What is the Gospel of Judas?
Prior to this discovery, the only reference to the Gospel of Judas was in the writings of a 2nd-century Christian named Irenaeus. Irenaeus essentially wrote that the Gospel of Judas was the “invented history” of a long line of heretics and rebels against God. The essential message of the Gospel of Judas is that Jesus wanted Judas to betray Him because it was necessary to fulfill Jesus’ plan. If it was Jesus’ plan for Judas to betray Him, why would Jesus label Judas the “son of perdition” (John 17:12) and state that it would have been better if Judas had never been born (Matthew 26:24)? If Judas were simply following Jesus’ instructions, why would he commit suicide once he saw that Jesus was condemned (Matthew 27:5)?
The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel, espousing a Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity. The Gospel of Judas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip. Just as Judas Iscariot rejected Jesus and betrayed Him with a kiss, the Gospel of Judas rejects the true gospel and truth of God with a fraudulent appearance of validity.
What is Marcionism?
Marcion held to many errant views, but he is primarily known for his belief that the Old Testament Scriptures were not authoritative for a Christian. He denied that the God of the Old Testament was the same God presented in the New Testament. For Marcion, Jesus was the Son of the God of the New Testament but not the Son of the deity described in the Hebrew Scriptures. The deities of the Old and New Testaments were, from Marcion’s perspective, literally two different gods. Marcion did not deny the existence of the god of the Old Testament (what he referred to as a Demiurge). He simply classified this god as a secondary deity, one that was inferior to the supreme God revealed in Jesus.
Marcion held that Jesus was the only revelation of the Supreme God but that Jesus should not be seen as having fulfilled Old Testament messianic prophecies. Rather, Marcion saw the prophecies as predicting a yet-to-come earthly savior of the Jewish nation. What Marcion was endorsing was a radical discontinuity between Old Testament Judaism and the message of Jesus and the apostle Paul. Marcion also affirmed a form of Docetism, a view that Jesus was not truly a man but only appeared to be human. This in spite of the clarity of verses such as John 1:14 and 1 John 4:1–3, which speak plainly of Jesus’ true humanity.
After being expelled from the church in Rome in AD 144 for his unorthodox teachings, Marcion formed several of his own churches, many of which retained a church government similar to the orthodox Christian churches of the time. From there, Marcion’s views began to spread. Given Marcion’s complete separation of the God of the Hebrew Bible from the God revealed in Jesus, it should be no surprise that he also rejected the authenticity of many New Testament documents. Any apostolic writing that did not comport with his theories was eliminated until all that remained of his collection of authoritative books were ten of Paul’s letters (minus 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) and a highly edited version of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion saw Paul as the only legitimate apostle, but even Paul’s writings suffered under Marcion’s scalpel. Any passage that identified the God of the Old Testament with the Father of Jesus was removed. While it is true that most New Testament books were recognized as Scripture from a very early date, it is likely that Marcion’s truncated canon forced the church to more precisely list which books carried apostolic authority.
Marcionism was one of the earliest rivals to the Christian church. The lesson to be learned from Marcionism is that we have no right to act as editor of God’s Word, but we must accept and believe the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3).
Is God a moral monster?
It’s important to realize how deep this topic can be, since a single article could never really do the subject justice. It’s simpler to look at common accusations against God and see how they fail. More specific details are available for those interested in doing further research, and we’ve included links to relevant articles.
Is God Evil?
The first problem with any “moral monster” accusation against God is that it requires a standard of morality separate from God. In other words, in order to say, “God is morally wrong,” one has to define morality in a way that justifies that claim. But what meaningful standard can exist, other than God, for moral principles?
Apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is a moral monster” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.
So, the first problem with claiming that God is immoral is that meaningful moral claims require God to exist in the first place. Labelling anything “good” or “evil” requires assumptions that lead inevitably to God. This fact is related to the next common objection about divine morality.
Moral relativism
What is the source of morality?
The moral argument for God
Problem of Good
Non-believers often accuse God of being evil. Just as often, however, they indirectly attack God’s morality by questioning the existence of evil. A truly good God, they claim, would not allow evil. More on this later; for now, consider that this approach creates a much larger problem for the non-believer than for the believer. In short, Christians can appeal to concepts such as free will when explaining why a good God might allow for evil. However, the non-believer finds a much more difficult issue when faced with the inverse of the question: why is there such a thing as “good” if there is no God? Why would human beings believe in concepts like “ought,” if everything that exists is the product of blind, purposeless physics? If things either “are” or “are not,” and there is no actual “ought,” then speaking of good and evil is gibberish.
This follows into a stickier problem: why “ought” a person be good, if there is no God or if God is truly a “moral monster”? Remember, if the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.
This leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.
Atheism and the problem of good
You’re Not the Boss of Me!
Another common accusation is that God is arrogant, selfish, or egomaniacal. God demands worship, He punishes those who disagree, and He even condemns those who insult Him. According to the common line of complaint, a truly “good” God would let people do as they please, without necessarily obeying His rules, and He certainly would not care how they think or speak of Him.
The quickest response to this particular objection is based on the concept of parenting. Good parents don’t let their children insult or disobey them. This is not because the parents are egomaniacs; it’s because they love their children. Even if the kids don’t grasp why, the parents’ rules are for the kids’ good. There are going to be circumstances when a child cannot understand all of the details; he simply needs to know that “Mom and Dad said no.” There’s nothing unreasonable about God’s expectation of obedience, given that He is a loving Father who wants the best for His children and who knows far more than they do. God cannot be fairly labeled a “moral monster” simply because He has established rules that some particular person does not like, does not understand, or refuses to obey.
The accusations of divine arrogance and selfishness also have to be put into perspective. The reason people have a problem with human arrogance and egotism is simple: we know the egotist isn’t perfect. A person’s arrogance grates on our nerves because of our basic knowledge that the egomaniac isn’t actually perfect—he doesn’t have that much to be arrogant about. God, however, is perfect. If He speaks, acts, and rules as though He is perfect, it’s simply because He is. There’s no arrogance or selfishness involved, as there would be in a lesser being. God’s claims of glory match reality.
Further, according to the Bible, God has demonstrated great patience, love, and sacrifice on behalf of humanity (Romans 5:8). The core concept of the gospel is that God was willing to become a human being, suffer and struggle, then be killed by His own creations. He did all of this in order to provide the means to allow mankind to live forever with Him. That’s hardly selfish, arrogant, or egotistic.
Blasphemy is a critical moral concept
Life, Death, and War
Many who accuse God of being a moral monster mention the wars described in the Old Testament. Or they point to the use of capital punishment for certain acts under the Mosaic Law.
The simplest response to these arguments has the advantage of logical strength, although it means little to the average unbeliever. Simply put, if God exists and created life, then He has the authority to decide what happens to that life. He can set the rules, and He can determine the punishments for breaking those rules. If the entire universe is His creation, then “morality,” including life and death, is by definition under His control.
Another response to the charge that events in the Old Testament are morally reprehensible is to place all of those events in their historical and scriptural context. When God commanded war against the Canaanites, for instance, it was not some random act of genocide. This was a culture that had been warned about their pervasive evil for centuries, and the time for God to punish that evil had finally come (see Genesis 15:16).
When God commanded the death penalty in Israel for certain offenses, it was not in the context of a stable, free, modern environment. It was during a time of great danger, instability, and uncertainty. This same principle applies even in modern societies: we punish crimes in proportion to their damage to the culture. In that day and time, what today would be considered “minor crimes,” if crimes at all, were profoundly damaging to the survival of the culture.
Again, the context of God’s commands is important. If God’s plan was to bring the Messiah, the one and only hope of mankind, through Israel, then it’s reasonable that He would take serious measures to protect the survival of that nation.
What does the Bible say about war?
What about when God kills?
What about Old Testament violence?
Free Will vs. Suffering and Evil
Easily the most common attack on God’s morality is the reality of evil. According to this accusation, God is a “moral monster” since He “created” evil—or because He neglects to do anything about evil. Both claims are contrary to reason and evidence, as well as the biblical understanding of God’s nature.
In the simplest terms, evil is anything that contradicts the will of God. There is a tremendous difference, then, between something that God does not will (but that He allows) and that which He directly and purposefully causes to occur. If it’s logically possible for a fallible human being to allow certain things—which he could theoretically prevent—in order to obtain some greater goal, then God can obviously do the same. This is where the concept of free will enters the equation.
The overwhelming majority of human suffering is the result of human activity. More to the point, it’s the result of human sin—either our own or someone else’s. But without the ability to choose selfishness, cowardice, and revenge, there would be no such thing as generosity, bravery, or forgiveness. Love, expressed by a being given no choice but to love, is hollow. Worship from such a being is meaningless.
It’s also untrue to suggest that God has done nothing about evil. Scripturally, there are many reasons to think that God has limited the level of evil we are capable of experiencing on earth (see Job 1:12; 2:6; and 2 Thessalonians 2:7). No matter what boundary God sets for evil, there will always be a “worst possible thing.” The error is in assuming that God hasn’t set the bar for suffering lower than He could have.
Likewise, according to the Bible, God has gone to great lengths to enact a plan to end all evil and suffering. The fact that God’s plan has not been completed—yet—is not logically a sign that God has done nothing. The end result has not yet occurred, but everything is in motion toward that end.
Though the subject of human free will is complex, even a brief examination shows that there are reasons—at least in theory—why God would allow us freedom and choice in this life. That’s especially true when one considers that, according to Christianity, this life is not all there is. What we struggle with and suffer under in this life is not all we are or all we are meant for.
Why does God allow evil?
Theodicy
Conclusion
While this is hardly an in-depth look at the claim that God is a “moral monster,” it should be enough to demonstrate that the claim is much harder to prove than some might think. There are severe factual, philosophical, and logical flaws in making such an accusation against God.
No comments:
Post a Comment