But right out of the gate, the book of Genesis is a bumpy ride of bad theology
In articles I posted here on 12 July 2026 and 18 July 2026, I described the defective theology to be found just in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. But things don’t improve as we move on to chapter 12, the beginning of the saga of folklore that depicts the wanderings and achievements of the Hebrew people. The careful, thoughtful reader should be curious: how can any of this be verified? Serious scholars have known for a long time that verification is not possible, hence the conclusion—not at all uncommon—that Abraham, Joseph, and Moses are fictional folklore heroes, not people who really lived. Especially when readers are making their way through the tedious genealogies, they should be skeptical: these long lists cannot be verified; they too are part of the folklore.
The opening of Genesis 12 includes this sentence (verse 2), addressed to Abram: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.” Then we read that Abram and his wife Sarai went to Egypt because there was a famine to escape. But because Sarai was so beautiful, they agreed that they should lie: they should say she was his sister, not his wife. Pharoah took her into his haram, prompting Abram’s god to send a plague on the royal household—following which Abram and Sarai were kicked out of Egypt.
How can it be good theology that Abram—whose name was to be “made great”—lied so blatantly? In Genesis 15 the theology goes downhill even more:
“As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, ‘Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years, but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.’” (Genesis 15:12-16)
In a land in which there were swarms of tribal gods, why didn’t Abram say, “What? My people, my offspring, will be slaves for four hundred years? Excuse me, that’s a dealbreaker. I’m going to shop around for another god.”
But it was part of the Hebrew folklore that they would be slaves in Egypt—from which they were rescued dramatically—so this bad theology went unnoticed: it was required by the story.
In Genesis 17 we encounter not just bad theology; it actually becomes grotesque. In verses 10-14 we read that Abram’s god requires genital mutilation as a sign of the covenant between them. This god demands that all males in Abram’s household be circumcised—including slaves. Anyone who isn’t circumcised shall be banished. Modern believers—well, those who are informed—like to believe that this ancient god is actually an early version of the cosmic deity who has a vast universe under its supervision. How does it possibly make sense that this god—any god, actually—is keeping a close watch on human penises to make sure his covenant is being respected?
In Genesis 18:22-33 we find Abraham negotiating with his god, suggesting that a brutal massacre of Sodom and Gomorrah is not the best policy. Suppose there are 50 righteous people there—if that is the case, god agrees not to carry out his massacre. Abraham persists in his negotiations, convincing this god that even the presence of five righteous people will suffice to avert a massacre. This also is bad theology: this god who—people believe today—runs the vast cosmos, has to be coached on morality by a human being? We can suspect that an ancient theologian who was distressed by the horrible depiction of god in so much of what we now call the Old Testament, wanted in this text to moderate this depiction by bringing more decency to the image of this god.
In Genesis 19 we find the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We read that two agents of god—angels we read at the outset—are coaxed by Lot of stay at his home in Sodom. He feeds them well, and as they are about to retire for the night,
“…the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’” (Genesis 19:4-5)
Know them. The Hebrew word here is yada. It is commonly used in the sense of get to know, find out about. But it can also be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as in the story of Adam and Eve. Is that what it means here? Was Sodom truly an extreme center of gay activity? “…the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house…” It is well to remember that Lot was a stranger in Sodom, and he had just welcomed two other strangers to the city. The locals may well have been fearful and suspicious, and wanted to know who they were.
Moreover, Lot tells them: “I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please…” (v. 8) If this was a homosexual mob, why would Lot offer his daughters to be raped? If he was worried about sexual assault—and had little understanding of the range of sexual desires--it might make sense. But that’s a stretch.
In Ezekiel 16:49-50, we find this explanation for the destruction of Sodom:
“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50) The abominable things are not mentioned—so we’re left to guess what they might be.
And Lot’s two visitors did indeed destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. They rained “sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven…” (v. 24) Everything was ruined. Lot and his family had been warned not to “look back,” but his wife did just that and “became a pillar of salt.” (v. 26) This too is bad theology: she glanced back, and this god killed her as well.
Not too long ago I saw a MAGA Republican woman being interviewed; she was enthusiastic about the Bible being taught in public schools. But then the interviewer said he knew of a book in which two daughters get their father drunk on successive nights, and have sex with him. The MAGA woman thought this was horrible—she said that book should be banned, removed from the school.
Ooops, that story is in the Bible. Lot and his two daughters end up in a cave after escaping the conflagration. They get him drunk and have sex with him on two successive nights, giving birth to sons who become the ancestors of their enemies. This is folklore with vicious humor. And these is no hint whatever that the god who rained fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah disapproved or condemned the daughters for their behavior.
These stories illustrate what I mean by Genesis being a bumpy ride of bad theology. A statement by Bible scholar Hector Avalos also comes to mind:
“If we were to go verse by verse, I suspect that 99 percent of the Bible would not be missed.” (The End of Christianity, p. 109, edited by John W. Loftus.)
David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, now being reissued in several volumes:
• Guessing About God (2023)
• Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also available.
His YouTube channel is here. At the invitation of John Loftus, he has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.
The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment