Customer Reviews

Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I need to write a review to correct the misinformation of two of the reviewers (so far). This is a very good book that really should be read by Christians of all stripes. Few Christian scholars are as brave and forthright as Eric Seibert is in this book. Unfortunately, ES' approach can easily be caricatured and distorted by reactive readers who fail to listen carefully to the full line of his reasoning.

Seibert is a professor of Old Testament. He is conversant with current biblical scholarship and most importantly the Old Testament texts themselves. Seibert has prolifically wrestled with the numerous problematic, disturbing OT texts that express violent, bloodthirsty and immoral elements and does much to help us understand them with his expertise.

I frequently use this quote to point out the problem (from Raymund Schwager): "There are "600 hundred passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible, 1,000 verses where God's own violent actions of punishment are described. 100 passages where Yahweh expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason (e.g. Ex 4.24-26)."

Here are two sample passages to illustrate:

"So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded." (Joshua 10.40)

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

Some Christians attempt to deal with these passages by essentially glossing over them or constructing elaborate rationalizations to lessen their moral repugnance. Seibert is convinced that faithful Bible readers must honestly come to terms with the implications of these disturbing passages and not dodge dealing with them. After all, we live in a world where some still believe that God sanctions genocide and "holy jihads". The character of God is vitally at stake.

A few of the reviewers have interpreted Seibert as dismissing and throwing out whole passages of the Bible to deal with the problem. Certainly, ES would have us no longer mistake some of these disturbing passages as literally depicting the actions of God. But nowhere does he advocate carte blanche, clearing the deck.

Chapter 11 (Using Problematic Passages Responsibly) articulates Seibert's admonition NOT to throw out completely these difficult passages but to mine them for what they CAN validly contribute to us. So as example, we may not need to feel obligated to believe God actually is in the habit of asking us to sacrifice our children to test our level of faith (the story of Abraham and Isaac, Gen. 22) but we should allow ourselves to feel challenged by the story to give our all to God and hold nothing back, as Abraham did. And what Bible literalist doesn't live with that tension anyway?

There ARE chapters in the book where Seibert attempts to examine difficult narratives to see if there are purposes or motives we may be overlooking due to being unfamiliar with the cultural matrix of a very foreign people.

So, as example, we may see the ancient practice of political propaganda (often used in ancient near-eastern cultures) being used to sanction the rise of David over Saul in the historical books. (So these passages are less concerned with historicity and much more with their contextual purposes.)

Seibert sees the OT as not only revelation of God but a book of and for a particular people. This human dimension is often minimized in discussions of the purpose of the Bible by those who have a high view of the Bible as fully divinely inspired.

Seibert's exploration of discovering differing rationales for various narratives is to develop a nuanced reading of the text and not to read it only with modern, Western eyes that primarily search for veracity and historical fact. If we can relax away from that, we may have new vistas for understanding the biblical texts.

Consequently, reading the OT/Bible with a cultural perceptiveness may enable us not to be so wrapped up in taking everything SO literally at face value. Throughout the book, I sensed Seibert was not out to take his scissors and cut out unsavory Bible passages like Jefferson or Marcion but rather to uphold the character and integrity of God in light of honest investigation. He would have us, instead of throwing out the passages that disturb us, cultivate a sensitivity to see what is behind them and why they may have come about. And perhaps we will see that the "sinister" depictions of God may not express literal, factual events.

Certainly this may be threatening to Bible literalists and inerrantists. But I see nothing inherently wrong with a viewpoint that respects BOTH the divine and human influences in the Bible. It sure matches up to the evidence for me! (Those who have experienced a productive therapeutic situation know that the "revelatory" process includes both sides of the dynamic. One, the therapist's wisdom and interpretation, but also very importantly, the analysand's own self-discovery of the meaning of his/her own emotional responses in the embrace of an accepting other. The Bible can act as a mirror into seeing our own conflicted tendencies.)

I am also way on board with Seibert's insight that Jesus' ethic of "loving one's enemies" is authoritative and decisive on this general issue. I think Seibert's most brilliant chapter (10 - a Christocentric hermeneutic)) addresses this. This chapter should surely dispel any notion this guy is a "heathen" liberal bible scholar masquerading in sheep clothing.

In conclusion, whether I think Seibert has completely succeeded is another matter. I am not completely on board with all his proposals but I do feel he has forwarded the discussion valiantly. Perhaps, we must accept that only provisional solutions can be given for these pressing theological dilemmas as people along the way. Living with uncertainty and doubt need not be antithetical to a robust faith. Some day we will know as we are fully known.

In the end, I agree the depiction of God as violent and bloodthirsty needs to be honestly addressed and done away with. And certainly, as Seibert articulately advocates, Christ is our new canon who has revealed the heart of God in definitive and decisive ways. Often, I find the value of a book more in its ability to stimulate and provoke reflection rather than to provide final answers. On that score, I judge this book a great success.

A small update: I have just finished Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) and recommend reading this together with Seibert's book. They dovetail well together and reinforce each other's perspective. Both are great examples of Christian scholars not ducking the hard questions but attempting to forward the contribution of the Bible for today.

If you are prepared to stretch your theology and beliefs of God and the Old Testament, I would recommend reading Disturbing Divine Behavior by Eric Seibert.

Dr Seibert is an Associate Professor at Messiah College. He is very much a pacifist and believes that Jesus Christ is the fullest representation of the moral character of God.

We're all in agreement so far right?

Seibert has difficulty with the God portrayed in the Old Testament; specifically the violent words and actions that come from God.

Think of the world-wide flood, the destruction and plagues of Egypt, the violent conquest of Canaan by Joshua. These portrayals do not reflect the God that Jesus represents according to Seibert.

So how do we resolve this problem?

Seibert proposes that we look at the Old Testament stories and narratives and not factual historical documents. He believes that the writers of these stories had an agenda to tell, not historical truth, but stories to apply in their current situation.

For example, he believes the story of David was written during the time when the families of Saul and David were competing for the throne and the author wanted to use history to prove that David was good and Saul was bad.

He touches very briefly on the death of Jesus and if it was all in God's plan for Jesus to come to die. We're talking seriously adjusting the atonement theory here. So I won't touch that in this review.

This is a very controversial book with wild ideas. But that's what makes it such a great read. Seibert writes in a way that is very easy to read. You won't be discouraged by big theological words or ideas.

While I may not agree with everything in this book, I do think it is a resource that needs to be read and thought about.


This book was provided for review by Fortress Press.

Wrath of an angry God, or God showing imperfections? "Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God" discuss the almighty and his changes from the wrathful and vengeful God that seemed to rule over his followers by sheer fear, and the contrast of the God of love that sacrifices his son. Offering many new ideals and perspectives about these contrasts, "Disturbing Divine Behavior" is a fine read for those trying to better understand God and Christianity as a whole.

I purchased this book with the hope that the author would attempt to provide some resolution or explanation of the difficult and seemingly inconsistent descriptions of God's nature in the Bible. I was greatly disappointed that Seibert's ultimate approach is to disregard large portions of Scripture rather than come to grips with the supreme paradox of God's character.

After explaining the problem regarding the extreme depictions of God in the Old Testament, the entire second chapter of this book gives voice to several modern groups who have problems with many of the Biblical descriptions of God. There's no big surprise here that people discover a major disconnect between their own perspectives and what the Bible says. That attitude was even exhibited toward Jesus.

In the fifth chapter, the author claims that the Old Testament narrative genre is not at all concerned about historical accuracy, but he offers no examples of narrative literature outside the Old Testament to support this. Israel's literature was not so unique from other ancient Near Eastern cultures that some examples weren't available. The result of such lack of scholarship is that Seibert ends up with the ridiculous conclusion that what we learn about God from Old Testament narratives is merely fortuitous and was not a primary intent of the authors (p.144). However, if the Bible does not teach us accurately about God, then what does? Jesus and the apostles relied heavily on Old Testament images and culture for their worldview, so we cannot assume (like the author does) that filtering every teaching through Jesus' perspective will eliminate the supposed Old Testament "inaccuracies." It is interesting that in an appendix, the author concedes that Jesus in the book of Revelation portrays the Old Testament image of Divine Warrior and excuses it because the event hasn't occurred yet. It would seem more likely that in the final consummation everyone will discover the true character of God (one which includes wrath as well as mercy), not simply a disposition that is expedient for the final judgment.

Seibert realizes that rejecting the Old Testament is unacceptable, and refers to the heresy of Marcion as an example of someone who refused to accept the God of the Old Testament. (p.58,63,67) Of course, the author disavows any association with Marcion (p.211), claiming that "the Old Testament is a rich resource for spiritual and theological reflection." But this is only a shallow platitude after he has already recommended "avoiding" passages that he regards as "distortions" of God (p.187,190). Say what he will, Seibert's reasoning is very similar to Marcion's - he does not accept the Old Testament God as described there. For him the Bible's meaning is subjective, and he does not explain how (or by whom) the Scriptures are to be filtered for truth versus fiction.

One of Seibert's primary examples of a difficult text is the description of the conquest of Canaan in Joshua 6-11, but he mentions only briefly and disdainfully (p.177) the fact that God had waited (quite patiently, I'd say) for 400 years before sending Israel to destroy the peoples in Canaan (Gen. 15:12-16). Because he objects to Kaiser's application of this passage to the Amalekites, he dismisses the whole discussion rather than attempt to explore this possible conjunction of God's patience and wrath.

The bottom line is that this author seems to feel compelled to defend God's credibility with rational ideas about God's character - ideas, by the way, that always conform to the author's preconceived biases against God promoting any sort of violence. And in so doing, he completely disregards the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in either the inspiration (p.170) or the interpretation of the Bible (p.206). The "responsible" discernment that Seibert describes (p.209-210,224) actually promotes an irresponsible attitude toward God and His Word.

I purchased this book on the idea it would help explain why the Loving God Jesus describes in the New Testiment is so angry and violent in the Old Testiment. What I got was a book which dismisses most of what Mainstream Christians believe to push the author's unusual views.

How does he explain why God acts with such violence and anger? Simple. He says the historic books of the bible are fiction, using names of real places and real people, but not written to describe how events actually happened at all. What follows, of course, is the idea that God had very little involvement and inspiration in the creation of the bible. All the usual stories; Noah and the Ark, David and Goliath, the 10 plagues of Egypt, all are made up by authors to deliver a point and not to record history.

From there, the author pushes his second idea that God is non violent, in every area. For this, all you have to accept is that Revelation is a joke, Hell is not eternal (if it exists at all), half the things the New Testiment reports as sayings of Jesus never were said by Him, and that, of course, Jesus did Not come to earth to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Basically, anything that did not agree with this author can be tossed out. Forget everything you learned from other books, pastors and people of Faith. They are all wrong, and he knows what is right. To think this man is a Professor at a Christian college and a Pastor of a church is scary.

If you want to know about God's disturbing Divine behavior, try looking elsewhere for answers.