Is God a Vindictive Bully?

by Paul Copan

Christianity Today 2023 Award of Merit (Apologetics & Evangelism)

Critics outside the church often accuse the Old Testament God of genocide, racism, ethnic cleansing, and violence. But a rising tide of critics within the church claim that Moses and other "primitive," violence-prone prophets were mistaken about God's commands and character. Both sets of critics dismiss this allegedly harsh, flawed, "textual" Old Testament God in favor of the kind, compassionate, "actual" God revealed by Jesus. Are they right to do so?

Following his popular book Is God a Moral Monster? , noted apologist Paul Copan confronts false, imbalanced teaching that is confusing and misleading many Christians. Copan takes on some of the most difficult Old Testament challenges and places them in their larger historical and theological contexts. He explores the kindness, patience, and compassion of God in the Old Testament and shows how Jesus in the New Testament reveals not only divine kindness but also divine severity. The book includes a detailed Scripture index of difficult and controversial passages and is helpful for anyone interested in understanding the flaws in these emerging claims that are creating a destructive gap between the Testaments.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Faith, Nonfiction, Christianity, Audiobook, Biblical

320 pages, Paperback

First published October 18, 2022

About the author

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.

From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”

In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."

Reviews

[Michelle Raybourn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not exactly a light title lol, but it was a comforting book, recommended by Kevin Twit.

It was helpful to take all of my questions about Old Testament laws or practices that cause concern or alarm and come to understand God’s heart more. Being reminded of God’s mercy and justice holding hands is a truth to hold onto at the center of faith.

[John Martindale · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why did I subject myself to this?

Most fundamentally, Copan starts with the following assumptions: God is kind and severe (just), the bible is inerrant and univocal, so whatever the Bible depicts God as doing or commanding will either express his kindness or justice.
Now, here is the problem: nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING, could count as evidence against Copan's thesis. If commands and actions are unjust, cruel, bullying, sadistic, and pathologically evil? Well, automatically, this is simply the wrath of God; God is a God of justice! That is the severity of God! End of story (though sometimes he tries to downplay it--it wasn't as bad as it seems, or is better than Israel's neighbors' ethics).
If Moses had said, "Fathers, God commands you to rape your daughters, mutilate them, and then eat them, if they complain about making you dinner." Copen wouldn't bat an eye; he would be like, "God is a God of justice and severity; if God commands it, it is just and holy, and it is not as bad as it looks anyhow--some hyperbole going on here, and we don't have any record of Jews actually obeying the command. So yes, only Marcionite-like inside critics would have an issue with this."
It would be impossible to get anywhere with Copan, as nothing could count as evidence of injustice, since either he would downplay the evil or simply call it justice and point out how (what almost everyone considers evil) actually aligns with Jesus.

Copan be like, "The God of the old is the same as the new": Jesus is the perfect revelation of God, and yes, Jesus is like, Let the little children come to me. For such is the kingdom of heaven, and love your enemies, forgive, do good, etc... Oh, and Jesus also really liked Moses... not a jot or tittle of what he said is to be annulled (unless you wanna be least in the Kingdom of God).
Wonderful, we now know what God is like. So let's see this demonstrated in the Old Testament.
Amalakites attack Israel, Moses is like "take offense, hold a grudge (pass the hate on to your children's children) until you are established in the land, and then kill them all." 400 years later, Samual tells Saul, "because the Amalekites attacked Israel, you are to go kill every baby, child, woman, and man, and all the animals." Copan utterly ignores the WARRANT for the command.
So what does Forgiveness mean? Well, it means holding a murderous grudge, passing on this hate to the next generation, and having them pass it on to the next generation (they were like Nazis, after all), for hundreds of years, until you can hyperbolically kill them all. (This is also what justice looks like, God is a God of severity, after all! Jesus cleaned out the temple and would cast Jezebel on a sick bed!)
Loving children? It means hacking them to pieces and dashing their brains out, for something their ancestors did 400 years ago. No worries, though, God's severity flows from his love. Think October 7th in Israel, but on a massive scale--Oh, the gloriously pure and just action of God! Oh how blessed were those who got to slice open the pregnant women's bellies and see both mother and child killed! Oh, but it was just hyperbole, even though God supposedly said kill every woman and child, and the text says they killed every woman and child, maybe not ALL of the babies were killed. So don't worry about it! It wasn't genocide!

Copan would make a great apologist for Stalin or Hitler. The same approach could be used. Let's take Stalin, okay, Copan be like, Stalin is perfectly good and just. Everything Stalin did flowed from love. Then he points to Stalin, saying he was good and just, and he finds others who praise Stalin's character. Now he writes against those outside and inside critics, who bring up problematic things Stalin did and commanded; He shows that dealing with these critics is easy peasy! Is Stalin both Kind and Severe? yes! Staving millions of Ukrainians to death? Well, the strawmenners who bring this up just want to spew anti-Stalin propaganda and leave out all the good Stalin did, oh.. it really happened? Well, the Ukrainians deserved it--Stalin is just, also, 14,000,000... that is hyperbole! Oh, and this action flowed from love! Stalin was not a Vindictive Bully! And literally NOTHING Stalin did could count as evidence for this, since literally EVERYTHING Stalin did that you are uncomfortable with can be rationalized as "justice" and "loving", oh praise Stalin.

I will grant that Copan succeeds in showing that the deity expressed in Matthew and Revelation is just as violent and evil according to most ethical evaluations (and thus holy and just, according to Copan). Yes, there is no difference between the God of the old and the God of the new (if Matt and Rev are used), both are vindictive bullies with an utter contempt for human life--both are beyond good and evil, as no moral reasoning is to apply. Might equals right, human dignity and value repudiated.
Anyhow, since some authors in the New Testament had repugnant conceptions of God, then it does not work to simply say that as a WHOLE, the New Testament presents a better conception of God. Revelation presents Jesus as being infinitely WORSE than every dictator (Antiochus Epiphanies, Nero, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot...) combined, so arguably, since Revelation was tragically included in the canon, the "God" of the New Testament is even better captured by the pithy Dawkins quote which Copan began with.

So again, Dawkins wrote "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." For Copan, this is the God of the New Testament, too! This is Jesus (just not in fiction but in reality!) Yay!!!. But... for Copan, we err in saying any of this if we are saying these descriptions are negative. All of these things, when illustrated in scripture, are simply the loving and just severity of God, and are never as bad as they appear.

Copan and adventures in missing the point.
Dear Copan, with the flood, bringing up the grief of God does nothing to address what is the problem. Let's think of an example. The father of a farm with lots of animals has 12 children. 6 of them are really bad, in fact, so bad that one of the brothers actually tortures and kills his younger sister. The father is SOO grieved by this violence! It breaks his heart, so he goes to the local dam, blows it up, and drowns all of the animals and all of his children (including the baby and toddler). Now, should I have a problem with his method of "justice"? Is the fact that he was sad when he had everyone killed and all the animals killed really solve the problem?
Like seriously, Copan, I mean, what better way to say "I don't like violence" than by violently killing EVERYONE! What better why say it makes me sad than to commit worldwide genocide? What better way to say justice is to be proportional, and I value life? Again, what about all the fetuses developing in the mother's womb? What better way to express how pro-life He is than causing worldwide abortions! Oh, the glorious severity of God!

Or with Passover, it is simply poetic justice; Pharaoh killed the Hebrews' firstborn, so God killed their firstborn. Uh... okay, so let me get this straight, suppose my Neighbor Bob was drunk, he runs over my daughter. This gives me the right to go to his house, tie up his three-year-old daughter, and run her over with my truck! Yeah, that is how justice works! For Copan, clearly, it is.

My gosh... this book is so unspeakably horrible.

The only redeemable point was that he was able to attribute the command to slaughter all the Midianite women and take their virgin daughters as booty to Moses rather than God. Mind-blowing and very unlike Copan.
Of course, he does try to spin the Bible as so noble, saying these virgin girls were not raped! I mean, think about it, here we have a girl, she just watched Hebrew men hack to pieces her mother, father, and brothers, and now the man who just murdered her family wants to make her one of his wives! I mean, how noble, God even legislated a little time for her to grieve her family! Oh, and I am sure she consented to marry this man who murdered her family! I am sure once he has sex with her, it will be consensual. I mean, this wasn't rape at all! And it just beautifully shows how much God cared about these virgin girls who were given out as booty to the men who butchered their loved ones. Oh, the kindness of Copan's God!!!!

[Emma Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was super helpful in putting some of the difficult OT concepts and passages in context. Some of the chapters answered more questions than others, but generally his analysis of the cultural/historical/textual context shed better light on the meaning of hard texts.

I didn’t love how often he used an argument from other Christian scholars who disagree with him as a jumping-off point; it felt a little reactionary. I would have preferred him to just note “this is something people struggle with” and dive in rather than attacking someone else’s point of view.

But I think the main takeaway is this: that God is a God of love, yes, but also of justice and severity. Both Testaments tell us this, not just the Old. A modern worldview (shaped by the Christian faith) struggles with God’s judgment, while older worldviews struggled with His mercy. To truly know God, however, we have to come to terms with His justice and His mercy.

[Ming Chen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is really a mixed bag. Copan defends problematic passages in the Old Testament against objections that would draw a distinction between the "textual God" (i.e. the God represented in the Biblical writings, specifically in the Old Testament) and the "actual God" (i.e. the God who really exists). One who would draw this distinction would argue that the textual God presented in passages that discuss, for instance, the invasion of Canaan is contrary to the actual God, who could not possibly demonstrate such arbitrary vindictiveness. Additionally, Copan responds to both "critics from within" (professing Christians who have trouble with these passages) and "critics from without" (non-Christians; take New Atheists as a clear example).

I comfortably fall into the camp of those who would affirm the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of all Scripture. Hence, I appreciated Copan's defense, which did not draw on denying either of these tenets but rather sought to interpret passages within their cultural and historical context. For instance, Copan argues that some of the passages of the Canaanite slaughter relied on hyperbole, which was a common feature of Ancient Near East war texts. While I am not qualified to judge this statement, it seems to be a somewhat plausible reply. Moreover, Copan accurately likens the "textual God" and "actual God" distinction to the Marcionite heresy, which posited a fundamental difference between the wrathful God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New Testament. Copan also responds to this distinction well; as one example, he points out that Jude states that it was Christ who exacted judgement on the unbelievers or that Jesus drove out the merchants in the temple with physical coercion.

However, I hold reservations about Copan's methodology. I was surprised that Copan did not explore in a significant measure the underlying assumption of the textual God and actual God distinction, namely that the revelation of God can be divorced from the character of God. In traditional Christian understanding, God's Word is a clear and sufficient revelation of His character, and to state that God is different from the Bible is to assume that the Bible is not to a sufficient measure God's self-revelation. Without this assumption being fully noted, defenses that merely agree with a skeptic's arbitrary standard for what constitutes the actual God (like love in a nebulously defined sense) and then seek to show how the textual God matches up to this standard already concede too much ground. The skeptic can acknowledge the Christian's reply, but the assumption still remains in place and not fully dealt with. So, more passages that assume a discrepancy between the textual God and actual God can be presented.

To give an illustration, Copan draws on feminist scholars (of all people!) to demonstrate that Old Testament society was, in a sense, egalitarian. Hence, the objection of skeptics that Old Testament society was oppressive to women does not work. Aside from whether his analysis is correct or not, the important part is that Copan accepts the ready-made assumption of egalitarianism being the only form of society that is just and seeks to demonstrate how the Biblical text coheres with this assumption. He does not even mention the possibility that if Old Testament society were patriarchal, maybe egalitarianism is not all that it is cut out to be! I do not think that Copan deals with this idea of the skeptic's implicit assumption as much as he should have, but I think he notes it in some places. Moreover, as noted by the egalitarianism example, he sometimes falls prey to conceding too much ground to the skeptic by granting the assumption. I do not think it is my latent presuppositionalism speaking when I say this granting is a pretty serious flaw.

[Gary · Rating 2 out of 5]

As with many apologetics books, the intended audience of this seems like it might be the skeptic community when in fact it is clearly written for Christians. In other words, this is not a book that will convince skeptics but is intended to ease the worries Christians have about the God of the Old Testament.

The first clue for this comes from the title: the average skeptic will not simply call the Old Testament god a bully. This being is a moral monster -- which is actually the title of another book by Copan. The subtitle gives a clearer indication of the intended audience: "Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments." This book is written for people who love the god of the New Testament (i.e., Jesus) but finds the Old Testament god a bit off-putting. This is important because Christianity declares that, appearances to the contrary, these are the same being, albeit in different "persons," which makes no logical sense, but that's an argument for a different review. So this is an effort to reconcile kind Jesus with the evil god of the Old Testament by trying to remove the "appearances to the contrary" part of the argument altogether.

How do I as a skeptic read it, then? I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, I tried to "treat another's writing as you yourself would want your own writing to be treated" (6) as Copan suggested we do with the OT text, but in the end, I was just disappointed. There were no apologetic tactics in this book I had not encountered (and dismissed) before. The primary problem with this book from a skeptical point of view is that all the moves the author makes to square the two gods of the Bible simply belie the underlying Christian contention about Biblical authorship. In other words, he relies primarily on that old tired tactic "context." Indeed, he has an entire chapter called "A Bit of Near Eastern Context." For example, in justifying the harsh punishments proscribed in the Old Testament, Copan brings up the exaggerations of the Code of Hammurabi and then suggests that these are merely exaggerations as well and that "it is likely that the death penalty was rarely utilized" (85). This suggests that the authors of the Old Testament merely used the same tactics as the authors of Hammurabi's Code. Yet how could that be? Didn't the Christian god inspire the Bible? This apologetic tactic undercuts the claims of divine authorship, but Copan has a solution, explaining that the "Mosaic law didn't start from scratch or reinvent the wheel" and suggests that it "appropriated sources apart from any direct divine revelation to Moses, who selected and adapted material resulting in a 'special synthesis'" (37). Just Copan never explains just what this "special synthesis" might be and how we might discern Moses's borrowing from surrounding cultures and divine intervention.

The other primary tactic Copan uses is qualification. This might be, or that could be, or this is a logical inference, or that is implied. This is probably an exaggeration and that is probably not carried out. In other words, it's all conjecture.

This is a book that will not convince anyone who genuinely questions the text. This is a book for Christians looking to feel better about the god of the Old Testament.

[Donna Koki · Rating 1 out of 5]

terrible

There are some troubling things in the Old Testament. And the books title led me to buy it. I wanted a knowledgeable writer who understood how things were when Old Testament was written and explain things for a modern audience. I could not get past the first chapter. Author discusses atheistic writers [those from without] and Christian writers who deny any use for Old Testament [those from within]. Those without say the crusades were evil aggressive wars. Author says the crusades were defensive wars. And the author also claim that recruiters used Jesus’s words to encourage fighters to sign up. “love your neighbor” and “lay down your life for your brother”. Is the author serious? Firstly the crusades are controversial. A case can be made that it was defensive and offensive. But what does the crusades has to do with the old testaments character of God? This is so childish for the author to say that they quoted Jesus to recruit fighters. Then the author quotes other so called scholars ridiculing other Christians who has problems with some of the ways God is portrayed in the O.T. One says “ one of the things that bothers me is that his God is too nice”. And another is quoted “I can’t fully commit to a messiah who won’t knock over tables”. such childish reasoning! Is this the way the author handles controversy - by ridiculing those who don’t think like him? When I read to untangle controversy I want intelligent discussion. If you have any problems with how God is portrayed in the O.T., you might as well you just ridicule yourself and have someone give you a swift kick in the ass and just accept the fact that that’s how it is. Thinking? Don’t you know that is how faith is destroyed? Just repeat after me…. What a waste of money.

[Geoff Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Surely the preferred audience of this quality work is those with a degree of learning in the very disciplines of tertiary study. Theology, philosophy, apologetics, ancient history and culture, use of language – and more besides, is enough to confuse the lay reader.. However there were chapters that I did understand, and there were moments as I was captivated with how the author dealt with the opposing arguments of his critics.

The final chapter concludes with some eminent scholars conceding that the worldview of Christianity harmonizes the pieces of reality like nothing else does.

Is God a Vindictive Bully? For the average believer, I venture to suggest it is not even a sensible question, but for those who want to plumb the depths of biblical orthodoxy and the attacks upon it,Paul Copan is an able guide. Surely I will buy the book and wrestle with the content of the questions brought to our faith, if I can be prepared to meet “those who doubt” with the kindness and wisdom of Truth, the revelation of Scripture rightly divided.

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critics within and without the Christian religion have a hard time reconciling the Old Testament portrait of God with Jesus in the New Testament. The author attempts to answer the critics by carefully examining various texts in both the Old and New Testaments. A selective, shallow reading of the New Testament may allow one to view Jesus as a sort of comfort animal preaching niceness and universalism without restraint. But, a full reading of the texts does not allow for such a view. The Jesus with the little children is also the Jesus preaching fire and brimstone and riding a white horse to make war on the nations at the end of time. Like the Old Testament YHWH, Jesus is both gentle and severe as the need may be. This book is scholarly and much more complicated than my brief summary. Despite being scholarly, it is certainly accessible to the layman. Geared mostly for the critics within, the last bit of the book deals with critics without, primarily advocates of the "New Atheism" (i.e. Richard Dawkins). 

[Frank Peters · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book that presents the opposite view (yes, God did choose to get involved in conflict in the Old Testament) from “A More Christlike Word: Reading Scripture the Emmaus Way” (no God is never like this, but rather it was sinful humans thinking incorrectly about God). It was not perfect. Some of the arguments were brilliant, while others were depressingly weak. However, the argument against the opposite view was very good, and the summary of that argument was taken from NT Wright, who was quoted multiple times in the book. A portion of the main quote is this: “Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved… if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God…”. It was entirely coincidence that I read both books nearly back-to-back, but it was a good coincidence. Proverbs 18:17 was apt.

[Dustin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is best used only as a reference, rather than read from cover to cover. For its target audience, it gives an initial posture from which to think about certain texts. It offers cold (i.e. intellectual, academic) answers to the various challenges of the Old Testament. The reader will need to invest more time into any single one of the issues - wrestling with his/her own faith, discussing with friends, reading other books - in order to resolve any emotional or psychological challenges. But this is a helpful starting point nonetheless.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

"'Course he isn't safe. But he's good."

Somewhere between the cosmic Santa Clause, all-loving, all-winking caricature and the hell-fire, thunderbolt throwing deity is the truth. If you were introduced to the Bible from that first perspective, it can be unsettling to learn of God's wrath. It doesn't help that we're separated from those stories by thousands of years and a vastly different world. If this has been your experience, I recommend Paul Copan. I've always found him to be a helpful voice on these matters.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite the provocative and so somewhat sensationalist title, Copan provides an excellent apologetic for the OT by showing how the NT and OT is much more closely intertwined than writers such as Gregory Boyd and, in some instances, C. S. Lewis often suppose. As a pastor and missionary, this is one of the first books I will recommend to someone who is struggling to see the love and mercy of God in the OT. As such, I am truly thankful for this book.

[Elisabeth Aubut · Rating 3 out of 5]

This examination of some of the Bible’s most difficult passages felt technical at times for readers unfamiliar with theology. Furthermore, contextual explanations (such as hyperbolic war language) or appeals to divine authority (“God can do this because He is God”) were often unsatisfying to my Western mind, especially when children are involved in violent judgment.

That said, I truly appreciated the reminders of God’s patience in redeeming those who choose to repent (such as Rahab), and his goodness in judging evil.

So even though Copan didn’t answer all my questions, his book opened the door to wrestle honestly with Scripture, all while still believing God’s Word is good.

[Clark McGehee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very solid book about some difficult topics in Scripture. It consists of some very strong arguments, and of some I would consider weak. However, it does open your mind and challenge you to better understand Scripture, why God does some of the things He does, and why the Law is the way it is.

[Rachel Grepke · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the second of Copan's books I have done. I previously read Is God a Moral Monster, which I believe was a better book overall. While this book has helpful correlations, it just moved a bit slow. A good resource and a book that does create good discussions.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Copan touches on a wide range of topics in this book that will help anyone who has questions about God's actions in the Bible and whether or not they were good or just. I think this should be in any apologists' library!

[elise barber-wixtrom · Rating 2 out of 5]

dnf

[L.T. Getty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nice to see multiple tales on difficult passages. It's not likely to persuade anyone who's already made up their mind though, and that's okay.

[Ken Reese · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some invaluable insights, but several overstatements keep it at a 3.

[Taylor Lindemann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is tremendously helpful for understanding the context and overall purpose behind many of the difficult issues found within the Old Testament. It will be useful to reread as one works through the Israelite law code and the Canaanite conquest.

[Bobbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is loaded with information on a deep level. Although I feel I grasped his message, I can't imagine myself passing it on to others in a proper manner