Divine Evil?

: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham

Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea
Print publication date: 2010
Print ISBN-13: 9780199576739
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Jan-11
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199576739.001.0001

Comments on Does God Love Us?

Eleonore Stump (Contributor Webpage)

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199576739.003.0004

In her chapter Louise Antony has issued an indictment of God. He is a

terrible parent; he is psychologically and physically abusive to human
beings. He is a liar or a bully. He commits crimes against human beings.
He is a sociopath. He is merciless. He is sadistic. And so on. Her chapter
is the answer to the question that is the chapter's title: Does God Love
Us? Certainly not, is Antony's answer. What's more, she says, Anyone who
suggests that we ought to love him is displaying the psychology of an abused
child. (30)
Her evidence for her thesis that God does not love us is a concatenation
of readings and interpretations of stories in the Hebrew Bible. She begins
with her interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and
she interweaves that interpretation with a variety of shorter or longer
interpretations of many other stories, including the stories of Noah's flood,
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the binding of Isaac, the suffering
of Job, the plagues on Egypt, the Ten Commandments, various episodes
involving Moses, the slaughter of the Amalekites, and various episodes
involving David. In each of these cases, she gives her reading of the text
and her interpretation of the story as she reads the text. In the process,
she relies on earlier philosophical work of her own on legitimate authority,
duties to parents, and other related issues. On this basis, she argues that, as
portrayed by each of the stories, God should be disdained and repudiated.
The summing of her interpretations of all the stories is meant to give a
damning picture of God.

Page 1 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

I want to begin by saying that in very many things I agree with Antony. Here
is a partial, not a complete, list of those things.
I agree that not all authority is legitimate and that not all disobedience is
bad. No good person is more concerned with his own glorification than with
the well-being of his children. Children are not the property of their parents,
and certain kinds of acts and practices on the part of parents vitiate some
or even all of the obligations children typically owe their parents. Mutatis
mutandis, these points also apply to God. It is not true in the case of God
that God has a right to do anything at all to human beings or that anything
(p.48) God does counts as good just because it is God who does it. It is not
right for a parent, even a divine parent, to treat other human beings unjustly
in any way, including entrapment, lying, bullying, physical brutality, or
psychological cruelty. And, in general, it is not right for any person, even a
divine person, to use a human being just as a means to some other end with
no care for that human being's own well-being.
In addition, I share Antony's affect about these things. Abuse of children is
loathsome, in my view; cruelty to human persons of any age is too. It's worth
being passionate about these things, as Antony obviously is.
Finally, I also share with Antony some interest in a certain kind of
methodology. I think, as she also seems to think, that philosophers can
benefit from bringing stories into their philosophical reflections. In my
viewbut this may be going further than Antony wants to gostories
have something to contribute that cannot be gotten without the stories.
Sometimes it is helpful to employ on issues in philosophy a methodology
combining ordinary philosophical techniques with the study of narratives.
Where I disagree with Antony is first in her use of such a methodology and
then in the conclusions she draws as she uses that methodology. I think
that I also disagree with the thesis she takes to be supported by these
conclusions, although I am not sure about this because I am not entirely sure
what that thesis is. If its scope is modified as I think it needs to be, then in
fact I agree with the thesis of her chapter; but I disagree with her about what
that thesis implies.
Let me begin with Anthony's use of the methodology that brings stories into
philosophical reflections.
Philosophical work, especially in the analytic tradition, commonly has a
certain sort of tight order to it because it is structured around arguments;
Page 2 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

philosophical discussion typically proceeds in an orderly way designed to

try to command agreement. By contrast, interpretations of narrativesfor
that matter, interpretations of people and their actionsdo not admit of
rigorous argument. We can definitively rule some interpretations out, but
it is hard to make a compelling argument that only this interpretation is
right. Even a carefully supported interpretation of narratives is, in effect,
only a recommendation to look at a text in a certain way. It invites readers
to consider that text and ask themselves whether after all they do not see
the text in the way the interpretation recommends. Interpretations present,
suggest, offer, and invite; unlike philosophical arguments, they cannot
attempt to compel. Because this is so, it is especially important in presenting
an interpretation of a text to consider alternative readings. To support one
interpretation is to support it over others. But then those others need to be
canvassed, and something needs to be done to show why they are to be
rejected.
Furthermore, the interpretation of narratives is itself an art. For
narratives, as for philosophy, there is an expertise and a community of
scholars in whom that expertise is vested. Although communal expertise
can certainly be mistaken, it is not generally wise to jettison it wholesale.
It represents the results of many minds working in community over a
considerable period of time. This is the case for the study of narratives
just as it is for the study of philosophy. In the case of narratives, one thing
this communal expertise typically gives us is a plethora of interpretations
of a text. It shows us the range of interpretations possible as regards
that text, and so it makes us more thoughtful and more sophisticated in
our interpretation of that text. It also shows us what needs to be done to
support a particular interpretation of a text. It helps us understand what
interpretations need to be argued against if one particular interpretation is to
be put forward as the right one.
(p.49)

These remarks apply to narrative texts in our own culture and language, but
they are especially pertinent when the narratives in question are written
in a language very different from our own and stem from a culture very
different from our own. In the case of such texts, even before the difficulties
of interpreting the text, there is the difficulty of finding the right reading of
it. Just understanding what a line means can take considerable expertise.
For such texts, the work of generations of linguists, historians, and literary
scholars can yield insight into readings and interpretations that would be
hard to come by otherwise. Think of a Greek tragedy such as Sophocles'
Philoctetes or a Chinese novel such as Dream of the Red Chamber, and
Page 3 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

you see the point. In the case of the stories in the Hebrew Bible, the texts
have been studied for centuries by some of the best minds in the Jewish
and Christian traditions; and many of the commentaries of those scholars,
with their philological and literary competences, are still available to us. As
far as that goes, the Hebrew biblical texts in question are still very much
under discussion today, not only by historical biblical scholars and literary
critics but even by philosophers, even by analytic philosophers. I myself have
written extensively on some of them.1
Finally, many ancient and contemporary studies make clear to us that
the Hebrew biblical narratives in particular have neutron-star density.
For example, Eric Auerbach has famously contrasted the narratives of
the Hebrew Bible with the narratives of Homer, to bring out the biblical
narrative's ability to convey an enormous amount with a tiny bit of detail
(1953). The noted literary scholar Robert Alter has made contemporary
readers aware of what can be done with the Hebrew narratives when their
detail is unfolded by (p.50) someone trained in the analysis of narratives and
attentive to the nuances of ancient Hebrew poetry and prose.2
These considerations highlight the problematic character of Antony's attempt
to bring narratives into philosophical reflection. She runs through many
biblical stories in short space with scant attention to the details of the text.
She gives little consideration of alternative interpretations. And she avails
herself of very little of the vast communal expertise that has been devoted to
both the reading and the interpretation of these narratives by scholars from
different disciplines, times, and world-views. What is needed for employing
well a methodology combining philosophy and ancient Hebrew biblical
narratives is missing in her chapter, in my view.
I also disagree with the conclusions Antony draws as she employs this
methodology. In the case of the stories Anthony canvasses, very many of
the available commentaries read and interpret the narratives differently
from the way Antony does, and I do not find her readings of the texts or her
interpretations of the readings she provides compelling.
Sometimes the issue has to do with the way in which Antony reads a line. To
take just one small example, consider the line about the creation of Adam
that in the translation Antony uses is rendered into English this way: there
was no one to till the ground. Commenting on this line, Antony says that
God seems to have created Adam to be a worker, or rather,
since there appears to be no question of securing Adam's

Page 4 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

consent to the arrangement, a slave. God, the text tells us,

simply needs a gardener.
Although Antony is confident about what the text tells us, in fact other
readings are possible. The traditional Jewish commentary, the Bereshith
Rabbah, reads the same line very differently. The word Antony takes to
refer to gardening can have connotations of religious worship or service,
and the commentary in the Bereshith Rabbah highlights this sense of the
word. It reads the line as commenting that there was as yet no human being
to engage in religious service of God. It recognizes that the biblical text
seems to imply that human beings were created for work, but it emphasizes
that work in religious service of God is a blessing for human beings. In
interpreting the biblical line at issue, the commentator says, Happy is the
man whose toil is in the Torah! (Midrash Rabbah. Bereshith 103).
Whatever one may think about the reading that the Bereshith Rabbah gives
to the biblical line, it ought at least to call to our attention that the biblical
line can be read in highly various ways. It is hasty to suppose, as Antony
does, that (p.51) this line, or any line in an ancient Hebrew narrative, wears
its meaning on its sleeve. For my part, I do not find Antony's reading of this
line persuasive.
A similar point applies to Antony's interpretations of her readings of the
stories. About the story of the creation of Eve, Antony notes the line in which,
on the reading Antony provides, God says about Adam, I will make him a
helpercorresponding to him. Based on her reading of this line, Antony
interprets the story of the creation of Eve this way: Eveis created not to
relieve Adam's loneliness, but to help him carry out his preordained duties.
A different interpretation of the same story is given by Robert Alter, in his
highly influential study of biblical narrative. Alter calls attention to the fact
that between this statement of God's and the actual creation of Eve, there is
the episode of Adam's naming of the animals. Alter comments,
The contrast between mateless man calling names to a mute
world of mated creatures is brought out by a finesse of syntax
not reproducible in translation. Verse 20 actually tells us that
man gave names to all cattleto birdsto beastto the
man, momentarily seeming to place Adam in an anaphoric
prepositional series with all living creatures. This incipient
construal is then reversed by the verb did not find, which sets
man in opposition to all that has preceded. (1991: 30)

Page 5 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

Having noted these nuances of the prose, Alter argues that one point of the
episode of the naming of the animals is to elicit from Adam an awareness of
his loneliness right before the creation of Eve. And Alter calls attention to the
fact that, in the narrative, the first thing Adam does after the creation of Eve
is to name her, so that, by highlighting Adam's use of language in naming,
the narrative connects the episode of the creation of Eve with the episode of
the naming of the animals. On Alter's interpretation, the loneliness of Adam
and Eve's creation to assuage that loneliness is central to the story of the
creation of Eve.
For my part, I find Alter's reading much more compelling than Antony's. And,
in general, by contrast with the alternative readings and interpretations
I know, I do not find Antony's construals of the stories plausible. So I
don't accept the particular conclusions Antony draws from her use of the
methodology that interweaves philosophy and narrative any more than I
accept the way in which she uses that methodology.
Finally, there is the question of the thesis that Antony means her work in
this chapter to support. The title of her chapter is a question, Does God
Love Us?, and her chapter is meant to be a resounding negative answer
to the question. But since the chapter focuses just on some narratives in
the Hebrew Bible, it is hard not to suppose that her thesis has to be much
narrower than the title suggests. To take just one example of a Christian
philosopher whose work I know well, Aquinas supposes that God loves
human beings. But this (p.52) view is not one that emerges for Aquinas
on the basis of his interpretations of stories in the Hebrew Bible. On the
contrary, he gives philosophical arguments for this view. His case is made,
inter alia, on the basis of metaphysical considerations having to do with
goodness and being. Nothing in Antony's chapter is so much as germane to
arguments such as these for taking God to be loving.
So even if we grant Antony all she wants in this chapter, as I have been
unwilling to do, her chapter does not constitute an argument for the claim
that God does not love human beings. The title of Antony's chapter would be
more accurate if it were phrased this way: Does the God of the narratives in
the Hebrew Bible love us? But even this version of the title wouldn't be quite
right. That is because the biblical narratives canvassed by Antony admit
of multiple interpretations. On at least some of those interpretations, the
texts support the claim that God loves human beings. Since Antony has not
considered such interpretations, it is too strong to claim that her chapter
makes a case that the God of the Hebrew Bible's narratives does not love
Page 6 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

human beings. The title of her chapter would therefore be correct only if it
were something like this: Does the God of the Hebrew Bible's narratives, as I
read and interpret those narratives, love us?
At most, then, what Antony is entitled to claim is that her chapter shows that
the God of her readings and interpretations does not love human beings. And
in this thesis she seems to me entirely right. The God who emerges from her
readings and interpretations is cruel and evil, as she says, more worthy of
human hatred than of human love. So if we take Antony's thesis in this highly
circumscribed way, then I agree with it.
But now there remains a question about what this thesis shows. What follows
from this thesis? I take it that Antony supposes her thesis shows something
to the detriment of at least two of the major monotheisms. But, of course,
this is not the only conclusion possible. Another possible conclusion is that
Antony's interpretations of the narratives in the Hebrew Bible are mistaken.
Antony has argued that the God of her readings and interpretations is
unloving. But she has not argued for her readings and interpretations. And
so although she has shown that two things are incompatibleher readings
and interpretations, on the one hand, and the claim that the God of the
stories is loving, on the othershe has not given arguments to show which
of these two incompatible things ought to be rejected. On the evidence
available to me, including the evidence of the alternative interpretations of
the narratives, I would not hesitate to choose her interpretations as the thing
to be rejected.
Here, then, is where I think we are left. The thing Antony finds worthy of
excoriation, I do too. And so do most other interpreters in the mainstream of
Jewish and Christian commentary on these stories. The God who emerges
(p.53) from her interpretations is not one they accept; the God they
worship is not the God Antony is concerned to repudiate. That is at least
in part because their readings and interpretations of the stories are very
different from hers, and so is the God whose nature is illuminated by their
interpretations. Consequently, in the thesis of her chapter, if it is suitably
circumscribed, Antony is not at odds with Jewish or Christian thought
but actually solidly in the mainstream of it: the God of her readings and
interpretations is not loving and is not worthy of love or worship in return.

Notes:
(1) See, for example, Stump 2010.
Page 7 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013

(2) See, for example, Alter 1991.

Page 8 of 8

Comments on Does God Love Us?

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UC Berkeley Library; date: 10 July 2013