A Review of _the God Delusion_ (Part 11)

As Richard Dawkins takes aim at the Old Testament, in his book, The God Delusion, he first finds fault with the account of Noah and the Flood (see Part 10 in this series). Dawkins obviously thinks he would make a better God than God does. He would be fairer in his treatment of sinners and not be bothered so much about sin, as God is. He epitomizes the problem that man has had from the beginning—thinking that the one who was created is so much wiser than the Creator.

The next account Dawkins decries is that of Lot and his family. He takes issue with Lot offering his daughters to the lustful men of Sodom (who desired men more than women). Does he think Christians somehow endorse Lot’s behavior in this instance? We understand the reason for his making such a horrendous suggestion, but we do not condone it. Fornication is wrong whether it involves couplings with males or females.

But in that culture, one of the worst things that could happen was to allow something evil to befall anyone who entered a person’s house. That individual was responsible for the guest’s safety. Thus, to rescue his guests, he made the awful suggestion that the Scriptures describe (Gen. 19:8). There are three points concerning this matter that Dawkins either does not realize or that he does not want to admit.

First, cities and countries were not so civilized as people in most countries in the 21st century. Sodom and four other cities had recently been conquered, but Abraham, Lot’s uncle, delivered them from their enemies. One would think that the men of Sodom would appreciate Lot because of Abraham’s rescue of them, but, no, their dedication to fulfill their homosexual lusts was of primary importance to them. For that reason, they also turned down two virgin women.

Second, God did not approve this behavior, which is the reason the angels struck them with blindness. They prevented these men from carrying out their evil intentions. Notice, however, they were so perverted that, even after they were struck blind, they still wearied themselves trying to find the door (Gen. 19:11). Their commitment to homosexuality took precedence over all else. Most people, if they could not see, would stop and consider what they needed to do, but these men pressed on with their original plan.

The third thing Dawkins misses is that the Bible relates what is both good and bad—even of those who are usually righteous. When Ahab, one of the most wicked kings of Israel did something good, the Bible records it. When a righteous man does something wrong, we read about it. Men do not usually write biographies in this manner. The bad is often hidden while the good is championed. The Bible is objective in its reporting of the lives of the main characters. One would think Dawkins would be impressed instead of being critical.

Lot’s Wife and Daughters

Once again, Dawkins disapproves of what happened to Lot’s wife. He laments that the “unfortunate” woman was turned into a pillar of salt because she “committed the offense—comparatively mild, one might have thought, of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display” (272). Once again, Dawkins shows that sin is not an important concept to him. But it is to God! He had forewarned, “Do not look behind you…” (Gen. 19:17). This command is clear, and to violate it was to rebel against God. Clearly, Dawkins is not against the concept of God; he just wants to be Him.

Next, the author gets to Lot’s daughters who, of course, behaved abominably by getting their father drunk to commit incest with him and thus produce offspring. As stated previously, we know the reason for it—and it had nothing to do with lust. In that culture, it was considered a shame for a woman not to bear children. They reasoned that, after the destruction of the cities, no man on earth would want to marry them (Gen. 19:34). Thus, they executed a plan that did not arise from faith. The results were that they both bore children that were a thorn in the side of Israel continually. One gave birth to Moab and the other to Ammon (Gen. 19:36-38). God did not approve this behavior.

The Levite’s Concubine

The account of the men of Gibeah demanding to have sex with a Levite in the time of the Judges is a similar situation, as Dawkins points out, but he entirely overlooks the differences when describing the course of events. He charges that the Bible is misogynistic because females were offered up to men instead of males. The Bible reports the truth of the matter without giving approval. The way people thought in that culture differs from how we think today. To offer up a woman to a group of perverted men is not a solution that comes from God, who detests rape in any form (male or female).

To engage in homosexual acts was thought to be worse than engaging in illicit heterosexual sins. The Levite was callous and unfeeling when he made the offer, and he was obtuse when he told her to get up the next morning. Cutting up her body and sending limbs of it to the various tribes of Israel may not have been the best thing to do, either, but it got their attention.

Because there are two events of would-be homosexual rape reported, Dawkins suggests that “a fragment of manuscript became accidentally misplaced in some long-forgotten scriptorium” (274). Of course, this idea is absurd. Despite an obvious point of similarity, there are many differences in the two accounts. One concerns the pagan cities of the plain in Genesis 19; the other is worse because it occurs in an Israeli city belonging to the tribe of Benjamin.

The Law of Moses had clearly forbidden the sin of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). [It still is considered an abomination (Rom. 1:24-28).] For a city of Israel to so disregard the Law was unthinkable. For the whole tribe to defend their sin was even worse. The very reason the Levite chose to spend the night in Gibeah was that it did belong to Israel; he feared staying in a Gentile city (Gen. 19:12-13).

Another difference is that Moses wrote Genesis around 1450 B.C., while Judges was written 300 to 400 years later by an entirely different author. It is reckless to assume that these manuscripts were so mishandled that a story was repeated—with different details altogether (one concubine instead of two daughters, who remained completely safe). Wouldn’t that be like saying that since Jesus healed a lame man and the apostles healed a lame man, probably it’s the same story, and someone mistakenly copied the account of John into the Book of Acts? What rational person would even suggest such a thing?

Abraham and Sarah

As students of the Word know, Abraham committed the same sin twice when he, on two separate occasions, claimed that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 12 and 20). Dawkins suggests that this is another textual problem, since the details are so similar. One wonders that he does not try to throw into the mix the account of Isaac saying the same thing about Rebekah (Gen. 26:7-11). No. These texts are not confused; Dawkins is just trying to confuse his readers.

The first of these events is mentioned not long after Abraham left Haran, having first left Ur of the Chaldees at God’s bidding (Gen. 11:32-12:8; cf. 15:7). This action was a matter of great faith on Abraham’s part (Heb. 11:8-10). Dawkins gives him no credit for his faithfulness in his eagerness to call attention to the deception Abraham used on Pharaoh and the King of Gerar. We don’t agree with what Abraham did although we understand why. He feared that if they declared they were married, the Egyptians would kill him and take Sarah as a wife (Gen. 12:12). Probably such things were not unheard of.

“Well, why didn’t Abraham trust God?” He did, as evidenced by the fact that he was no longer in Ur of the Chaldees. But his faith was not perfect, which is something that all believers in God can profit from by learning. There may be times in the lives of all Christians when we say or do the wrong thing. That does not mean we have lost all faith. We have temporarily slipped, as our spiritual forefathers did. Even the greatest of them occasionally erred. James records that Elijah “was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain…” (James 5:17). Abraham, Elijah, and others were great men of faith—but they were not perfect. We can still be people of faith even if we misstep.

Thus, the Bible remains impartial—even when talking about the greatest and most faithful of men. Only Jesus was perfect and without guile (1 Peter 2:21-22).

Abraham and Isaac

Dawkins could not summarize a Biblical text with objectivity if his life depended on it. His prejudice against the Bible is seen in his comments about Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. Notice how he describes the event.

God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. Abraham built an altar, put firewood upon it, and trussed Isaac up on top of the wood. His murdering knife was already in his hand when an angel dramatically intervened with the news of a last-minute change of plan: God was only joking after all, ‘tempting’ Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma (274-75).

Abraham knew that God did not require human sacrifices—not in the history of the world since its very beginning. But God had given him a commandment, which he must decide to obey or reject. No one would blame him for being conflicted, but the reader is given clues as to Abraham’s thinking on the matter. Notice Genesis 22:5 (a verse which seems to have escaped Dawkins’ notice): “And Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

How could Abraham promise that both of them would return, when he was about to offer his son as a sacrifice? He could do so because he remembered God’s promise that He would make of Abraham a great nation. “But Abraham had another son, Ishmael, that could fulfill that promise and become a great nation,” someone might protest. The problem with that theory is Ishmael was not the child God promised Abraham, who was to be born of his wife, Sarah. Ishmael came from a handmaid name Hagar, and was born of the flesh and not of promise (see Galatians 4:22-31 for a full explanation).

The book of Hebrews adds that, “when Abraham was tested, he offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac shall your seed be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (Heb. 11:17-19). Oh, and when did God tell Abraham that His descendants would come through Isaac? He so informed him when Hagar and Ishmael were cast out (Gen. 21:12)—before He commanded the sacrifice.

Dawkins also missed that it was not just an angel, but the Angel of the Lord (Jesus, in fact) who stayed Abraham’s hand (Gen. 22:11). He does not know it was a last-minute change of plan. God probably had planned the entire event—for Abraham’s benefit—that he might know the fulness of his own faith. A modern moralist has no objective standard; so, he can hardly complain. But maybe Isaac was made of sterner stuff than modern man is. Perhaps, he understood faith better, also. Isaac seems to have grown into a well-adjusted man. Dawkins also misses the type and antitype connection of Abraham and Isaac with The Father and Jesus.