Loading...There are, of course, good reasons for people thinking that the God of the Old Testament was a “God of Wrath.” God does indeed engage in wrathful acts of punitive justice throughout the Hebrew Bible, and he requires his chosen people to execute his wrath as well.
As one would expect, often this wrath is directed against people who break his commandments. But less expected, probably, for many modern readers, is that these commandments do not involve merely what we would call “ethical” rules involving personal and communal behavior per se – e.g. murder, adultery, robbery, etc.. At least as, or even more often they involve situations in which the “Chosen People” have begun to act like “outsiders” who are not among the people of Israel, and against those outsiders who try to “seduce” Israelites into worshiping and behaving like everyone else.
In these cases God’ vengeful wrath is about “purity.” The terms “purity,” “holiness,” and “sanctity” all have the same root idea. They involve an object, activity, or person that is “set apart” from all others, different from all the rest in ways that God commands. To be sure, sometimes this purity involves ethics (“don’t be like those sexually licentious heathen!”); but most of the time it involves issues would normally think of as ritual or religious activities.
In the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, often called the Pentateuch), God “chooses” his people, the descendants of Jacob, son of Abraham, by delivering them from their slavery in Egypt under Moses, and then giving them his “law” (which in Hebrew is “Torah”). The law is given directly to Moses, as described in the second half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, bits of Numbers, and most of Deuteronomy (which is why the entire five-book collection is called the “Law” or “Torah”).
The law affects not only what Israelites are to do in their communal lives together – live in peace and harmony by not stealing from each other, engaging in sexual immorality, murdering, bearing false witness, providing restitution for harms done to other Israelites, and so on. It also affects how
If you were a member of the blog you would get five posts a week of this length and substance. Hey, why not? It costs very little, but gives a whole lot. And all the proceeds go directly to charity. <a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
Hey Bart, are you giving a live lecture near Denver soon? Now that I have a beautiful life, the topic of history becomes more interesting and fun! We attend church to give thanks for having a good life mainly. If you ever do a dinner and lecture in Colorado please let us know! I will drag my spouse along 😎. I am married and we both love the topic of history. Of course you know I believe in Zeus but that doesn’t mean I have be dominant with my belief. Thanks again for everything you do Dr Ehrman. Your the best man!
Unfortunately, no..
Ok. I actually live in Colorado Springs (Olympic City). So I’d your ever it Colorado I will try to be there! It would be great to meet you. You are like a hero to me. You do amazing things. At least your trying.
Ham sandwich? Funny because the sandwich was invented much later.
Hi Dr Ehrman!!
Since the book of Job clearly isn’t apocalyptic literature (I’m assuming) judging by Job 14:10-14
Why is there a satan character?
I thought the belief in evil forces in the world and life after death went hand in hand.
Thank you!!
Ah, look up “Satan” on the blog and you’ll see some posts discussing Job. Here Satan is not “the Devil” but one of God’s advisors who does God’s bidding (“satan” means “adversary”; he takes an adversarial stand against Job, but not against God)
Hi Bart, it almost makes me think that the authors of the NT forgot to read the Book of Job when referring to the devil. Would it not be some sort of proof to show that the “Devil” could have been taken out of Zoroastrianism years after Job was written?
I don’t think a “different” view necessarily means a “later” view. I personally think that the development of a personal opponent to God (the Devil) (as opposed to the Satan of JOb) was an internal development within Judaism, and that it’s difficult to trace it to Zoroastrianism. But it’s much debated.
Thanks! When you say you do not think it is a “later” view, you mean that even at the time of Job there might have been a group who understood “the satan” as the opponent of God?
I thought that might have arisen centuries later with the apocalyptic view.
Looking forward to hearing from you
Ah, sorry, I think I didn’t phrase it very well. I was saying that the fact of difference is not in itself evidence of chronology. But more important, no, I DO think that the idea of SAtan as an evil opponent of God and humans is indeed a later development. (unfortunately it is very hard to know when Job was written)
God of Israel or Abraham/Moses was not God of Wrath. It was God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Whenever the people of Israel had gone astray, God, Most Merciful, sent so many prophets to guide them back to the straight path, yet they persisted.
They were commanded Deut. 6: 4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one…” Worshiping others was blasphemy. Disobeying God was sinful because this entire universe and beyond and all that it contains were created by God of Abraham/Moses.
You had admitted “The people of Israel cannot complain that they have not been given fair warning.”
May I ask can we blame God when it was the people’s faults for disobedience and persisted in excesses? Even many of their prophets could not tolerate them.
“Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.”
“..the God of the OT is thought of by so many people today as a God of wrath.”
What rights have we to blame God when it was others who committed great sin?
Can we blame the abuser when he beats the crap out his wife because she didn’t obey his every command?
Yes. Yes, we can.
Perception of natural disasters or armed conflicts with other groups, famine, or daily struggle to meet necessities is quite mythical and primitive in nature.
There is scientific knowledge to tackle those issues not mythical belief of pleasing a fictional deity.
When you look from outside the box, you’ll see that you are blaming the victim though they were “made” that way in such environment.
As if as Chris Hitchens often said “ you were made filthy and commanded to get well otherwise you’ll be tortured now & for infinity”
Such perception which blames humans for any negative event happening around them is logically flawed and rudimentary but inherently instilled in believers through scriptures.
Those scriptures were merely literary human works from religious leaders (no divine inspiration whatsoever). It started with Moses through Jesus and ended with Mohammed who plagiarized almost everything he claimed from Judeo-Christian literature.
If God does not exist then he is not wrathful. He is nothing.
He is the atheist’s pinata. The real “enemy” for atheists is the Christian religion.
Christian leaders have brought this upon themselves.
I sort of like the way Mark Twain put it: That God in the Old Testament was God “before he got religion.”
I like almost every way that Mark Twain put things….
I’m a bit confused by your comment about intermarriage. Except for Deut 7:3-4, I’m not aware of any pre-exile (pre-Ezra) prohibition of intermarriage. And even Deut 7:3 doesn’t entirely prohibit it. Only the descendants of Ham’s son Canaan, “nations greater and mightier than” the Israelites, are off-limits. What’s more, I’m not aware of anyone in the Hebrew Bible who’s punished for marrying a non-Israelite–not until the return from exile anyway. What am I missing?
Are you asking this of me? Intermarriage is often seen as a problem in the Hebrew Bible — thus Moses and the Midianites; the wives of Samuel; etc. No?
Isn’t Ruth a counter example? She’s a heroine and the great-grandmother of David. That’s at least one case of intermarriage leading to great things.
Yup. And Moses himself, — married to a Midianite! Lots of examples. ANd teh biblical authors had very different views of the matter.
And what worries me is that the Jews are still following the OT mythology. Israel still doesn’t have *all* the land God gave them in the Bible. That means more trouble is coming, sooner or later.
But it’s happening now. The Jews make up only 2% of the world population. I asked my Southern Baptist cousin, just last night : Why? Why does it seem they have the world by the tail?
His answer : “They are God’s chosen people.” Christian’s too, the Bible believers, are following the OT mythology. Is it any wonder that there’s so much *wrath* in the world?
Thanks Bart, for pointing out the wrathful side of God. It’s an important subject, concerning real life consequences, today.
The genealogical saga of “people must be “holy” (set apart from all other peoples)” as defined as God’s “Chosen People” that you’ve outlined still has roots in Judaism today. For instance, goyim were created to populate the world and IF they follow the Noahide Commandments they well be sent to Paradise (which is fair game, since Jews are supposedly going to Hell for refusing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior).
But in this context, the Messianic period is only as a period of peace between nations. Qabbalic sources, however, are much more liberal in their description. Before it there will be a period of disasters and tribulations rivaling those in Revelation. The Son of David (Man) will appear and overcome the enemies, establishing the eternal kingdom of God on this world. The Jewish saga will thus be a closed circle. What the Gentiles have meddled, ruining Monotheistic purity, will be corrected by the nation of God. The Jewish faith, more generous than Christianity, does not doom outsiders to perdition automatically, it just assigns them a lower status. Question….Where is this sub-class of “less holy” absolution expressed in the Torah or Tenakh more generally? I can’t find it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “less-holy absolution”
Bart,
You make a fundamental mistake reading the Bible. It isn’t world history! It is a spiritual, esoteric LESSON. ALL of it. For example, you point to Daniel 7:2-14 as evidence for a ghoulish, bloodthirsty God. But this isn’t what you are reading. Where is there mention of terrible things happening ON EARTH? “Four winds OF HEAVEN.”
Just like Jesus says in John 18:36, his kingdom is not of this world. He uses the imagery people might UNDERSTAND to impress upon them it is time to get serious about getting right by the Father. But that is a solitary, intimately personal meditative experience, not subject to a fiery worldly event if one fails. Please understand this! You are making the same mistakes Christians make in reading the Bible. It harmonizes beautifully with all other traditions if read metaphorically. I don’t know how else to help you see. Many, many books are available. Scienceofthesoul.org has title after title to show you. Why not LOOK? kt and WM here are telling you, too. Inner, inner, INNER experience! Not out here ON EARTH. Where do you see ON EARTH?
You scholars commit the same false assumptions on the Judas Gospel. Not a worldly sacrifice!
I think Bart you are defining the word,” Torah” in English to mean Law, but I think Torah, in Hebraic is used to mean,” instructions for life”. “Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching [Torah].” (Proverbs 1:8), and “My son, do not forget my teaching [Torah], but keep my commands in your heart”. (Proverbs 3:1).
Unlike Torah, law is a set of rules from a government and binding on a community. Violation of the rules require punishment. With this type of law, there is no room for teaching, either the law was broken with the penalty of punishment or it was not broken. God, as our heavenly Father, gives his children his Torah in the same manner as parents give their Torah to their children, not in the manner as a government does to its citizens. ( Source, Ancient Hebrew Resource Centre)
“Blessed is the man you discipline, O LORD, the man you teach from your Torah” (Psalms 94:12). Most Jewish people I know describe the Torah in this way, not as a law as you suggest. Also do you mean grandson of Abraham, or Isaac,son?
Torah is a word that means a variety of things, depending on the context.
BTW, did you mean ,”Jacob, grandson of Abraham,or Isaac, son of Abraham”? You are teaching us to be concise🙂
I”m not sure what I said! But obvioulsy Isaac was his sone and Jacob his grandson. Concision ain’t the same as error!
Your post,4th paragraph, God “chooses” his people, the descendants of Jacob, son of Abraham, ? did you mean Isaac?
I meant Jacob grandson of Abraham.
Dear Bart,
Do you think there are historical evidence to show that the God of Israel is the only true God in this universe?
Is there any evidence to prove that the other gods claimed to be god that created mankind?
No, I don’t. It is impossible to marshal *historical* evidence to demonstrate *theological* claims. There’s no historical evidence that polytheism is wrong, for example. It’s not a historical issue, but a religious one. (You can’t use history to do lots of things, for example, to solve a quadratic equation or analyze a poem by TEnnyson).
Bart,
I disagree completely. When historical evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesherim, Pseudoclementine Recognitions, gnostic codices and other assorted apocryoha like 1 and 2 Enoch show in comparison to the NT Gospels that what the Sant Mat living Masters tradition has been saying for centuries is true, that’s history proving theology.
Living Masters have been coming since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26) teaching Surat Shabd Yoga (1 Samuel 3:11, and many others) and are not stopping anytime soon. This proves NT sole-savior Christianity is a false religion.
THe fact that different sources all say something is true about ultimate truth, religion, or anything else does not constitute historical proof.
It is perfectly fine not to be interested in historical method, but one shouldn’t be doing something else (theology, philosophy, mystical exploration, etc.) and call it history.
THat’s not a slur on anything. It’s just a categorical distinction.
Bart,
I wasn’t saying that the historical evidence of other religious traditions verified this body of teachings at odds with the New Testament, just that it supported it up against that of the Gospels. We all know spiritual experience is subjective.
This should count for something when studying the Bible historically. It’s going to be difficult to make any sense of all the purposeful misdirects of Gospel authors without understanding the material they corrupted. This goes far past what you cover in your book on corruptions. Thank you for writing that, btw. Great job!
Any thoughts on why the Israelites settled on one god and bucked the polytheistic trend in the ancient world? I wonder if some ruler realized that if he could center the people around one wrathful god and then convince them that he is the ruler chosen by that god then opposing him is opposing god. So it is not just a matter of what he could do to them as a ruler with an army but also what god could do to them. That sounds to me like a recipe for total control of the people.
It appears that one group of people celebrated Yahweh as the superior god of all, and for a variety of unknown political and social reasons they ended up becoming a grwoing and significant and eventually dominant group in that part of the land.
The Invention of God from Harvard University Press is a good read on that
One of the sad ironies is that when Israelite men took up with foreign women, it was the foreign women that were blamed, who were simply being true to their own religion, rather than the men who were the ones straying! Particularly ironic if not hypocritical in Numbers 25 – 31 involving the Midianites, seeing as how Moses himself married the daughter of a Midianite priest! But maybe that’s why Moses let his soldiers keep Midianite girls for themselves.
Professor, I’m sure you have followers in many countries. How about once in a while conducting your live webinar by region/time zone to enable more people to participate? I live in SE Asia and your webinars usually occur at 2pm(your time). That would be 2am in our country.
I suppose because I don’t want to do them at 2:00 am my time! I’m not sure of a good solution to that, excpet that I do often do them in the early evenings here (7:00 pm ) and that might be doable on your end?
As Dr. Carl Jung, a lifelong researcher in deep psychology including religious symbols and religious visions wrote:
“The act of becoming conscious happens to man in darkness. If he can grasp and handle consciousness then the fire brought from Heaven becomes a sacrificial flame, not the wrath of the gods. The acquisition of consciousness by force creates a sense of guilt. ”
From my perspective, quite a few stories in OT and also (how I understand) the Revelation are stories of God’s restoration of the spiritual creation. Therefore, I find it difficult to regard the action “God’s wrath”, the Lamb, the winepress of God’s wrath, etc. as an anger other than related to “change of the self” or related to transformation.
kt and Bart,
The “wrath” is against self, like in the Nag Hammadi First Apocalypse of James. The Gospel of Judas also has mention of wrath at the climax, and all scholars, Bart included, read it as wrath against the wrong guy, Jesus.
Right, Bart? You think the four part ode to Judas on page 56 of the Gospel of Judas includes his wrath at the Master?
Are you asking if Judas himself, according to the Gospel of Judas, was wrathful with Jesus? You’d have to give me the reference; I”m not sure which translation you’re using so I can’t look up a page number.
At the climax. The four-line “Ode to the conquering disciple.”
I like Lance Jenott’s, “The Gospel of Judas” translation, with a few substitutes from other Judas scholars. 56.22-25: Right after Jesus tells Judas, “You will exceed them all, for you will sacrifice the man who bears me,” comes:
“Already your horn is raised,
Your anger is kindled,
Your star has ascended [DeConick],
And your heart has prevailed [Brakke].”
Line 32.10, the First Apocalypse of James has, “Truly I say to you that you have stirred up great anger and WRATH against YOURSELF [Schoedel].”
Please, please, note: this ode in the Gospel of Judas climax passage parallels both the First Apocalypse of James AND the canonicals’ kiss of Jesus, by James, and Judas, respectively. This is HUGELY important. What was a kiss of Spirit transfer in First James and gJudas (there, the ‘sacrifice’!) is immediately followed in both by wrath kindled against self, and a young man “*FOLLOWING HIM*,” wearing Nazarite cloth ‘fleeing’ (UP!), Mark 14:51RSV.
Jesus declares himself — AND THE SUCCESSOR — at 14:62, “I am and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the Clouds of Heaven,” continued …
Continuing:
Quotation attributed TO JAMES by Hegesippus via Eusebius, History of the Church, 23.11, (page 60, Penguin). It wasn’t said by Jesus! The Gospel authors gave James’s wrath against self in gnostic lore to Judas, and his words to Jesus, all after twisting a kiss of Spirt between James and Jesus into a kiss of betrayal, all TO HIDE HIM. Paul and James were bitter enemies and the nascent Pauline church had to eliminate the successor, explaining his role away as now a traitor, where he WAS a successor in gnostic EARLIER sources. We know it came first because “Hail, BROTHER!” in Second Apocalypse of James came BEFORE it was changed to “Hail, MASTER!” in Matt. 26:49 to accommodate later orthodox virgin birth theology.
Two hundred words is insufficient to show necessary support, but I try to hit the highlights. Judas, and to some degree, Jesus, cover James. Stephen (killing of James by Paul in Acts 7), and Matthias (‘replacement’ dynamic in Gospel of Judas, 36,1-3), also cover James, as ably shown by Dr. Eisenman. I’m telling you, Bart, his findings are mind-blowing on how James was minimized in the Gospel narrative. I could go on …
(Need thread!)
Yes, I never have figured out what that means, though of course I”ve pondered it long and read what others have said about it.
Well, I do not think I will follow such/this discussions more than this reply, as I honestly do not try to convince anyone, but only express or perhaps reflect on Ehrman’s excellent scholarly posts.
Having a different opinion about “wrath”, since you refer to that, is only based on different perceptions and therof its interpretation. Mr. Ehrman is a thoroug and a great Bible scholar and must do his job and follow the evidence where it leads. I just hope it never changes in the extent that it ends up in discussing beliefs not based on facts!. My perception of this topic is based on my perceptions of meaning of the word, “wrath”, might be a reflections on my personal view, which sometime can base itself on other criteria than a scholar should take. Discussing to try to convince each other is nothing I hope for in this blog, other than enjoying different and honest perceptions and questions.
Thank you for this summary of how the Israelites lives were set up.
I am guessing it was the priests of the Israelites that made all the rules and requirements?
And I assume that the priests wanted to keep the Israelites all as one group and worshipping one God so that they could more easily take their “cut” of sacrifices?
Thus the rule that sacrifices could only be made by priests.
Yes, it is often thought that the laws derifved from the priests.
In response to Ibrahim:
You have defended God’s right to punish the Israelites who failed to obey his laws. He had given them fair warning, so in his compassion and mercy he had to bring them back into obedience. What about the “outsiders” who were not subject to God’s laws and had been given no advance warnings about how to behave? How can you defend God’s killing of them by the thousands? I cannot!
I wonder if there was/is a selection advantage for monotheism over polytheism in the evolution of religious beliefs. One would have to better understand the multitude of selection pressures involved and I am not aware of any academic research investigating religions as competitive memeplexes. Are you aware of any research or have any thoughts?
THe idea of religious “advances” to monotheism in an evolutionary, progressive sense is a very old one (among the monotheist religions!). THere may well be research on religions a memeplexes, but I”m not familiar with it.
Dr. Ehrman,
Great post! I’m curious how the ancient Israelites determined who was an Israelite and who wasn’t? Was it purely religious? Did they have to prove a lineage going back to Abraham?
I suppose it was anyone who lived in Israel who followed the cultural practices of Israel. Given how most populations kept to themselves, they probably didn’t have much reason to think about blood lines directdly.
Something else I think is messing with your Bible interpretation, Bart, is over-attribution to the criteria of dissimilarity. What you see as likely true because not likely for believers to have made up, in the case of dufus disciples, or especially of a traitorous one, is actually untrue because it is meant to demean competition — from James (‘Judas’) and Peter, both known enemies of Paul.
Dr. Robert Eisenman first covered this in depth in one of history’s greatest investigations of the Bible, ‘James the Brother of Jesus’.
THe criterion does not deal with the disciples of Jesus (I assume by the “dufus” ones you mean the original remaining eleven), but with the later story tellers in the tradition.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I am wondering if you have encountered a book about early Christianity called *The Kingdom* by Emmanuel Carrère, published in France in 2014 under the title *Le Royaume*. It won many prizes in France, and, like you, the author went through a period of intense belief in and commitment to Christianity. This began when he was 33, and gradually came to an end three years later.
On the back cover of the French version, he says that at an earlier period he immersed himself in the New Testament as a believer, and that now he sees himself not as a novelist or a historian, but as an “inquirer”. But fundamentally he seems to me like a historian, using his imaginative skills as a novelist to recreate scenes which are implied in Luke, Acts, and John, but not presented in detail.
As an agnostic / atheist like yourself, I find the book very engaging and illuminating. I wonder if you have an opinion about it you would be willing to share.
I”m afraid I don’t know it!
Professor, I don’t recall ever seeing anything that you or any other biblical scholar may have written on the subject of why humans have such a compelling need to personify the deity, or deities, especially when it comes to worship. All religions seem to acknowledge the omnipotence, to one degree or another, of their variety of gods and goddesses, and that their nature transcends that of mere mortals. Yet we create gods who positively explode with human emotion. Gods are angry, jealous, vengeful, malicious, kind, charitable; you name it and they feel it. Particularly when it comes to worship. Our Jewish Christian God, the Creator of the universe and everything in it, who knows all and sees all, even into the deepest recesses of our hearts, omnipotent and infinitely powerful . . . he needs the worship of the puny, measly humans he evidently created as an afterthought? Really? Why? I’m reluctant to have the discussion move from history to theology to psychology but I’d very much like to know your thoughts on the subject. Thanks.
No, I’ve never written on that because it’s outside of y scholarly comfort zone. I think it has to do a lot with evolutionary psycholoty, but alas, even though I have opinions I have no expertise.
Your question is of great interest to me. The best answer I have found *does* move to psychology, and is only based on my own intuition and reading. Here it is, in all its banality:
I think an individual who accepts the idea of a Judaeo-Christian God is re-creating an experience of safety, comfort, and authority which the individual felt (from a very young age onward) in his/her family of origin, probably with the father, or a father-figure. I think most teen-agers (and adults) see that their father was not “perfect”, but the desirability of having a perfect father (loving, attentive, protecting) may continue. This need can be fulfilled by accepting a Judaeo-Christian God.
Since the imagined God is replacing a father-figure, it makes sense that God looks like a human, and has human feelings.
There is a presentation of what a human father could ideally be, at the end of the introduction to Stephen Mitchell’s *Jesus: What he really said and did*. For the first time in his life, Mitchell encountered a human father, a Bedouin in Sinai, whose wonderful relation to his children made him seem like the “God the father” whom Jesus describes.
I have the impression that an important Christian defense of God’s violence toward other peoples and toward the Israelites for idolatry was related to practices of these other religions like human sacrifice and “religious prostitution,” eg, temples devoted to sexual relations. In other words, the violence was due less to simple intolerance or concern with purity and more due to the immorality associated with these other religions. Is this Christian defense mainly a rationalization to try to justify God’s extreme violence? Or do those defenses of/justifications for God’s violence figure prominently in the OT itself? If the latter, is there evidence or is it likely that other religions practiced, eg, human sacrifice, at least a lot more than more than the Israelites did?
Some religions appear to have practiced human sacrifice; it appears that it was a very marginal practice that happened only occasionally in Israel. The OT authors do not seem to sense a need to justify God’s violent acts. He’s God! He can do what he wants, and it’s always fair! Christians typically try to reconcile the violence because with their more modern sensitivities, they realize it is indeed a problem.