A Review of the God Delusion (Part 12)

In his criticism of the Old Testament, Richard Dawkins overlooks crucial details from the text. Immediately after discussing Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, he skips to the account of Jephthah and his daughter, concluding with the sarcastic words: "…Jephthah cooked her. God did not see fit to intervene on this occasion" (The God Delusion 276). Dawkins seems not to notice that, while God authorized Abraham to offer his son (see Part 11), He did not command Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter.

Second, not everyone is convinced that she was sacrificed as a burnt offering. Some have pointed out that the word and in Judges 11:31 can also be translated or. In other words, if an animal came forth, he would sacrifice it, but if a human being came forth, he or she would be devoted to the Lord. Does anything else in the text indicate it was one way or the other? Not really. That she mourned her virginity (not bearing a child was considered a shame) would fit either interpretation, since she would either be dead or remain single for the rest of her life (being dedicated to the Lord).

At the end of the two months she spent with her friends, she came to her father, "and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite" (Judges 11:39-40). Did they lament that she had died a virgin or that she was living as a virgin, never to marry or have children? If he had sacrificed her, Israel's enemies would never have let them forget it: "You offer human sacrifices just as we do." If Jephthah put his daughter to death, would God have allowed him to judge Israel for six years (Judges 12:7) and would the writer of Hebrews have listed him as a hero of the faith (Heb. 11:32)?

Idol Worship

Why should God get so upset, Dawkins wants to know, when His children seek after other gods? He refers to God's wrath as "monumental rage" and compares it to "sexual jealousy of the worst kind" (276). His analysis is shallow, to say the least. First of all, God has a right to be angry. He created mankind, and human beings ought to be grateful to Him—not honor and worship an entity who had no hand in it whatsoever. In Israel's case, Jehovah delivered them out of Egyptian bondage; what kind of gratitude is it to worship and serve some idol who had no hand in that, either?

Second, in choosing idolatry, Israel forsook truth in order to believe a lie. It is for their own good that God commands them not to have any other gods or to worship idols. And why do people create and worship other gods? Those deities allow them to commit sexual sins. Notice that with the golden calf, the people "rose up to play" (Ex. 32:5).

Apparently, Dawkins thinks that creating a golden calf as a fictitious god and engaging in sexual sins is all right, but, then, he is not God. Again, Dawkins sarcastically writes:

Aaron got everyone to pool their gold…he then built an altar so they could all start sacrificing to it. Well, they should have known better than to fool around behind God's back like that…. Moses raced hotfoot down the mountain…he was so furious that he dropped the tablets and broke them… (277).

After reading numerous pages of Dawkins, one finds himself echoing the question that God asked of Job: "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:1). In the first place, Moses did not hotfoot down the mountain. He first pleaded on behalf of Israel—that God not destroy them. When he approached the camp, the inspired record tells us what actually happened:

So it was, as he came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing. So Moses' anger became hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain (Ex. 32:19).

Why was Moses so angry? Why didn't he say, "Oh, well, you know how people are. They're just letting off a little steam"? The answer is that Moses knew that God is holy—and that His people were to be holy (cf. Lev. 19:2). He also discerned that the behavior the people were engaged in was not holy. Moses did not "drop" the tablets; he cast them down and broke them. Why? The reason was not that he did not respect the holy law God had given them. It was a demonstration of the way the people had treated God's law. They had broken several of the commandments which God had spoken directly to them (Ex. 20:19). Dawkins misses the significance of this occurrence, calling it "God's jealous sulk" (277). Are his readers supposed to take Him seriously?

The Midianites

Dawkins continues romping through the Old Testament, finding fault with matters he clearly does not understand, and making statements such as, "Alas, poor slandered, slaughtered Midianites" (278). So, who, exactly, is he wasting his sympathy on? These people tried to destroy Israel, who had done nothing wrong to them. To understand what happened (and Dawkins feels no responsibility to do so), one must remember that the children of Israel had been granted a land, and they are on their way to possess it. (More will be said about this mission later.) They had no quarrel against the people that dwelt in places along the way.

Israel sent messengers to Sihon, saying:

Let me pass through your land. We will not turn aside into fields or vineyards; we will not drink water from wells. We will go by the King's Highway until we have passed through your territory (Num. 21:22).

However, Sihon refused to let them use the Highway and came out to fight against Israel. So, Israel defeated them and took possession of their land (21:23-25). They marched further north, and, lo and behold, Og, the King of Bashan, came out to oppose them, and God's people utterly defeated them, also (21:33-35).

The King of Moab (descended from one of Lot's daughters) observed these things and began to be worried. Of course, the king could have invited their Israeli kinfolk to go through their territory, but, no, they wanted to fight and defeat them, also. The king decides that if he can get a prophet to curse Israel, he might be victorious. Certainly, his men would be emboldened to fight. The king, Balak, employs the prophet Balaam to curse Israel, but all he does is bless them. The strategy Balak had in mind is not working. Balaam reminds him that he told him he had to speak the Word of the Lord and, therefore, He was blessing Israel.

But Balaam found a way to earn his money (which he enjoyed for only a short period of time). He gave advice to Balak on what it would take to get God to curse them—and that plan involved the Moabite women seducing the Israelite men and getting them to join in with their worship of idols. The plan worked. Dawkins does not supply any of the context concerning what happened. He only comments thus:

The book of Numbers tells how God incited Moses to attack the Midianites. His army made short work of slaying all the men, and they burned all the Midianite cities, but they spared the women and children. This merciful restraint by his soldiers infuriated Moses, and he gave orders that all the boy children should be killed, and all the women who were not virgins, 'But all the women children who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' (Numbers 31:18). No, Moses was not a role model for modern moralists (278).

Dawkins conveniently overlooks ten chapters of background in order to complain about the upshot of the event. He fails to mention that the King of Moab had tried to destroy Israel—using women to do so—and that 24,000 men were killed in a plague for these sins. A key verse to understanding the entire battle is found just two verses away from the one Dawkins cited. By the way, the covetous prophet was killed, thus receiving his just reward (Num. 31:8). And, yes, Moses was angry that the women were yet alive. He commanded:

"Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord" (Num. 31:16).

The Midianites, therefore, were guilty of harassing Israel "with their schemes," and God ordered them to attack this enemy (Num. 25:17-18). Moses' anger toward the temptresses was totally justified, but the innocent women (who had not lain with a man) did not need to be put to death. The males were put to death because, when they grew to maturity, they would undoubtedly seek revenge for the deaths of their fathers.

As though it were entirely unrelated to what is recorded in Numbers 31, Dawkins then goes back to protest what happened in the 25th chapter. He still doesn't think idolatry or fornication should be considered all that bad. Actually, he does not mention the fornication that took place. Although he cites Numbers 25, he ignores the first 8 verses which described the women of Moab taking on the role of a harlot to get the Israelite men to engage in idol worship. It is doubtful that he will ever comprehend either God's holiness or a human being's personal purity.

The "Unfortunate Amorites"

Before going on another rant about God's command against idolatry, Dawkins laments that God had determined to drive out of their homelands "the unfortunate Amorites," etc. Unfortunate? This is the reason that amateurs should not try to explain the Bible to others. They seldom read things in context and lack the skills to relate what they read in one text to other texts. Apparently, they also do not know how to use a concordance or look up information in a Bible dictionary.

If Dawkins had done even a little research, he would have discovered that the Amorites had been immoral for 400 years—and that God had given them that long to repent. In Genesis 15:13 God tells Abraham a little bit about the future. His descendants would be strangers in a land that was not theirs, where they would be servants and afflicted for 400 years. Afterward, God would judge that nation (Egypt) (v. 14).

"But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (v. 16). The "unfortunate Amorites" had 400 years to repent of their sins and thus keep their land. God even allowed His own people to suffer rather than hastily render judgment on the Amorites. But instead of giving up their evil ways, they grew steadily worse—until God determined to bring judgment on them by means of the Israelites putting them to death.

Dawkins acts as if the worship of idols (false gods) is a small matter that no one should really care about, but God provides another reason for their destruction. He forbade intermarriage between Israel and the Amorites: "For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods" (Deut. 7:4a). Therefore, God commanded Israel to "destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire" (7:5). Therefore, not only were the Amorites and the others guilty of sin, they would have tempted God's people to leave truth for error. Hmm. Isn't that what Dawkins is trying to do?