Disturbing Divine Behavior (09) by Seibert, Eric A [Paperback (2009)]

by Seibert

Disturbing Divine Behavior (09) by Seibert, Eric A [Paperback (2009)]

Genres: Old Testament, Theology, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, God

Paperback

First published August 1, 2009

Reviews

[Leah Holbrook · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was given this book from a faith mentor when I expressed concerns with certain Old Testament passages of the Bible that we were studying. I am new to studying the Bible as an ancient text as well as a book of faith, and Disturbing Divine Behavior is one of the first books I encountered that addressed my concerns head on in a clear and organized format that is accessible to people who are not already biblical scholars.

The author writes knowledgeably and candidly about excerpts from both the Old Testament and the New Testament and presents several hermeneutic viewpoints that have helped me appreciate these texts in a new way. Of course, this book does not have all the answers—what book does?—but I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for instruction, guidance, or perspective to supplement their reading of the “troubling” images of God.

[Steve · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book promises much but delivers nothing.

Seibert's main thesis is that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, and so any portrayal of God that appears to be different must of necessity be false. This sounds reasonable and fair.

However, Seibert proposes a "Christo-centric" hermeneutic, which depicts Jesus as and was a man of peace and love, and then uses this approach to review the validity of portrayals of God in both Old and New Testaments.
In this way Seibert concludes that most of the Old Testament descriptions of God are clearly false, explaining them away as either myth or misconception. Seibert even dismisses the New Testament teaching of the Final Judgement asserting that a loving God could never send anyone to hell.

The problem is that Seibert has been very selective in the texts he has used to build his portrayal of Jesus. Seibert has chosen to ignore Jesus own teaching on the Final Judgement and heaven and hell. Jesus described hell as a terrible place using terms such as blackest darkness where there is gnashing of teeth. He also ignores times when Jesus was clearly angry, and exercised direction action to right evil practices, such as the tuning over the money changers tables and driving out the money changers with a whip.

And so Seibert has actually constructed an unscriptural caricature of Jesus, and has used this to construct a false god in his own image.

Moreover, Seibert does not consider the ultimate result of the false god he has created. He does not seem to understand that a truly good God MUST punish evil. We can illustrate this by considering an earthly court room. Imagine what would happen if a person found guilt of child abuse, rape and mass murder appealed to the goodness of the not let restrict his liberty with a prison sentence, but rather release him. The judge is never going to consent, but because the judge is a god man he will ensure that the crimes are punished, and that the man's freedom is restricted so that he can commit no further crimes.

The same is true with God. God is good. There are two sides to this; first it means that God is love; but it also means that God is just and righteous, and hence must of necessity punish evil.

Seibert misses the point that many of the Old Testament prophecies emphasise both God's love and righteousness. Hosea is a perfect example of this, where God is pictured as a spurned husband who clearly longs for reconciliation with his adulterous wife, and yet ultimately will take action to close the relationship when all notion of reconciliation is exhausted.

This book, then, is academically lightweight, building an image of God which is not based on a sound analysis of the evidence, but rather ignores most of the evidence in order to support a god of Seibert's creation.

[Nathan Hobby · Rating 5 out of 5]

A dangerous book - but probably in the best possible way. I came away thinking, 'Oh wow, you mean I don't have to believe that God actually commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the Caananites?' Of course, for some people, they may feel like this book is crumbling the foundations of their faith - if their faith is built on the Old Testament being completely true, ethically and historically. (Even the bits which don't agree with the other bits.)

Seibert brings the conclusions of contemporary scholarship to the problem of the troubling divine images of God in the Old Testament historical narratives - images of God committing genocide (the flood) or demanding the Israelites commit genocide. He argues from historical, archaeological, theological and textual perspectives that divine behaviour which contradicts God revealed in Jesus Christ did not happen. A gap exists between the textual God and the actual God.

There are a lot of questions I need to ask about this book, and I'm working on a lengthy review for my blog. He doesn't say anything particularly new, but he articulates in a systematic and readable way things not enough of us dare say about the troubling nature of the Old Testament and possible approaches to it. He comes from an evangelical Anabaptist background and deals sensitively with issues evangelicals will be wrestling with, but he certainly doesn't maintain a conventional evangelical understanding of the authority or nature of scripture.

[Janelle Zeeb · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am giving this book 1 star because I find Seibert’s approach to Biblical interpretation seriously flawed. He argues that we do not have to accept any verse in the Bible as true if it might give the impression that God is anything less than perfectly good. While he tries to use a number of approaches to justify his selectivity, I was not convinced by any of them. I find he is overly influenced by liberal, postmodern approaches to scripture which attempt to preserve some “meaning” in scripture while simultaneously saying it does not accurately record real historical events. Yet this runs counter to any viable idea of Biblical inerrancy and authority.

Seibert has a preconceived picture of what God is like, which leads him to selectively choose which Bible verses he accepts as authoritative and which he tries to explain away. His argument is not based on any real evidence other than “this verse doesn’t match the Jesus I believe in”. But how do we truly know what God is like unless we accept all of His self-revelation in the Bible? Who is Seibert to say that some verses are inaccurate in their picture of God simply because he can’t understand how God can act in certain ways and still be good? I think he forgets that God is also holy and is just when He judges sin, whether that is historically or eschatologically.

One example of Seibert’s flawed approach is his argument from silence which says that Jesus rejected problematic portrayals of God in the Old Testament because Jesus did not teach or preach from these texts. But he forgets that the gospels represent only a small glimpse of Jesus’ life and ministry (John 21:25), and thus not everything that Jesus said is recorded for us today. So just because we don’t have a record of Jesus endorsing some specific troubling passage in the Old Testament does not mean Jesus thought it was an inaccurate portrayal of God’s character. Indeed, Jesus himself discusses many “disturbing” images of God in his parables, criticisms of the Pharisees, and warnings of future judgement. Yet Seibert rejects these words of Jesus as well! So if Seibert is trying to base his picture of God on Jesus, he is being unfairly selective with what texts he accepts as truly revealing Jesus.

He also claims archaeological evidence proves there was no historical Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan, and so we should not take these stories literally. Yet as pointed out in the excellent documentary “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus” by Timothy P. Mahoney, there is plenty of archaeological evidence for both the Exodus and Joshua’s victories in Canaan, yet this evidence is rejected simply because mainstream archaeologists say it occurs in the wrong time period. If the Exodus and conquest really did happen, then we need to take these “disturbing” stories and what they reveal about God seriously, which undermines Seibert’s entire argument.

Throughout the entire book, Seibert only mentions the right of God to finally judge sin a handful of times, and never explores this theme in-depth. While he reluctantly admits that the final judgement is real, he still argues that God never judges anyone in historical times. I fail to see why if God has the right to judge eschatologically why he cannot judge historically and still be good and just. If Seibert believes annihilation to be the best interpretation of God’s final judgement, then why does he exclaim so many times throughout this book that God is unjust when He instantly kills certain people?

I find Seibert’s discussion of Biblical inerrancy dangerous. While I agree that we might not want to always take a word-for-word approach, his argument is circular. He says that the presence of the difficult portrayals of God in the Bible proves that God did not exercise meticulous control over Biblical inspiration. But that rests on his previous argument that these passages do not accurately reveal God’s character. Yet if these texts do reveal God’s true character, then a more meticulous theory of inspiration becomes likely. So Seibert wants to throw out the traditional understandings of Biblical inspiration in order to make his own theory acceptable, rather than accepting that the Bible is inspired and inerrant which would make his theory impossible.

Once we start labelling parts of the Bible as uninspired, then we lose all objectivity and cannot be sure which parts of the Bible are inspired (if any). Any claim for Biblical authority would rest on only our personal preferences and judgements (as Seibert does in this book), which destroys any confidence we can have in the Bible as God’s revelation to us, and also destroys any power the Bible has to convict of sin and the need for faith in Jesus. If one takes this approach, then why not also get rid of anything else we don’t like in the Bible? Or why not just get rid of the Bible altogether and let everyone live according to their own preferences and judgements? That is the direction that Seibert’s proposal is leading, and therefore anyone who cares about the Bible having any authority at all should be extremely cautious of Seibert’s approach in this book.

There are many more criticisms I could offer here, yet I think anyone who has some spiritual discernment and common sense could see that Seibert’s approach is defective. While Seibert may indeed be trying his hardest to make sense of what the Bible reveals about God’s character, and I applaud his effort to try to uphold God’s goodness, there are many better approaches which take the Biblical text seriously and are still able to justify God as good (for example, see Merrill, Gard, and Longman in Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, or perhaps extend William J. Webb’s hermeneutical approach in his book Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals to include the problem of divine violence as well).

Overall, Seibert has to make too many exceptions and give too many complicated explanations and do too much damage to Biblical inspiration for me to take his approach seriously. While he may be able to explain away one or two verses with his arguments, I do not believe he can simply dismiss an entire theme which reoccurs consistently throughout the Bible (i.e. that God judges and punishes evil and sin because he is perfectly good and holy). While it would be better for someone who is weak in the faith to take Seibert’s approach instead of rejecting God altogether, it seems far better to accept the Biblical text as inerrant and try to understand why God acted the way he did, based on our best understanding of the culture at the time, God’s purposes for Israel, and God’s standards of holiness and justice, while having faith that the Judge Of All The Earth has done what is right. So I will side with the Bible and not with human, fallible skeptics such as Seibert.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Readers of the Bible expect to encounter stories of human beings behaving badly, but they are sometimes taken aback by stories depicting God behaving badly. In the Old Testament, there are approximately 1,000 passages that speak of Yahweh’s anger, threats, punishments, revenge, and killing. “No other topic is as often mentioned as God’s bloody works.”

Eric Seibert, an associate professor of Old Testament, calls the troubling or dark side of God “disturbing divine behavior.” Some Christians who view God’s character as immensely merciful, just and compassionate find it troubling when they encounter God who could also be so merciless, vengeful, violent, not to mention unjust in the mass killing of children for the sins of their parents.

This book was written for those who are perplexed by and struggle with the apparent contradictions in God’s character, while those who see no such contradictions probably wouldn't enjoy it. Seibert wrote the book to make sense of the contradictions and “to help people think as accurately as possible about God.”

“Who are you to second-guess God?” say those who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Seibert believes Christians should be encouraged, not discouraged, to ask hard questions about God. The Old Testament provides a model of questioning God, with Abraham, for instance, debating with him about destroying Sodom. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” Abraham asks when arguing that innocent should not be killed along with the guilty. (Gen 18:25) Moses also argued with God about destroying Israel after Aaron made a golden calf, and God changed his mind. (Ex 32:11-14) In short, “there’s nothing inherently wrong with raising questions about God’s behavior in the Old Testament.” Nor is questioning the accuracy of some parts of the Old Testament inconsistent “with affirming scripture’s inspiration and authority.”

Seibert provides a long description of disturbing divine behavior. Many readers already know about the genocide the Lord ordered the Israelites to commit on the seven nations in the Promised Land, “utterly destroying anything that breathes. Show them no mercy.” (Deut 7:1-2) Joshua reports carrying out the divine orders. (Josh 10:40)

The rationale given for this genocide is that “so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods.” (Deut 20:18) At least a few readers might find genocide to be a disproportionate and extreme response to this perceived threat. In addition to genocide, there are many other examples of divine behavior that can lead readers to ask what the behavior says about the character of God:

+ God reportedly gave Moses 613 laws, with death required for fortune telling, cursing one’s parents, adultery, homosexual acts, bestiality and blasphemy, among other things. One man found out the hard way that picking up sticks on the Sabbath also meant death. He was brought before Moses. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.’” Which is exactly what happened. (Num 15:32-36)

+ Yahweh personally executed individuals on three occasions: two sons of Judah, Er and Onan, whom He had found to be “wicked” and “displeasing” (Genesis 38); two novice rabbis – Nadab and Abihu - who committed a single ritual offense of making an “unholy fire” (Leviticus 10:1-2); and a man named Uzzah who had reached up to steady the ark of the covenant when it was being transported; he was instantly struck dead by God. (2 Sam 6:7)

+ Yahweh also engaged in mass killing, most notably when the great flood wiped out nearly all of humanity, when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire, when all the firstborn children in Egypt were killed to punish the Pharaoh. (Ex 12:29), during 40 years in the wilderness, when Yahweh sent plagues that killed hundreds of thousands of Israelites (Numbers 26:65; 21:6; 16:46, 49; 14:36-37), and when the Lord sent a pestilence in Israel to punish King David for taking a census, killing 70 thousand. (2Sam 24:15), even though God had incited David to take the census.

+ Yahweh was an afflicter. Saul sinned, for example, and “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him” (1Sam16:14). When the Israelites tried to flee Egypt, God repeatedly hardened the Pharaoh’s heart so he refused to allow the departure, while God inflicted 10 plagues on the land. Job was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil,” yet was subjected by God to horrible afflictions. After Job suffers one tragedy after another, God says, “He still persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.” (2:3)

What kind of God destroys an innocent man and kills his children and servants “for no reason”? How does one reconcile the God of the Old Testament with loving enemies, turning the other cheek, and doing unto others as we would have them to do us? Those who would deny any conflict don’t want to see it.

There are two ways Christians can deal with the contradictions: 1) We can simply say, “when God does it, that makes it moral,” even though we think bashing babies heads against the rocks is grossly immoral any other time, or 2) We can decide we cannot accept a literal reading of the Bible and still worship God, so we discard literalism. After carefully considering the alternatives, Seibert opts for the second option.

We shouldn’t have to defend genocide and mass killing of children to punish their parents. It’s appropriate we know war crimes are wrong. We are correct that the hyper-violent depiction of God conflicts with our image of who God is. The questionable passages are likely war propaganda, written generations after the purported events. Seibert contends the Old Testament descriptions of genocide are historically inaccurate. Archeological evidence and biblical passages indicate the Canaanites were not annihilated the way Joshua claims.

So how can Christians know what God is really like? The New Testament tells us that in Jesus, we get the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), and a revelation of God that surpasses anything offered in the Old Testament (Heb 1:1-3). Jesus said, “anyone who has seen me has seen the father.”(John 14:9)
What about the extreme, punitive violence by Jesus described in Revelations? Seibert responds “that the God Jesus reveals is known though Jesus’ life and teachings while on earth, not descriptions of Jesus’ supposed behavior at the end time.”

Consequently, Seibert recommends that Christ-followers rely upon the forgiving, non-violent image of Jesus to understand the character of God. It means applying a “christocentric hermaneutic” to problematic passages, by which violent depictions of God are rejected. There are still useful, constructive lessons to be learned from disturbing passages by discerning readers.

The author understands that a believer’s view about God’s role in writing Scripture determines how that individual perceives disturbing divine depictions. Those who see God as the author, and writers as simply the instruments, usually accept that everything in the Bible must be accurate. Those who see God’s role as inspiring, rather than dictating to, the writers, find it easier to recognize that human error was inevitable.

In sum, Disturbing Divine Behavior explains why Christ-followers should not redefine evil as good in trying to justify behaviors that are grossly immoral. One need not agree with everything in this book to recognize Seibert’s careful scholarship and clear analysis about how to know divine character. ###

[Daniel J. Weber · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disturbing divine behaviour is a well thought out book. It is very concise and easy to understand what the author is trying to say. Eric is clearly knowledgeable and we'll researched on this topic. It takes quite a while to get to the point as Eric chose to use the first 2/3s of the book to explain the issue of troubling portrayals of God in the OT and why they can be disturbing. He also spends a lot of time speaking to some of the other views that people hold. It never feels like the author is trying to shove his opinions down your throat, but is it quite evident what Eric believes and he does a good job of backing up his point. The book is very scripturally based and doesn't have too much meaningless hand-waving to explain things away.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is searching for answers to the troubling war-like depictions of God in the OT, though I would not give this book to a new Christian or someone who is not able to discern the scripture well for themselves. Though Eric gives all the different views, he quickly tries to shoot them full of holes as well as plug the holes in his own theories. I would encourage this to be on the reading list with other books of varying opinions but it is not to be read by itself. The views of the author can be a stumbling block for those weak in their faith or easily manipulated.

Eric stretched my faith and caused me to question some of my own beliefs about the wars in the OT. Though this was a good thought exercise, I am not convinced that Eric has hit the mark. In fact I think he is troubling too far out in left field. Regardless, I am encouraged by his desire to wrestle with the text and come up with an answer to this problem that works for him, and probably many others. There is not enough discussion on the troubling portions of the OT, and too many people ignoring the beauty that this Testament has to offer to the Christian today.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Calls attention to most of the texts that link God with sanctioning or performing violent acts. But Seibert's conclusion was pretty anti-climactic. On page 200 he gives in and says something to the effect of: "Well, Jesus wasn't violent and he was God, so the Old Testament depictions of God's involvement with violence are distorted and unreliable." That seems a bit too simplistic to me.

[Michael Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Provocative book; I wouldn't necessarily recommend starting with this if you haven't read something How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth. I was talking to my nine year old nephew about the Old Testament, and I was amazed at how quickly he has developed a theology (all of which will cause him problems when he starts asking questions). So like a good uncle, I gave him some easy questions to chew on, and I told him it's ok to ask questions because God wants a deep and real relationship with us; this is the thesis for DDB.

I read this much slower than I have read other books because I was challenged in every chapter. I had to keep wrestling with whether or not I could accept the claims being made, and if not, why not. Ultimately there was nothing in the book that didn't settle with me. If anything, I was challenged to think differently and for that, I can see some ways already that my relationship with the Trinity will be significantly improved. I desire a deep and meaningful, authentic relationship with the Creator, and in doing so, we should feel free to ask difficult questions, one of my favorites is whether or not scripture is divinely inspired, and while I have made some conclusions about that in the past, I see a new perspective, one that allows for a more open interpretation.

Some places I would have liked more information:
1) other lenses other than a Christ0centric lens by which to understand the OT. Perhaps eliminate other possible lenses, such a legal lens, or a Jewish/Israel-centric lens, etc. The prophets for example haven't seen or known Christ, so they would not understand a Christocentric story. If God's nature is love, we should be able to see the love of God without knowing Christ, and I think the Bible can be read in such a way.
2) When discussing the first testament, I'd like more sources to be from Jewish scholars; frankly I see wide gaps in Protestant (maybe all Christian) scholarship in seeing every story from a Christological perspective. I want to know what Jewish scholars have to say about the warrior God or whether or not they see love as God's primary nature. To reiterate my previous point, God reveals a loving nature through the law/judges/prophets, it's just more difficult to see through the lens of the New Covenant.
3) Some apologetic discourse: Seibert states a few ways in which he may or may not ask questions of a pastor or someone else that teaches/preaches from a systematic theology that largely ignores the divine violence, but I think that section should be a bit longer: how to talk to Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Calvinists/Wesleyans etc about interpreting scripture would be helpful. I recognize that work is up to the reader, but I think each category of believer will respond differently, and for that, some preparations should be provided maybe.

Seibert's argument is solid and well-researched. Prior to reading this book, I have tried to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly honestly, but I feel that I have a greater tool in this book to use for those conversations.

The greatest use of this book for me is to help people understand that they cannot use scripture to justify/promote/cause violence. In fact, this book helps me to repent on behalf of the history of the Christian church. We should be so moved. Our wrong interpretations are dangerous and damaging, especially to LGBTQ+ people, American Islamophobia, and mistreatment of women and minorities.

I'm already looking forward to reading this book again.

[gina · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ll admit that the book was structured quite well and provided a lot of insight into ancient and contemporary justifications/defenses/alterations of Biblical texts where God enacts or mandates violence. However, as many have noted, Seibert’s own resolution contradicts one of his critiques—in that his own argument to reject OT images of YHWH for NT because Jesus truly embodies the benevolence and love of God. To do so is to drastically alter the stories that are instigated by YHWH’s violence. Functionally Maricionic and does not acknowledge or reconcile the multifaceted portrait of God.

[Abigail · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very informative and definitely challenging people to consider portrayals of divine behavior in the Old Testament. It is definitely not the easiest read and it is something I would suggest reading slowly and taking the time to consider and reflect on what the book is saying - to apply it to your own thought and meditation and understanding of scripture. It would be a helpful and informative book, even if you do not agree with everything ultimately being said.

[Besart Ç. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great theological read

[Rogier Boogaard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Coherent argument, but not convincing at all

[Anthony Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seibert’s work is divided into three parts, consisting of twelve chapters, and two appendixes. The first two sections outline the problems related to various biblical texts and narratives from the Hebrew Bible regarding “disturbing divine behavior.” Such behavior includes God’s genocide of people, directly killing individuals, commanding others to kill, causing natural disasters, etc. These sections are done fairly well. He then works through some of the approaches that have been proposed throughout church history to explain these portrayals and finds them lacking. In part three he proceeds to give his own explanations by first making a distinction between the “textual” God and the “actual” God, and then proposing a distinctive “Christocentric” hermeneutic.

Seibert argues for a hermeneutic built on the statements of Jesus that he believes advocates for a nonviolent God. With this foundation he reexamines many of the texts and narratives often arguing that the text is simply wrong, that it represents how Israel saw God in terms of their own culture of the Ancient Near East. For Seibert, God is nonviolent and no text or narrative should violate that principle and if it does then it should be rejected. He does argue that even with these rejected verses we should approach the passage with humility and should attempt to find something that is theologically valuable.

There are a couple of problems with Seibert’s specific “Christocentric” approach. One issue regards the question of the historical Jesus and what we can know about what he said and did. Seibert briefly discusses the issue and doesn’t see it as a major hurdle, but the situation surrounding historical Jesus studies is much more complex and nuanced. Without going into a discussion of the various “quests,” I’ll mention just the most recent. This quest often uses what is known as the “criteria of authenticity” to determine what Jesus said and did, the Jesus Seminar is well known for this. This view is coming on hard times and scholars like Anthony Le Donne, Chris Keith, and Rafael Rodriquez are attempting to revitalize the quest by appealing to social memory theory. Even here the best we can do is a general outline of what Jesus may have said and did (and some scholars like Zeba Crook argue that social memory theory actually makes the quest impossible and argues for a no-quest).
Another problem with Seibert’s “Christocentric hermeneutic” is that it privileges the New Testament and leaves the Hebrew Bible unable to stand on its own to explain these various portrayals. I’m sure Jewish scholars would not agree with his explanations nor would this gender him any accolades in current Jewish-Christian dialogues.

What makes Seibert’s “Christocentric” hermeneutic distinctive? He argues that Jesus teaches that God is fundamentally nonviolent and couldn’t have been guilty of any of the violent and immoral acts that the Hebrew Scriptures ascribe to him. He argues for this starting in chapter 10 and then expands on it in Appendix A, “Reexamining the Nonviolent God.” Although some Christians will find this argument persuasive, especially those from a more pacifist/peace tradition, most will not. What I found most unconvincing was his attempt to reconcile the violent portrayals of the apocalyptic passages in the New Testament with his view of a nonviolent God. The author has also written a second volume specifically dedicated to defending this position, it is titled, “The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy.”

I’m sure a lot of Christians would have a lot of objections to Seibert’s views, most centered on the topic of the Bible’s inspiration. Seibert briefly mentions these issues in the main body of the text but leaves an extended discussion for Appendix B. Here he argues against strict views of inspiration, especially inerrancy and argues for what he calls a “general revelation” view.
Despite the fact that I found Seibert’s solutions ultimately unconvincing I still recommend the volume for those interested in the topic of the Hebrew Bible’s portrayal of a violent God.

[Bob Price · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Old Testament is problematic. This is a given.

How we deal with....well, that's a different story.

Disturbing Divine Behavior is Dr. Eric Seibert's attempt to come to a compelling way to read the Old Testament in a way that helps the reader make sense of the disturbing ways God acts in the OT. He provides a very good book, but ultimately nothing truly new to help the reader.

Seibert begins by acknowledging that the Old Testament is a problem for many readers. He provides texts and anecdotes of his students encounters with those texts to show that God in the OT has a bad reputation. He shows that there are many ways that God is portrayed that is offensive to modern sensibilities. After acknowledging this, he then moves on to ways people have and people are handling these problem texts.

So far, so good: we have a good set up, clear writing and a compelling problem. But then, unfortunately comes the solution to the problem:
We simply ignore the text.

To be fair, Seibert's conclusion is more nuanced than this. He explains that the Old Testament writers didn't write objective history (true enough) and that the texts often had a more grounded political bent (true again). He does some great exegetical work displaying some of the problems a traditional reading provide.

But then comes the major conclusion: there are two Gods. There is a "Yahweh of the text" and a "Yahweh of Reality". The major problem is how do you distinguish between the two. Seibert begins to appeal to Jesus as a solution, but then notices the same thing: there is a "Jesus of the text" and a "Jesus of reality"...and we are back to where we started. So how do we know which is which?

The conclusion seems to be that whatever Seibert finds offensive should be discounted...simple as that. God, for Seibert, is completely nonviolent and any suggestion that God deals in violence should automatically be discounted. Seibert's "controlling beliefs" become the objective realm for how Scripture should be dealt with, and Seibert seems to be unaware that is how he is operating.

At this point, it should be noted that I am not saying that Seibert is wrong (although I disagree with him), but I expected more when I began reading the book. I expected him to deal with the negative images of God instead of simply dismissing them. I expected more engagement with the text than a review of his worldview and preferences.

What started with a promising start of theological engagement ended with a reiteration of worldview and a remaking of the Bible in our own image.

I do recommend the book for pastors and lay people interested in Old Testament studies and the issue of the Bible in general. It is clearly written and engaging.

Grade: B

[Raborn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book on dealing with troubling images of God from the Old Testament. I am not sure that it goes quite far enough in calling divine violence into question (Seibert leaves open the possibility of eschatalogical violence with the caveat that this kind of violence would not mean that God was violent in the here and now, thus securing the idea of God's present nonviolence), but it definitely gets the conversation going in the right direction. I'm also not as confident as Seibert that a number of these passages can be redeemed, but I appreciate his willingness to discard any image of God that does not look like Jesus, even when found in the Bible. Thanks Eric Seibert!

[Emma · Rating 2 out of 5]

We literally read three chapters from this book but I bought it for class so I’m counting it as read.