I have Copan’s book on my desk now; not sure when I will get to reading it, but it’s on my list!

1) Check out my most recent RBL review of Eric Seibert’s book Disturbing Divine Behavior. It will give you some detail into another attempt to wrestle with this topic that is, in my view, inadequate.

2) You may know already that Copan now has a book out, Is God a Moral Monster (Baker, 2011). I’ve posted a small bit of my thoughts on my blog about this book; it is, in my view, quite disappointing, and his arguments are often weak and tautological. It seems you share my apprehension at accepting his arguments, but I am curious as to your thoughts on both the review of Seibert and my thoughts on Copan.

Even the Romans, for instance, assumed either you were an oathed friend (with ceremonies designed to guarantee compliance from both sides) or a hostile enemy. There were a lot of hostile enemies around and total destruction was not exactly a new concept at the time of the writing of the Biblical texts.

There are, after all, still groups around that take this point of view: join us or die.

This issue has always been a point of difficulty for myself. It seems that I may either reject the notion of God as warrior altogether, or always have issue with it yet without resolution, or accept it as is presented within the canon. My faith would guard me from the first of these due to my doctrine of scripture. There is a part of me that never feels settled with saying that I have problems with this issue and yet can move no further than that.

However, as I look at the book of Job, the figure, Job is not given a reason as to why those things have happened to him. Rather he realizes that he has over-stepped his bounds and no explanation is ever given to the reader (aside from the beginning narrative). Qohelet makes it quite clear that we as humans are unable to understand the deeds of God, therefore, one ought to accept one’s lot and take joy in it all the while, fearing God. In the letter to the Romans, Paul, when discussing the issue of God’s election, states (as one of my Calvinistic professors was fond of saying) “But who are you O man, to answer back to God?”

Granted, in these instances, no acceptable conclusion (in our eyes) is offered, however, I wonder if that is where it must end. If we cannot accept that there are some things that we cannot understand and simply leave at that, will we arrive at a position that is supported by scripture or will we then be forcing our notion of what is right and what is wrong upon God, the Creator?

When my children ask about it, and they do, I tell them that what we read there just isn’t the God we know from Jesus, it cannot be true, these probably are just human stories, inventions.
Note also Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11. I refuse to accept that.
Why then is it in the Bible? I don’t know. I think we have to admit this, that we just don’t know it.