Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?
This is the sub-title of David T. Lamb’s God Behaving Badly, a book that investigates several perceptions of the Old Testament God that many people find troubling.
In the Epilogue Lamb says that an unnamed New Testament professor suggests that the answer to his book’s subtitle is “Yes, yes, and yes,” I, of course, have no idea who that professor might be (*ahem*) or why he would say such a thing, but I digress…
There were two highlights to this book for me.
The first was Lamb’s discussion of the smiting of Uzzah for reaching out to stop the ark of the covenant from falling over. Lamb delves into various aspects of the instructions for the ark’s handling and what they signified. The ark was to be carried like a royal litter, a king’s processional, not put in a cart like the luggage in the trunk of a car. His careful outworking of the details of that story shed new light on it and made the God of the story appear much less capricious.
The second highlight was the chapter on God as rigid or flexible. Lamb investigates the idea of a God who does not change, and finds such “impassibility/immutability” to be a misleading description of the God of the Old Testament–but in ways that should be a comfort to God’s people. This chapter was excellent–one of numerous indications that raise my hopes that the indefensible notion of God’s impassibility will one day become little more than a theological relic.
I had several points in my reading where I wanted to press Lamb a bit.
On two separate occasions that I remember, he says that the story is simply its own story, with no indication that it has continuing significance for the identity of God’s people; or, at least, that it doesn’t tell us what that significance is. I found this to be a rather flat reading. It seems that the whole point of delineating the descendants of Noah, for example, is to allow Israel to place itself vis-a-vis the nations. If Ham is cursed, Shem is off the hook for how it treats the descendants of Ham.
I also wonder if Lamb has given due weight to the apparent discrepancies between the “God of the OT” and the “God of the NT” in issues such as racism and violence. Though the OT narrative does tell us that God was patient with the Canaanites before the Israelites annihilated them, the story still advocates such genocide. There seems to be a difference, unexplored in this book, between the God who is patient and then annihilates and the God who is patient and then comes as the self-giving sacrifice to save those whose sin has at last reached its full measure.
Other times, the NT itself might complicate matters. The problem of sexism in the creation narratives is driven home by interpretations of the creation story such as the one found in 1 Timothy 2. The idea that first created might mean, in some sense, “superior,” is not explored as something that has the weight of the Bible’s own interpretation behind it.
In all, I find that my own approach to these questions demands a more narratival, diachronic approach. The Bible itself evinces the racism, anger, sexism, and the like that was part and parcel of the ancient contexts in which it was written.
But the indiscriminate outpouring of the Spirit rewrites the story of God’s people such that race is no longer at its center.
But the self-giving of God on the cross rewrites the story of God’s people such that genocidal anger can no longer be blithely attributed to its deity.
But the unity of all in Christ undoes the societally-approved exaltation of males as inherently superior to females.
Lamb’s book challenges us to read the whole of the OT–where we often discover that there exists a plurality of perspectives and indications about the identity of God and God’s people. He challenges us to talk about and preach on the difficult texts. If his book helps give us the courage to confront our sacred scriptures head on, it will have been of good service to the church.
But in the end I see it as serving that role as more of a conversation starter than as the provider of compelling answers to the questions it raises.
Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book from InterVarsity Press. This did not come, however, with the requirement either that I review it or that I review it favorably.
Of course, all this ignores the more likely answer: that all of the above is so confusing and disjointed in its portrayal of God because it is simply the writings of a bunch of humans making stuff up in their attempts to explain life.
Isn’t “racism” an anachronistic word to apply to a premodern text?
O dear… Daniel, you really must read with the narrative. The Canaanites are destroyed not for their strain or stock but for their sin. The iniquity of the amorites had reached its height and God was no longer willing to be patient; judgement ensued. The same would happen to Israel a few centuries later. The same will happen to our world at the end of history.
Sin occasions expulsion and death. This was the story of Eden. It was the story of the flood. It was the story of the Canaanites (and ought to have been a lesson to Israel. It was the story of the exile. It is the story of the cross. And it will be the End-story too for those who persist in it.
And as for sexism – that’s a loaded word. It implies patriarchy is sinful. On whose authority?
And who says for that matter anger and violence are wrong? Righteous anger is not wrong, nor is judicial violence. At least, this is the testimony of both testaments.
The question could come right back at you: On whose authority do you justify sexism, anger and violence (including the killing of women and children non-combattants–except for those virgins, those we get to keep!)? If you answer “God’s authority,” as it appears you would, then we open up the whole debate about how you know the Bible is speaking for God, or even that there is a God who speaks.
It appears you have only a faith assertion to stand on. The rejection of patriarchy and violence (along with slavery and the treatment of homosexuals as sub-humans) can be based on the evolution of human society. As time has passed an increasing number of human beings have come to realize that a) human beings are not the playthings of the gods, and therefore have dignity and worth in themselves, and b) that oppression and violence are actually hindrances to human progress.
Then again, the very idea of “human progress” is itself something of a faith statement…
In a way, yes, but it’s a much more testable hypothesis than that of John Thompson above. Put simply: which society would you rather live in–the ancient world of patriarchalism, racism and oppression or a society that is slowly but surely making those things unacceptable. Bingo: progress.
First of all, as I said above, “racism” doesn’t really apply to the ancient world, which didn’t have a modern notion of race.
I’d love to live in a society that is slowly but surely making those things unacceptable, but are we really in such a world/society? Just because we’re in the prosperous/wealthy part of the world and don’t tend to see much oppression doesn’t mean it’s not there. For example, there are more slaves (and more women in the sex trade) now than at any time in history.
Is that progress?
Even if I bought your get out of jail free card for the ancient world, I could still say we can still make the judgment that today’s world (where much of the world recognizes racism as an evil) is a better one than the ancient world where it was called “Tuesday.”
And yes, we are in a such a world (of progress) because at least some of the world is striving to leave behind those things, and much of the rest of the world wants to be like that part which is so. That’s progress; I didn’t say we were there yet. Just better than the way it was.
Side note: I never cease to be amazed the lengths to which Bible believers will go to try to make racism, violence and genocide “ok,” at least back then. Of course, I know more than a few who still seem to be ok with those for now, too.
Sage, without getting into specifics, it seems to me that your ethics is based on the NT’s reception of the OT (continuity and discontinuity) and the roots of such reading that have been deeply embedded in the West over many centuries.
I don’t think such ethics are necessarily obvious. For example, given human beings’ inherent preference for those who are like them, racism as we know it is not perceived as a great evil by many. Even in places where racism is called out, we still tend to gravitate to and prefer those who are like us ideologically and politically.
What I think has happened by and large in the contemporary West is a selective appropriation and reinterpretation of NT ethics with a rejection of the belief that undergirds it.
Do you think that’s fair?
One more point: Doesn’t “progress” imply a discernible objective purpose to which we strive?
Sage
Yes, my authority is simply that of the bible. I affirm (believe in) the uniqueness of Jesus. I am convinced he is all he claimed to be. I am convinced he rose from the dead. The corollary to these convictions is that the Bible is God’s self-revelation in history. There I find my absolutes and foundations for life.
I am more than surprised at how quickly you have forgotten the lessons of the C20. Two wars in which more died than in all the wars of history put together. Wars started by the most ‘advanced’ nation on earth. Human progress? You have got to be kidding.
Daniel,
To address a side note that you make instead of the main topic (which is to big for me):
I have wondered if the “created first” comment in I Tim. 2 perhaps addresses elements of the Ephesian church that had been too influenced by the dominating Temple of Artemis, and the myths surrounding her. Artemis is said to have been born before her younger twin, Apollo, and then to have aided her mother in giving birth to her brother. Consequently she was also treated as a goddess of childbirth, although a virgin herself. If (and it’s a sizeable “if”) the local Ephesian cult was using that as a basis for wives having contempt for their husbands, then maybe Paul was not arguing FOR the superiority of males over females, but AGAINST the influence of the Artemis cult. This would also explain, better than several other suggestions, Paul’s comment about being safe in birth. The influence of the Artemis cult could have combined the elements 1) that the female precedes the male in origin, 2) the female is superior in wisdom, and 3) Artemis will provide safety in child-bearing.
See Callimachus, Hymn 3 to Artemis 22 ff (trans. Mair) (Greek poet C3rd B.C.) :
“Even in the hour when I [Artemis] was born the Moirai (Fates) ordained that I should be their helper [women in childbirth], forasmuch as my mother suffered no pain either when she gave me birth or when she carried me win her womb, but without travail put me from her body.”
Yes, I stand guilty of speculation here.
You might be interested in Kroeger and Kroeger’s “I Suffer Not a Woman.” I’ve not read it all, but they attempt to look at 1 Tim 2:11-15 in light of ancient evidence for various temple cults which may have, through goddess mythologies, encouraged wives to have contempt for their husbands, etc.
Yes, this is a common line of explanation. I’m just not sure the extent to which we can ever know that it has anything to do with the situation on the ground in Ephesus, assuming that’s where the letter was actually first read and/or received. I still wish that a more redemptive trajectory of the place of women had been followed rather than this subordinationist line. But it’s there, as are other subordinationist ideas, in the NT–alongside more egalitarian and liberating trajectories.
Some interesting reflections, Daniel. I share your enthusiasm for the chapter on divine (im)mutability, but have serious questions with much of the rest of the book. You, and your readers, may be interested to look at my blog, where I have devoted a separate posting to each chapter; I have about 3 chapters left, but there is already much to digest. I’ve pointed out some, though not all, of the questions that persist for me, and why. David himself has also weighed in, as has Thom Stark, author of ‘The Human Faces of God.’ Please, do feel free to join the conversation evolving there; I hope your readers will as well. These are exceedingly important questions that far too few are even addressing, let alone admitting exist.
I’ve appreciated your comments about the book. Yes, Daniel, more could be said about differences between the OT and NT God. And I agree that this book is more of a conversation starter, than a final authority on these issues. This is the problem with dealing with 7 rather diverse topics in a relatively short book written for a broad, not academic, audience. Ultimately, I’m not satisfied with my answers, particularly to the Canaanite genocide question. I will have an article on that topic in the upcoming issue of Relevant Magazine where I bring some of my commments from chapters 2, 4 and 5 together and add some new material, but even there, I’m still deeply troubled by the Canaanites slaughter. I hope that my comments in that article and in GBB can help people begin to work through these highly problematic passages. The best place to do this is in the context of community, where difficult questions can be raised without fear, and difficult passages can be examined.
David
Why should the canaanite slaughter present more problems than the flood or the final judgement?
It is probably right up there with the flood. That’s a very difficult story, to say the least.
The agency of other human beings in the extermination of the Canaanites might have something to do with it.
It’s one thing for God to destroy or judge on his own. It’s significantly more problematic when we’re talking about people massacring other people as divinely sanctioned.
The ethical difficulties of the חרם passages just don’t apply to the flood or final judgment, since those don’t involve people slaughtering other people but rather God doing what he has a right to do.
Jason
Your answer had crossed my mind. But is this the difficulty? Surely it is the violence itself that is being objected to rather than its vehicle. Is not what is being really questioned God’s ‘right’ to destroy the ‘wicked’?
Re the method (another nation). If God uses Israel to destroy the Canaanites who have polluted the land then he will use the Assyrian and the Babylonian to destroy Israel when they do likewise. If any are spared then it is because of a covenant to be gracious and save. In turn he will use the Persians to judge the Babylonians and Rome to destroy C1 Israel and so on. These further examples of nations being used as the agent of judgement surely obviate the tacit concern that here we have simply a religious justification by Israel for her own genocidal goals.
It’s worth remembering that in atonement he uses both Israel and the other nations in judging of the Christ.
Daniel
Why is the flood a difficult story? I understand it is horrific for judgement is horrific. I am not sure it is difficult though. It surely makes good sense within the biblical narrative and view of God. The God who is gracious is also holy and judges sin. The God who shows mercy also hardens.
Thanks, Dave. It’s great to hear that you continue to wrestle with these things. I appreciate also your final sentiment about dealing with these things in community. I think you’ve given us a great tool for starting that conversation. On my FB page someone spoke of reading it and recommending it and using it as a tool for thinking about how to deal with difficult texts in youth group. That’s good stuff.
Jason,
I appreciate your points about how, for example, one cannot presume that the modern concept of racism — and all the conditions, conceptions, and cultural codes implied in it — existed prior to modernity.
That said, could you flesh out precisely how you mean your claim, about the non-existence of racism (or even the concept of race) in the ancient world, in this discussion? What exactly do you mean to affirm and deny here?
I find it difficult to imagine you denying that we have an abundance of evidence for various folks in the ancient Mediterranean conceptualizing in terms of “ethnh/peoples” and corresponding features, characteristics, and the like of different “peoples”—and, furthermore, much slander and other negative views about other “peoples” precisely as other peoples? Different Greek and Roman authors have all sorts of nasty things to say about Guals, Spaniards, Ethiopians, Syrians, Judeans, Egyptians, etc. etc. etc. Not surprisingly, different Judeans had negative things to say about different “Gentile” peoples. Etc. Etc. Etc. Sometimes authors would include as part of their positions about other ethnh that, because of X or Y characteristic of said other people (e.g., more rugged, more irrational, etc.), they are by-nature more fit to fill Z kind of duty (e.g., warrior, slave, etc.).
Again, while I appreciate the point that we cannot read modern (and post-modern) conceptualities back into the ancient world, I think it helps to be more precise about claims in a context such as this. What are you affirming and denying?
I’m just pointing out that modern notions of race are significantly different from those of the ancient world. Were ancients culture-ist, ethnic-ist, and generally xenophobic? Yes.
But that is a different discussion from racism in a modern sense, and the terms shouldn’t be so easily collapsed. A fine distinction, yes, but one that’s worth making.
Sage,
Have you recently been at some Christian institution that taught (or, put better, enculterated) the validity of legitimating oneself with circular reasoning and the like? “The Bible is right and from God because…[wait for it]…the Bible is right and from God!” Or, put another way, “[My opinions about God, the universe, other people, morality, and politics] The Bible [are] is right and from God because [My opinions about God, the universe, other people, morality, and politics] The Bible [are] is right and from God.”
A bit more seriously, ever met any Christians who know God, Christ, and the Bible don’t ultimately condone oppression, violence, patriarchy (oops, the Biblical Council on Manhood and Womanhood may get angry with me)…but who also know that the Bible does condone these things in some sense…and who wrestle with how this tension can itself impel them to a different and hopefully more radically faithful model of how the Bible is authoritative and from God? I hope you appreciate that I worked both a parenthetical AND ellipses into that run-on sentence…
Stephen:
I’ve certainly met Christians who want to believe the “God, Christ, and the Bible don’t ultimately condone oppression, violence, patriarchy,” and at the same time know that it often does, and yes, this causes them a “struggle” with the “tension” between the two. Ultimately, any attempt to resolve that supposed tension was unsatisfying to me, and it was much easier to see the Bible as an incredibly interesting but very human attempt of many diverse men over several centuries to grapple with the realities and mysteries of life.
Sage, I think this a forum in which I can make this particular “argument.”
As “evidence” for the Bible’s divine character I point to the conversion of Paul’s imagination. His re-reading of Israel’s Scripture in light of Christ’s death and resurrection is so substantial and subtle that it supports his own claim that he speaks with divine authority.
Stephen
If the Bible is ‘right and from God’ (though I would rather say ‘from God and right’) then our task is to understand it not question it. It is a matter of authority. If we concede ‘Jesus is Lord’ then the rest follows.
If you dislike patriarchy yet find the Bible (God’s Word) actually approves patriarchy then which is right – your reasoning or the Bible? Which ‘mind’ has ultimate authority?
If the Bible says that although God desires not the death of any yet ultimately he is glorified in his destruction of the wicked (which in a moral world makes perfect sense) and we ought to glorify him for it, do you believe this even if you do not fully understand for that is what faith is?
A general point.
Should the Allies have attacked Germany in WW2? Should we rejoice at the overthrow of nazism and the nazis in whom it resided? Was the violence (in principle) justified? Should we honour those who brought about such a victory over evil? Is their ‘greatness’ evident in crushing a monstrous evil?