Zahnd defend his views against competent theological opposition.
To end this too long review here is a short list of some other positions argued for here, all of which are unfortunately done so in a similar manner to what I have already written about. I used a similar list from another review to organize:
(1) Jesus reveals the true nature of God, therefore anything God does in the OT that contradicts this is simply a misconception of the character of God on the part of the Israelites.
(2) The Old Testament contradicts itself, which proves point (1).
(3) God did not send Jesus to die on the cross, but to show His true self to the world. While He foreknew that humans would kill Jesus this was not a part of His plan.
(4) The death of Christ is not Jesus satisfying the justice of God, but dying self-sacrificially to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims.
(5) The idea of substitutionary atonement comes from Calvin and the reformation, not from the historical understanding of the church.
(6) Hell is not a place of God’s active punishment, but the lonely torment of choosing our own hell. (7) People misunderstand Revelation to be about the end times, but in reality, it is a symbolic account of Jesus defeating the Roman Empire and all beastly empires.
While I am sympathetic to (6) and (7), they are argued for very poorly, and I could recommend several better books for these subjects.
June 9, 2020
This is, honestly, the worst book I've read in years. The problem isn't so much that I disagree with the conclusions of the author. I read books often that I disagree with and still profit from. The problem with this book is that the reasoning is so bad I am forced to conclude that the author is either an idiot or being disingenuous. I don't think he's an idiot, so I am angered by his intentional use of straw men, cherry-picking texts while ignoring others (ie. the whole Pauline corpus), making patently false historical claims and more. He will win over those easily manipulated and they will have a lesser Jesus because of it, not a greater Jesus.
If I could give negative stars, I would.
For a better review (thank you Stephen for sending it to me), check out Reformedish:
https://derekzrishmawy.com/2017/08/21...
If I could give negative stars, I would.
For a better review (thank you Stephen for sending it to me), check out Reformedish:
https://derekzrishmawy.com/2017/08/21...
March 4, 2025
While I could easily get behind the author's push for people to imitate the way Jesus lived and loved, and his early calling out against nationalism, I wasn't sure about some of his other theological leaps or what they were based on. I do value reading things I don't always agree with so this book was a worthwhile read for that purpose too.
October 4, 2017
[Note: This book was provided free of charge by Blogging For Books/Waterbrook. All thoughts and opinions are my own.]
The title of this book is a deliberate riff on the unrepresentative sermon Sinners In The Hand Of An Angry God, a sermon that the author once had a strange and even disturbing fascination with but has now decisively rejected. Although I have a deep urge to rip into this book for its many flaws, I think that it is necessary to at least acknowledge its virtues in pointing out that the Bible does not speak a great deal about hell, at least in the way that many professed Christians do. The author also does a good job at pointing out areas that others need to work on, such as the need to avoid civic religion and the idolatry of worshiping the power of empire. These are worthwhile points and while they are not the central part of the book they demonstrate that even a deeply flawed book like this one can manage to succeed in some of its points. If the author is unable to properly interpret scripture and has bought into some unfortunate views about the authorship of Revelation, which he belatedly acknowledges. If the author scores some points about those who seek to scare others through prophetic speculation [1], the author shows himself as biased in his misunderstanding of scripture as those he criticizes.
In about two hundred pages the author attempts to engage in some deceptive biblical interpretation to pit a harsh view of God against the loving Jesus Christ--totally neglecting Jesus Christ as a conquering king. The elements of this book's approach are a combination of various mistaken approaches--choosing post-millennial optimism without the usual Calvinist judgment or desire to restore biblical law and punishment, trying to resolve the apparent dilemma between God's justice and God's love and mercy and grace by engaging in fallacious tiebreaker arguments and by claiming that God's nature had been misunderstood by early Israelites who assumed he was a violent god like those around them. For every time the author actually makes a good point there are at least two or three times where the author shows himself to be completely clueless in interpreting scripture correctly in a way that would be suitable for the times in which we live in.
Nevertheless, although this is not a very good book, it is not a worthless book because it reveals how a belief in progressive revelation and constructing an image of God and Jesus Christ that are devoid of judgment and fear and reverence make it possible to entirely neglect the reality of corporate judgment of a society's sins by God consistently throughout the course of biblical history. For the most part, our generation does not need to be lulled into sleep with the thoughts of a God who is a permissive parent without any inclination to punish the rebellious and unregenerate. Our generation first needs to be prompted to repent, and then to be reminded of God's love in the midst of painful reflection about how we have departed God's ways by living according to the heathen practices of the world around us. This author does a great disservice to readers by refusing to honestly reflect upon why there is a need to honestly acknowledge the judgment of God in both the Old and New Testaments without passing it off as something that is a relic of the bad old days of previous barbarism. We need to know that God and Jesus Christ do not desire to destroy the wicked, but have immensely high ethical and moral demands that are more than mere wuv.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
The title of this book is a deliberate riff on the unrepresentative sermon Sinners In The Hand Of An Angry God, a sermon that the author once had a strange and even disturbing fascination with but has now decisively rejected. Although I have a deep urge to rip into this book for its many flaws, I think that it is necessary to at least acknowledge its virtues in pointing out that the Bible does not speak a great deal about hell, at least in the way that many professed Christians do. The author also does a good job at pointing out areas that others need to work on, such as the need to avoid civic religion and the idolatry of worshiping the power of empire. These are worthwhile points and while they are not the central part of the book they demonstrate that even a deeply flawed book like this one can manage to succeed in some of its points. If the author is unable to properly interpret scripture and has bought into some unfortunate views about the authorship of Revelation, which he belatedly acknowledges. If the author scores some points about those who seek to scare others through prophetic speculation [1], the author shows himself as biased in his misunderstanding of scripture as those he criticizes.
In about two hundred pages the author attempts to engage in some deceptive biblical interpretation to pit a harsh view of God against the loving Jesus Christ--totally neglecting Jesus Christ as a conquering king. The elements of this book's approach are a combination of various mistaken approaches--choosing post-millennial optimism without the usual Calvinist judgment or desire to restore biblical law and punishment, trying to resolve the apparent dilemma between God's justice and God's love and mercy and grace by engaging in fallacious tiebreaker arguments and by claiming that God's nature had been misunderstood by early Israelites who assumed he was a violent god like those around them. For every time the author actually makes a good point there are at least two or three times where the author shows himself to be completely clueless in interpreting scripture correctly in a way that would be suitable for the times in which we live in.
Nevertheless, although this is not a very good book, it is not a worthless book because it reveals how a belief in progressive revelation and constructing an image of God and Jesus Christ that are devoid of judgment and fear and reverence make it possible to entirely neglect the reality of corporate judgment of a society's sins by God consistently throughout the course of biblical history. For the most part, our generation does not need to be lulled into sleep with the thoughts of a God who is a permissive parent without any inclination to punish the rebellious and unregenerate. Our generation first needs to be prompted to repent, and then to be reminded of God's love in the midst of painful reflection about how we have departed God's ways by living according to the heathen practices of the world around us. This author does a great disservice to readers by refusing to honestly reflect upon why there is a need to honestly acknowledge the judgment of God in both the Old and New Testaments without passing it off as something that is a relic of the bad old days of previous barbarism. We need to know that God and Jesus Christ do not desire to destroy the wicked, but have immensely high ethical and moral demands that are more than mere wuv.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 372 reviews