Arguing the Affirmative: JOHN THE ATHEIST
Arguing the Negative: RANDAL THE CHRISTIAN
John’s Opening Statement
Child sacrifice was commanded of the Israelites by Yahweh, the biblical God. In Exodus 22:29–30 we read:
You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. (RSV)
The context of this passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires firstborn sons to be literally sacrificed to him. Later on we find Yahweh admitting he commanded this in Ezekiel 20:25–26, where he purportedly said:
Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD [Yahweh]. (RSV)
Ezekiel in his time had come to realize that child sacrifice was repugnant, so this was all he could come up with to condemn it. Just deny Yahweh commanded it. Say instead that he did so because of their hardened hearts. But the logic he employed to defend the indefensible is extremely strange, for in order to punish the Hebrew parents, Yahweh demanded that they kill their children (i.e., sacrifice). How does that make any sense, especially in light of the fact that we’re told Yahweh doesn’t punish sons for the sins of their parents (Deut. 24:16)?
Many people in the Old Testament understood Yahweh’s demands and acted accordingly. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command to sacrifice his son Isaac, and there is no command against such a practice by Yahweh afterward (Genesis 22). Then there is Jepthah, who sacrificed his daughter (Judg. 11:29–40); David (2 Sam. 21:7–9); Ahab (1 Kings 16:33–34); Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2–3); Hoshea (2 Kings 17:17); and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah’s reforms (2 King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jer. 7:30–31; 19:3–5; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:25–26, 30–31). The prophet Micah ponders if he should sacrifice his oldest son as a sin offering (Mic. 6:6–8).
The case of Micah 6:6–8 is an interesting one. In it child sacrifice is considered the greatest and highest form of sacrifice, for the prophet has a progression of three parts in pondering what will please Yahweh the most. Micah first considers sacrificing one-year-old calves; then he considers sacrificing thousands of rams; then he culminates in considering the highest offering he could give Yahweh: his firstborn son. His logic depends on child sacrifice being the greatest sacrifice of all—more than that of sacrificing the calves or rams—for the shocking conclusion of his ruminations is that even this greatest sacrifice is unacceptable to Yahweh without justice. For while all of these acts were required by Yahweh, they meant nothing without also doing acts of justice.
Child sacrifice was only later considered evil after Josiah’s reforms and even more so after the Babylonian exile. Even the later rhetoric in Deuteronomy 12:29–31 and Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 which condemns the practice all assumes that people thought it was acceptable to Yahweh. Otherwise why would these later authors find a need to condemn it? In other texts the practice was condemned primarily because it was offered to other deities (2 Kings 17:17; 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:4–10; Ps. 106:38; Isa. 57:5–6; Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37, 39). Child sacrifice to foreign gods was so prevalent that it is named as one of the reasons Yahweh sent the Assyrians to conquer Israel (2 Kings 17:16–18) and later sent the Babylonians to conquer Judah and forcibly take her people as captives (2 Kings 21:1–16; 24:1–4).
So despite some biblical exhortations that child sacrifice was alien to the worship of Yahweh, a closer inspection shows instead that this practice was within the mainstream theology of the Yahweh cult. Only at a late stage in the history of Israelite religion was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of Yahweh.
Nearly all ancient cultures sacrificed human beings—especially virgins and children—to their gods to please them. This is utterly barbaric, conceived by a barbaric people who had no clue what an eternally good God could ever want them to do. In the New Testament Christians even interpreted the death of Jesus as God sacrificing his only begotten Son to atone for our sins.
But if Yahweh was believed to accept child sacrifice, then why should I accept anything these ancient superstitious people wrote? I can’t.
Randal’s Opening Statement
The question here isn’t whether God exists but rather whether Yahweh, the God of the Bible, has engaged in behaviors, or approved others doing so, that exclude him from being the one true God. Now at first blush some Christians will wonder how anyone could think of associating the sacrifice of children with the God of the Bible. After all, the Bible repudiates the practice in texts like Leviticus 18:21 and Ezekiel 23:37. True enough. But there are other texts that complicate matters. For instance, consider 1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” This text describes the intentional killing of healthy children and infants; but it actually describes more than that. The Hebrew word translated with the phrase “totally destroy” is herem, and it refers to anything set aside to be completely destroyed for God. To put it bluntly, to commit something to the herem is tantamount to sacrificing it to God. Thus to subject an infant to the herem is to sacrifice that infant to God.
This presents Christians with a trilemma. We must ask ourselves which of the following three propositions we will reject.
Not all of these propositions can be affirmed as true. For instance, if we assume that God would never command people to perform actions that are wrong, it follows that if Yahweh is God and the devotional killing of infants and children is always wrong, then he would never command the devotional killing of infants and children. And yet we have to deal with the Bible’s apparent testimony that God commanded Saul to submit infant Amalekites to the herem. Something, as they say, has got to give.
Obviously no Christian can reject proposition 1. (I’ll leave that option to my atheist interlocutor.) But many Christians respond to this trilemma by rejecting proposition 2. They insist that God is sovereign and has rights over creation and so is within his rights to demand the devotional killing of children. While I understand why these Christians take that position, it seems to me to be a mistaken assessment of priorities. I think we have very strong intuitions that engaging in acts of devotionally killing children is always wrong, and that means that we ought to continue to accept proposition 2. The strength of our intuitions on these matters can be illuminated by reflecting on a concrete scenario.
With that in mind, consider the tragic case of Dena Schlosser of Plano, Texas. In November 2004 she amputated the arms of her infant daughter Maggie based on the perceived command of God. Most people (including most Christians) assume that God did not and indeed could not command such a heinous action. I agree. I am convinced that God could not have commanded a loving mother to perform such an evil action. Needless to say, I am more convinced of that than I am convinced that 1 Samuel 15:3 correctly narrates what God in fact commanded of Saul.
So I don’t give up my commitment to the claim that Yahweh is God. Nor do I surrender my intuition that the devotional killing of children, be they American or Amalekite, is always evil. But I do reject the straight and inerrant reading of passages like 1 Samuel 15:3.
Admittedly this leaves me with a bit of a puzzle. If God is ultimately the primary author of Scripture, then why did he include in his revealed text passages that incorrectly depict him as demanding herem killings? That’s a great question. But the general dilemma is hardly unique to the Bible since interpretive controversies swirl around the classic texts of all great authors. Why did the author include this statement, that situation, this character, that ending? Let us simply note that when the author is very capable and the text is widely recognized as a classic, the wiser course for the reader is to keep wrestling with the puzzling section rather than rejecting its place in the text. Given that God is a maximally competent author and the Bible the supreme classic, such a course would certainly seem advisable here.
John’s Rebuttal
Randal is rejecting the Bible in favor of his own moral intuitions here—ones I share. That’s what he’s doing. And if he can do this once, then why not just reject it all along with me? He has the gall to proclaim, despite the evidence, that God is “a maximally competent author.” But if this is true, why did his God communicate in such an incompetent manner that caused a number of children to be needlessly butchered?
Where did Randal get his moral intuitions about this in the first place? Clearly not from the Bible. If we look at history, every ancient culture sacrificed human beings to their gods. Now modern civilized people don’t. What happened around the globe? Lots of things. Primarily we’ve learned that the gods are not leaning over a celestial balcony looking down on earth and smelling the smoke of burning flesh as it rises to them. Nor do they open the floodgates of heaven to send rain for our crops. The universe is bigger than this and the rain falls naturally. So there is no one “up there” we need to appease. And there is no reason to kill our children to make it rain either.
Randal’s Rebuttal
There is good evidence that at some point in their history the Hebrews believed that it was proper to relate to God through human sacrifice. But what should we think of this? Some Christians believe that they were right. These folk are of the view that at that time in history God related to people through sacrifice, and since God is God, that’s his prerogative. Other Christians demur, arguing that while the Hebrews thought this was the right way to relate to God, they were nonetheless wrong: God accommodated to their understanding but has since moved us beyond it. It is important to recognize that this is an intramural debate among Christians. My real interest is focused on John’s fierce moral indignation toward human sacrifice; indeed, he calls it “utterly barbaric.” Now what is that supposed to mean? An orchestral conductor calls his son’s heavy metal music “utterly barbaric,” but who’s to say this isn’t just a matter of taste? And if, as John believes, life has no objective purpose or value, then why isn’t his indignation over human sacrifice merely another matter of taste?
John’s Closing Statement
What good reason is there for God to accommodate people who thought children should be butchered in his name? Can’t he say “no, don’t do that,” like any good parent? This is a lame excuse for a God. This practice is barbaric by Randal’s own standards, which is the point.
Randal’s Closing Statement
The apostle Paul recognized that people’s moral intuitions are “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). In other words, we know them innately. Consequently, they provide helpful guides for reading Scripture rightly. But for John, moral intuitions are simply subjective preferences: I like chocolate, you like vanilla; I like nurturing children, you like sacrificing them.