10 disturbingly violent biblical stories depicted with Legos

March 3, 2011 | By Abraham | 99 comments

Images from The Brick Testament

1. Cain Kills Abel


(link)

2. The Flood


(link)


(link)

3. Job’s Suffering


(link)


(link)

4. Canaanite Kings Executed


(link)

5. Ehud Kills Eglon


(link)

6. Jephthah Kills His Daughter


(link)

7. The Levite Dismembers His Murdered Concubine


(link)

8. David Collects and Delivers Philistine Foreskins


(link)


(link)

9. Judas Kills Himself


(link)

10. Hell


(link)

Like 22 Words on Facebook

99 Comments

    1. Keri says:

      Dude, I was totally thinking the same thing! I wonder if Rob Bell has been receiving all kinds of artistic renderings of hell since the drama started! LOL

          1. Steffeny says:

            I don’t know who he is either. I get the impression he is well known in America though.

    1. The Foolish Sage says:

      In one gospel he hung himself. In another he fell dead in a field and his guts spilled out. Take your pick.

      1. Josh says:

        Actually, history studies show that it’s quite likely that Judas hung himself over a cliff, with whatever was holding him presumably breaking.

        1. the Foolish Sage says:

          Josh, exactly what “history studies” are you referring to? The only record we have of Judas and his death is the gospels. There is nothing else to “study.” I’ve heard what you put forth as an attempt at harmonizing the two accounts, but that always sounded stretched to me. Why would anyone record only one part of how someone died?

          1. jh says:

            I heard that in the Roman days that when someone was hanged, they were actually pierced through the chest by a spear. They were left hanging with their entrails gushing out. Thus there is no descrepancy in the two stories. Judas threw himself on to his own sword, or spear. That was how he hanged himself. Perhaps you need to go back to your history studies! :)

          2. realist says:

            Because the bible is made up story. When you make something up you don’t need it to logically connect to anything else.

      2. Caleb says:

        In Acts he hung himself then he fell headlong his stomach burst open and his intestines spilled out. (Great memory verse.)

        1. The Foolish Sage says:

          This is the passage in Acts 1 to which you refer:

           15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

           18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

          You want to show me where there’s a hanging in there?

          1. Geoffrey says:

            As someone with some background in textual criticism, I would be glad to offer my opinion on the discrepancies in the Biblical accounts of Judas’ death.

            It is not likely that the author of Matthew is describing the manner of Judas’ death at all in Mt. 27:3-8. Instead, he is making creative use of an Old Testament “type,” namely, the traitor Ahithophel from 2 Sam. 17:23. Just as Ahithophel went against David, Judas goes against Jesus, the Son of David, and figuratively fulfills the role of Ahithophel in a new situation by responding with grief and then dying in some way that is left unclear. This literary convention is very strange to modern ears, but it’s somewhat similar to the idiomatic expression “kicked the bucket,” which originally referred to death by hanging but can mean any kind of death nowadays. For a fuller understanding, there are plenty of books available on typology, which is common to much ancient near-eastern literature.

            The only real account we have of Judas’ death, that I’m aware of at least, is found in Act. 1:15-19. There might be something in Josephus, but I can’t think of any other contemporary historian who would be interested in recording the event.

    2. April Ward says:

      He actually died in two different ways. In Matthew 27:3-8 he hanged himself. In Acts 1:16-19 after falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. The bible is so funny! :-)

        1. the Foolish Sage says:

          Typical Christian apologetical nonsense. Straining to make what is obviously two entirely different traditions match up somehow. This is done not because anyone approaching these as “normal” texts would ever think they were anything other than two different legends about the same character, but because apologists have a precondition that the Bible *must* not contradict itself, therefore they will do all sorts of explanatory gymnastics in order to force texts to harmonize.

          1. Caleb says:

            I don’t think it’s obvious that they’re two separate traditions. If his body is hanging on a tree, and it rots, my guess is that his head will start to loosen, he will fall off the rope, and his body will burst open. Or, after he falls, bugs will eat his stomach so that his gut bursts open.

            It seems to me, that if there is any contradictions in the biblical account of Judas’s death, it is in the field which was purchased: in Matthew it says the pharisees bought the potter’s field, and in Acts it talks of Judas buying the field.

          2. the Foolish Sage says:

            Hoping you see this Caleb. Had to reply to my own comment, since Abraham’s template doesn’t allow replies beyond the third level.

            You have to ask yourself, why would the writer of the Acts account leave out such an important detail as the hanging itself? It would be like witnessing a car crash where a victim was thrown from the car and then writing a report that left out the crash but only mentioned the injuries sustained from the body hitting the ground.

  1. Carl says:

    As much as it is represented by Legos, it makes me realize how much more graphic and disturbing these events in the Bible are.

  2. Ben says:

    look enough through that website, and you will be disturbed.
    It’s truly a bad site with an alterior motive to lure kids in and pervert the Bible.

    1. the Foolish Sage says:

      “pervert the Bible”? By showing them what is IN the Bible?

      For God’s sake, if you don’t want them to see this site, please, please, don’t let them read a Bible.

      For the children.

      1. Bamby says:

        I first have to say, I’m an Atheist so I don’t believe in the Bible, but I find it hilarious how Christians seem offended when all we are doing is giving a visual images of what the Bible actually says, we don’t have to add anything, there’s some wicked stuff in there all by itself.

        1. Ikaw says:

          To be fair, some of those visual images are rather faulty.

          Like say that flood. Skeletons shouldn’t be visible after all the silt that got moved all over the place, most likely burying the bodies.

          The one where sacrificing the daughter is actually just giving her up to a life career as a church helper, since human sacrifice is actually one of the major things that differentiated the Jews from the people around them. It’s the whole point why they sacrifice animals instead of babies.

          The Brick Testament is full of these faulty interpretations and in a manner, yes, that is kind of what perversion means.

          Do some proper research next time before criticizing a group.

      2. 123 says:

        I rather like the disturbing images of the bible. It doesn’t like about reality. Reality is hard. You do what you have to in order to survive.

      1. Ikaw says:

        To be fair, some of those visual images are rather faulty.

        Like say that flood. Skeletons shouldn’t be visible after all the silt that got moved all over the place, most likely burying the bodies.

        The one where sacrificing the daughter is actually just giving her up to a life career as a church helper, since human sacrifice is actually one of the major things that differentiated the Jews from the people around them. It’s the whole point why they sacrifice animals instead of babies.

        The Brick Testament is full of these faulty interpretations and in a manner, yes, that is kind of what perversion means.

        Do some proper research next time before you laugh.

        1. Paperchaser says:

          That’s right. It’s wrong because the bodies were covered in silt.

          It’s not the “Brick” Testament that’s problematic here.

      1. jennapants says:

        if you look at comment 10, he’s saying that this is a sad website with bad intentions. after you click on his link, you have to click the forward arrow a few times to get to the one about killing homosexuals.

        josh s, do you ever comment unless it’s to hate on and mock people who believe the bible? no? k thx.

        1. Josh S says:

          Sorry if I came off like that, Jenna. I certainly don’t hate people who believe the Bible and need to be more careful if I came off like that.

        2. 123 says:

          The bible doesn’t say to kill homosexuals. The word homosexual is highly debated, and it does not show up in the OT. Some interpretations of the Hebrew actually seem to point to it being threesomes, not homosexuals.

    1. the Foolish Sage says:

      “Hide yo kids, hide yo wifes, cuz they rapin’ everybody out here!”

      Is the Lego Bible site satirical. Yes, sure. But it’s satire with a purpose, and that purpose is to confront us with things the Bible actually says and they’re logical consequences.

      Fact: the Bible DOES teach that homosexuals should be put to death.
      Fact: Jesus DID say that his followers must keep every part of the Law.

      So I ask again, what is it that you are afraid of your children seeing? What the Bible actually says? It sounds like you only want them to have your sanitized, Sunday School, cleaned-up version. The problem is that some day your kids are going to grow up, and some of them may realize that you didn’t tell them the truth, and they will leave your faith because of it. It’s happening among young evangelicals, right now. A lot.

      1. PhilA says:

        the Bible also states that people who work on Sundays should be stoned to death, so let’s get our rocks and go down to the local stores and being a-throwing…

  3. ben says:

    Nicole, I’m not looking to debate. Just wanted to let others in on what this site contains before you let your kids look at a bunch of lego Bible stories. Look at the links and tell me you’re not bothered by the content. And if you are not bothered, maybe I’m in the wrong crowd here.
    Its not the stories above that Mr. Piper has listed that bother me, its when the teachings of Jesus are portrayed. Check them out, really, before you think of something else to be critical about.

      1. the Foolish Sage says:

        See my reply to #11 above. Applies here to.

        Evangelicals are afraid their kids will find out what is actually in the Bible, the parts their Sunday School teachers skip over.

        1. Amigo says:

          It’s more than that Sage. You are intelligent enough to know that it’s not simply the two “facts” you put forward and nothing more. I’m sure from your comments that you come from a fundamentalist background, but let’s not transcend fundamentalism with a new sort of fundamentalism, okay?

          I think most evangelical parents, if they know the Bible, are not “afraid” in any sense, but want their children to see the larger picture of how it works together. Thus, they want their children to know about the awkward (at least to our culture) passages in Numbers and Leviticus, alongside the more modernly acceptable passages. I think they want them to interpret them all in the light of Christ (and most are intelligent enough to know that Jesus’ statements concerning the Law whe put together were not a call for people to continue keeping the Law). They want their children to see the progressive nature of revelation (unless they are a small minority of Reformed folks who don’t see any progressive nature in revelation), and follow Jesus in keeping the spirit, but not the letter of the Law.

        2. Caleb says:

          I don’t know, my Sunday School teacher(s) never skipped those parts. Granted, they couldn’t cover everything in the OT, but they made a fairly decent effort of it. Last week in my Sunday School Class we read through the part where God commanded Moses to kill thousands of the people of Israel (this is right after Moses broke the two tablets.)

          The thing is, we all deserve to be killed for every sin we commit. I think the Brick Testament does a good job of showing that—yes, some of them are quite distorted, but still it does get that point across. I think the most troubling thing about the Brick testament is the lack of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. Yes, we should kill, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who teach about false gods, but if we look at the spirit of the law, everyone who sins or fails to put God first should be killed on the spot. Once we realise this, we can begin to be amazed all over again at God’s grace through Christ’s death. He died for the liars, adulterers, homosexuals, and yes, even murderers.

          1. Jeremie says:

            “Yes, we should kill, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who teach about false gods”… what the f…. are you talking about. That’s nonsense. This is exactly why you people are dangerous.

          2. Jeremie says:

            “Yes, we should kill, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who teach about false gods”… what the f…. are you talking about. That’s nonsense. This is exactly why you people are dangerous.

          3. John says:

            Hey Caleb – you aren’t clear, here, whether you’re being sarcastic or not:

            “An eye of a needle was a really small gate that a camel had to get down on his knees and shimmy through.

            In case you weren’t being sarcastic: You know that “the eye of the needle is the name of a gate in Jerusalem” is an urban legend, right? And that what Christ *actually* said was that rich people would not go to heaven, no ambiguity, no argument – flat out, rich people get to heaven like ungulates pass through keyholes.

            I bring it up mostly because a scary number of “Biblical literalists” think that’s a metaphor, a reference, something not literally true, and those people are missing the largest part of His message.

          1. Caleb says:

            Honestly, I think he did/does. Remember the whole camel through the eye of a needle? Not possible, but people are still trying to figure out how to make it possible: “An eye of a needle was a really small gate that a camel had to get down on his knees and shimmy through.” I bet Jesus and Peter are up there saying something like, “Look at that scholar! He has two books larger than War and Peace; only they’re about sewing and Middle Eastern camels!”

    1. Pooka says:

      Yep. A thorough look through the New Testament portion of Brick Testament will show a sad misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. It’s riddled with scoffing and crude distortion of the text. Definitely not accurate nor well-meaning as a whole. The creator doesn’t get it or he’s actively seeking to disparage God’s Word.

      1. TomZ says:

        Yeah, cause.. you know… when the Christian bible’s horrific scenes are depicted, screams can be heard saying “YOU’RE MISSING TEH CONTEXT!!1! OH-EM-GEE!”
        But when similar quotes from the Koran are thrown out there, it’s supporting the opinion that Islam is a barbaric religion. Vice versa.

        If these “context” screaming religious people had a little intellectual honesty and would read their holy text with a sense of objectivity, then only fringe mentally-unstable people would try to defend it (and this goes for any religion man has ever invented).

  4. Griffin Gulledge says:

    Two observations:
    1) The foreskin one is both awkward and awesome.
    2) There are a lot of Lego’s Star Wars outfits used here.

  5. J. Gunn says:

    “Yes, we should kill, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who teach about false gods, but if we look at the spirit of the law, everyone who sins or fails to put God first should be killed on the spot.”

    Uhm. as a christian, this statement by another christian is absolutely dumbfounding.

    but other than that, i enjoyed this post and the somewhat awkward conversations that followed. : )

    1. Caleb says:

      “For the wages of sin is death.”(Romans 6:23) Those who sin should die. Sin is not just murdering, stealing, lying, and the like, it is also failing to put God first: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Thus we can see that sinning and falling short of God’s glory are synonymous. So yes, I should have stated that a little differently: we should kill adulterers, homosexuals, et cetera, but we should also kill liars, those who say unkind things, and people who love money more than God, and yes, even ourselves for we are all sinners and have all fallen short of God’s glory; however, Jesus died that death that we should have died, he took our sins laid them upon himself and surrendered himself to God’s wrath and punishment. By doing this, he fulfilled that very law we broke. So instead of killing sinners (adulterers, homosexuals, liars, etc.) You (and we) should tell them that they (and we) should die for that sin, but instead God had mercy and Jesus died in our place. We deserved death, but we received grace, and if we believe on Jesus we will receive eternal grace. Is this not the very essence of the gospel?

      As a Christian, this statement should not be dumbfounding, but instead this statement should resonate with what is written in scripture. If I am wrong, please correct me.

      1. J. Gunn says:

        i wasn’t arguing with the christian doctrine that the smallest mistake earns a wrathful eternity. that has scriptural backing.

        you keep saying “WE SHOULD KILL X, Y, and Z TYPE PEOPLE.”

        there’s no backing of that in the slightest.

        1. Caleb says:

          Oh, sorry about that, I’m trying to be all-inclusive here: all sinners should be killed.
          I was looking through The Brick Testament and it kept having things like, “Kill those homosexuals!” and, “If a man commits adultery both the man and the woman should be put to death.” So I was more or less trying to answer the Brick testament. And to be fair, he’s taken these right out of Leviticus (see Lev. 20:10 and Lev 20:13). But these no longer apply because Jesus has fulfilled the law. How’s that?

          1. J. Gunn says:

            much better, thanks. saying “we should kill sinners,” whether or not you really fantasize about it (although ‘the mouth speaks from the overflowing of the heart’) is pretty bizzare. I thought movies like “Seven” were completely without basis on their portrayal of murderous, self-righteous christians but your words sound straight out of the script.

            despite the natural feeling to the contrary, there’s an uncrossable separation between seeing fault and having the right to extract punishment, which is reserved for legitimate authorities in official proceedings, or God himself.. not ecumenical commentators.

          2. Caleb says:

            I completely agree J, judgement is strictly for those in that position (God and the government). As St. Paul points out, it’s the government who bears the sword, not us.

            Now that I see my words more clearly,—thank you so much for pointing that out—I find it quite frightening that I said, “*we* should kill sinners”. And if I heard anyone else say that, I would be horrified.

            Reading the Brick testament, some of the illustrations really gave the impression that in order to follow Jesus, *we* should kill homosexuals, etc. (quite warped in my mind). My thought process went something like this: If we have the duty/right to kill sinners, then those sinners have the duty/right to kill us, for we are sinners. Ultimately though, if a sinner should be killed, it is up to God and his justice, and if a sinner should live, it is up to God and his mercy. Never should the average person take that into their hands.

            Thank you so much for pointing out my errors. I have a feeling that as long as I have a fallen mind, I shall always be mis-communicating.

          3. Jeremie says:

            I repeat… “Yes, we should kill, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who teach about false gods”… what the f…. are you talking about. That’s nonsense. This is exactly why you people are dangerous.

            I don’t care how you wrap all “sinners” in the category, you picked three that make no sense anywhere… these are not sins -> homosexuality, false gods… I’m not gay and I certainly don’t teach about false gods like you do, and yet, the premise of this conversation sounds offensive.

          4. Caleb says:

            Jeremie, I was just trying to make the point that every one deserves death: Myself included.

    2. jason says:

      You seem, like Jeremie above, to have stopped reading before Caleb’s point. That is, everyone’s really pretty evil, at least in God’s eyes, and deserves punishment. So then, Jesus is pretty awesome.

  6. felixmeister says:

    It’s Lego, not Legos.
    If you wish to refer to the individual pieces they are Lego bricks.

    1. Caleb says:

      Amen!!!! It’s like hearing someone say “mooses”. Go look at the official LEGO website, the individual pieces are always referred to as, “LEGO bricks”. I guess LEGOS is wrong for the same reason as “Coca-Colas” would be wrong: it’s “cans of Coca-Cola”. I’m glad someone else shares my pet peeve.

  7. Love2Live says:

    Okay, first, I want to say that I am an educated, Evangelical Christian, who also happens to find this, uh… actually, I don’t know what to make of this.

    Part of me finds this mildly amusing, but then I remember that this stuff actually happened, which makes it less funny.

    Then, I think how interesting it is!

    Okay, the real reason I wanted to comment on here is to say that I appreciate that the concubine in #7 is divided into 12 pieces.

    1. Love2Live says:

      Uh… this is awkward…

      I just wanted to say that you should all ignore the grammatical error in the beginning. If you didn’t see it, move along. If you did see it-

      CONGRATULATIONS! You have outwitted me. Your prize is the inner satisfaction beating me must give you. Of course, I wouldn’t know how satisfying it feels, since I have never felt it myself. But, for your sake, I hope it is particularly satisfying.

      A bientôt!

Leave a Reply