The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture

by R.W. Moberly

Walter Moberly is a top Old Testament theologian known for his creative, accessible, and provocative writing. His Old Testament Theology has been well received. This book, written in a similar vein, combines biblical criticism with constructive theology and engages both Jewish and Christian interpretations. Moberly offers robust readings of eight pivotal Old Testament passages that unpack the nature of God in Christian Scripture, demonstrating a Christian approach to reading the Old Testament that holds together the priorities of both scholarship and faith.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Theology

304 pages, Hardcover

Published November 17, 2020

Reviews

[Chad D · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciate Walter Moberly's Biblical exegesis so much. His books aren't five-star life-changing for me, but they are consistently life-affirming, building me up at the core of who I am as a believer. He's methodologically sensitive, he's read the relevant secondary sources--but he preserves a careful primacy for the believing life and reading. His readings serve the church and the people in the church. As long as he keeps writing, I'll keep reading what he writes as an important nutrient in my spiritual diet.

This book reads several Old Testament passages closely to extrapolate six characteristics of the God of the Old Testament that His worshippers came to attribute to Him. Highlights for me were ch. 2's careful alignment of the burning bush, at once attracting and repelling, accessible and forbidding, with God's later mysterious self-revelation that "I Am Who I Am," and ch. 4's examination of God's inscrutability through the experiences of Cain and Esau who experienced God as apparently inequitable, favoring someone else instead.

[Drake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I went into this one expecting to enjoy it but came away disappointed.

Moberly begins the book by outlining three different approaches to reading the Old Testament: as a text of ancient history, as a cultural/literary influence, and as Scripture. He asserts that all three of these are valid ways of approaching the text and that, for the purposes of the book, he’ll spend most of his time engaging in the third approach (from a distinctly Christian perspective) while occasionally drawing from the other two.

This all sounds like a reasonable framework, except for two issues that plague the entire book. First, when it comes to the first approach (the OT as a window into ancient history), Moberly fully embraces the prevailing views of more critically-minded scholars who dismiss the possibility that these texts are historically reliable guides to actual events, or that they come from the authors they’re traditionally ascribed to, or that the New Testament has any say in how these texts should be interpreted (and instead asserting that the NT simply got it wrong at times). In spite of his repeated claim to read the OT as Christian Scripture, he engages in a good bit of naturalistically-minded analysis that doesn't seem to have anything distinctly “Christian” about it. And contrary to what the intro would lead you to expect, he actually engages in and with this kind of critical scholarship pretty regularly throughout the book (his treatment of the Cain and Abel story being a particularly egregious example).

Second, he never grounds any of the above three approaches in the nature of Scripture itself. He never clearly articulates an understanding of what Scripture objectively IS that would validate any of the offered readings. This gives the whole book a feeling of arbitrariness. The tone of the book reflects this as well, as Moberly’s conclusions about the nature of God that he draws from the OT continually feel vague, trite, and (once again) not distinctly “Christian” (he even goes out of his way repeatedly to affirm that Jews and to some degree Muslims can share many of his affirmations). Given the lack of any firm hermeneutical and theological grounding, it’s not surprising that he takes this overly-timid approach; what's sacrificed in the process is any kind of bold insight or meaty discussion.

That's not to say there aren't any insightful sections of Moberly’s book. His chapter on Proverbs 8 is very good, and his treatment of Exodus 3 gave me much to ponder. But on the whole, the picture of God that emerges from this study feels shallow and inoffensive, something less than the majestic, holy, sovereign Lord who confronts and challenges us when we encounter him in the pages of the Old Testament.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 3 out of 5]

One thing I appreciated from studying under Iain Provan at Regent College was his emphasis on learning from Old Testament critical scholarship despite our disagreements with their theology and, as a result, many of their conclusions. Because we are looking at the same text, critical scholarship can help us Evangelicals see things that we have glossed over for any number of reasons. R. W. L. Moberly is not a critical scholar in the classic sense of the word, for he follows Brevard Childs in the desire to read the Bible as Christian “scripture,” as a document with relevance for faith and practice today. However, like Childs, this reading of the Bible as “scripture” involves building on and incorporating the best of critical scholarship towards one’s interpretation of the canonical text. Moberly describes the move from the scholarly conclusions to the scriptural understanding as engaging with the text with “full imaginative seriousness,” entering the world of the text and hearing how it might inform our lives today. I am thankful to have received a copy of The God of the Old Testament from Baker books for this reason, to learn from a well-learned and experienced scholar despite significant methodological disagreements in our approach to Scripture.

In The God of the Old Testament¸ Moberly displays his general approach to the Bible through an imaginatively serious interaction with eight key biblical texts in six chapters. By interacting with these texts, Moberly hopes to unpack what it means “to know that the Lord is God” for contemporary readers, with an eye particularly towards Christians but also Jews. In Chapter 1, he considers Genesis 1; in Chapter 2, Exodus 3; in Chapter 3, Psalm 82; in Chapter 4, Genesis 4; in Chapter 5, 2 Kings 5; and in Chapter 6, Psalm 46, Jeremiah 7, and Micah 3. Moberly bridges the scholarly world, drawing on much scholarly literature, and the world of the interested non-scholar, writing at a relatively accessible level. His discussion is attentive to the details and provides a challenging and provocative dialogue partner. For the Reformed or Evangelical reader who has not wrestled with the critical scholarship, it will be a challenging read; for the reader who has learned to engage with those who come from different presuppositions, there is much to be learned here. I recommend the book to those of the latter category and would caution those of the former. The methodology employed by Moberly is unhelpful for a truly confessional engagement with Scripture, and I think many of his conclusions fail to honour the world of the text, drawing too freely on the scholarly accounts of tradition history.

In the first case, Moberly attempts to read the Old Testament as a canonical unit apart from the New Testament. For the Reformed Evangelical—as I would identify myself—I think this is a problem. The biggest problem is that God has given us the two testaments as a single whole, a combined testimony to His faithfulness throughout the ages and his purpose to bring his kingdom to bear on earth through Jesus the Christ. It is not sufficient to read the Bible through larger dogmatic categories such as the Trinity, Christian Soteriology, and Christology; we must also approach it with a Biblically informed account of the Bible—a Christian bibliology. When we do so, I believe it is indefensible to treat the Old Testament in isolation from the New. This has important interpretative implications, as has been recognized from the days of the early Church. The use of tradition and history of religions or ideas is also highly problematic. Often this scholarship can help us see things in the text that we might never have seen otherwise, yet in as much as they offer us interpretations of the text based on their distinct methodologies, we as Christians should not follow them. That is, as has been shown repeatedly, the methodologies employed by critical scholarship are not neutral; they are informed by their own bibliologies, epistemologies, and theologies, which are often formed apart from the testimony of Scripture. Their conclusions, therefore, reflect unbiblical and (often) atheistic or deistic bibliologies, epistemologies, and theologies. Moreover, their findings are often unsustainable within their own frame of references, relying on significant conjecture. As it regards The God the Old Testament, I do not find the view that Psalm 82 draws on the Canaanite El tradition persuasive. It is clear that “God” (אל) and “the Most High” (עליון) can be used to refer to Yahweh, or God (אלוה or אלוהים) (e.g. Genesis, Psalm 51); given that אל may serve as either a title for God or a generic descriptor (divine), the Psalm can be accounted for wholly within in an Israelite frame of reference. Given that it makes great sense in its canonical context and can be explained without any reference to the El tradition, there is no reason to invoke this tradition to explain the origin of the Psalm, let alone its canonical interpretation. Moreover, as I hope to argue elsewhere, the traditional interpretation of the “gods” in this text as human judges is highly defensible. Moberly accepts the so-called “consensus” of the scholars (though there remains a lively discussion on the matter) without actually arguing that “gods” makes better sense as a reference to existential or ontological deities rather than humans. Another point of exegesis that is worth discussing is Moberly’s account of the Divine name. After a lengthy discussion, Moberly concludes that “I am what I am” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) is best taken as a statement of divine incomprehensibility. I did not find his argument persuasive, and there are good reasons to disagree. Namely, the Divine name is given in a context where God is being identified and actively moves to reveal himself: though Yahweh is presented as beyond humanity, he repeatedly acts so that he may be known. Given that היה is used for predication in clauses that function in a subordinate or coordinate manner within discourse (as opposed to the use of verbless clauses or וַיְהִי to provide explanation or exposition in narrative and the use of the verb in narrative to describe events), theאָשֶׁר clause may be read as the content of a predicate clause, and so the equivalent of the English “I am what I am.” Though this is a tautology in form, in a context where God makes himself known, it does not state incomprehensibility but self-reference: God is not explained by reference to any other reality. Yet, because God repeatedly acts so that his people might know him, the Israelites and the Christian today is not left in ignorance; we are pointed away from the creation to the creator and find in his revelation an adequate and beautiful portrait of God our creator.

I recommend the God of the Old Testament not as a sufficient or convincing exposition of the texts Moberly handles but as a challenging dialogue partner for the Evangelical student of the Bible to better understand the Bible and, therefore, our God who reveals himself there.

[Spencer R · Rating 3 out of 5]

Psalm 100:3
Know that the Lord, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;

R. W. L. Moberly, professor of theology and biblical interpretation at Durham University, writes a “grammar” about God “present in the Scriptures of ancient Israel,” that is, “ground rules for appropriate speech and action in relation to the Lord, the God of Abraham and of Israel.” Moberly provides six chapters that tell us about God’s nature. Moberly doesn’t move in canonical order (Proverbs 8 is the first chapter, and Genesis 4 is the fourth). As Psalm 100:3 states, we are to know that the Lord is God. The following sentence (“It is he who made us, and we are his“) tells us that are created and relational. Moberly uses these six chapters as a type of text case of seeing how one who reads the Old Testament today can come to a point where he or she agrees with the psalmist and proclaims that “It is God who made us, and we are his.” Moberly offers six examples of how Israel’s scriptures can be read as Scripture today. It is a way to read, not the way. Moberly reads the Old Testament as the canonical text as we have it today, rather than looking at a hypothetical story behind the text and how it possibly came to us. And, to Moberly, imagination is important. Imagination gives us another perspective. Many perspectives by which to have conversations over the text to figure out what is going on and what it teaches us about God.

The Wise God: The Depths of Creation in Proverbs 8 (and Genesis 1)
The Mysterious God: The Voice from the Fire in Exodus 3
The Just God: The Nature of Deity in Psalm 82
The Inscrutable God: Divine Differentials and Human Choosing in Genesis 4
The Only God: Surprising Universality and Particularity in 2 Kings 5
The Trustworthy God: Assurance and Warning in Psalm 46, Jeremiah 7, and Micah 3
In chapter 4, Moberly compares the story of Cain and Abel and asks, “Is God unfair?” Everyone wonders what Cain did wrong in Genesis 4. But how often do we ask, Did Cain actually do anything wrong? After giving an example of how the Cain and Abel story may have come from another time but was recontextualized to fit the time before the earth was populated, Moberly moves to the birth of the boys. Since the text says that Eve conceived only once but bore twice, it may be possible (though not necessary) that Cain and Abel were twins. Moberly sees it as “preferable” that we aren’t given an explanation for why God preferred Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s. God favored Jacob over Esau, why couldn’t he favor Abel over Cain? Moberly writes, “The issue is how to handle life in a world where some are more favored than others and, especially, how to cope with being, in one way or another, the one who is unfavored.” Having just looked at God as a God of justice in Psalm 82 (chapter 3), now we look at how God is impossible to fully understand.

Though Moberly points out what 1 John and the author of Hebrews say about Cain and Abel (and argues that they are basing their thoughts about Cain on the LXX of Genesis 4 which does give a reason for God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice), one still has to ask why God wouldn’t accept a sacrifice. While God does show favor to Jacob over Esau, Esau could still have followed the Lord. If Cain was actually trying to obey the Lord, why wouldn’t God accept his sacrifice? If chapter three (Psalm 82) shows us that the nature of our God is to be just, how does this jive with how God treats Cain? But the story doesn’t explain how or why God chooses Abel over Cain, only that he does. The point is to press us to think about “how best to respond in situations of being unfavored.” How will you respond when you are treated unfairly? Will you be a Cain or Esau?

People have different characteristics, abilities, situations, and outcomes. Inequity and inequality is naturally going to take place. Some people are more attractive, smart, musical, athletic, etc. In Psalm 82:3-4 (see also Deut 10:17-19), justice revolves around treating the poor, the orphan, and the widow with care and not exploiting them. God’s gracious purposes, though testing and inscrutable, “are always for good.”

Our wise God created the world in wisdom, and we are to gain wisdom “to become in tune with reality.” We are to live wisely every day according to God’s purposes. Chapter two looks at how God is a mysterious God, declaring his personal name (“Yahweh”) to Moses, “I am who/as I am.” Moberly argues that the idea behind God’s revelation here is that “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” There is truth to this. On the one hand, as I understand it, who is the Lord? He reveals himself to Israel through his saving acts. At the same time, who would have guessed what he would do? God declares in Isaiah that his ways and thoughts are higher than ours. There will never be a pints where anybody feels like they really have a handle on God. Being infinite, there is always more and more to learn. (I’ll let the Hebrew linguists argue over Moberly’s exegesis of the Hebrew here.)

There is much more that could be said. Moberly is not offering a way of reading the text as the way of reading the text. Doing so can close down interpretation, as if to say, “This is the only way you can read or interpret this text. To do otherwise is to misunderstand it.” Rather, he provides an imaginative way of interpreting the text which opens it up to see how rich it is with implications toward theology and life.

One personal downside of the book is that I found Moberly hard to understand. He is both precise and mysterious with his words. He writes precisely what he means, and yet I still don’t always really know what he’s intending to say. That certainly won’t be everyone’s problem, but if you don’t read much on Old Testament theology, this will be difficult to move through.

Recommended?
This is a fine book on understanding aspects of God’s character. Those who have a strong academic bent (and can use their imagination) may enjoy this. You may not disagree with all Moberly writes (I didn’t), but he will certainly make you think and wrestle with the text. He will help you look at the text in a different way, and you will be sharper for it.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The God of the OT is a more vigorous effort than The Bible in a Disenchanted Age. It is more cohesive and put together. However, the excursus, while primarily interesting, distract from the flow of the book. Each chapter deals with a new way that we “know that the LORD is God” by focusing on a specific biblical chapter. Moberly exhibits his desire to have second naivete by engaging the text with imaginative seriousness. Seeking not to “close down interpretation” but open it up. Some unique insights here. The chapter on the Inscrutable God is a standout.

Yet, the book falters as it goes on. The chapters become more bloated and more scattered. The final chapter, while interesting, doesn’t stand up to the rest of the book.

88% Read without closing

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

With this book, Moberly offers something of a sequel to his Old Testament Theology (2013). He discusses such passages as Exod. 3, Ps. 82, and and 2 Kgs 5, navigating well-worn interpretations of these and other passages and then giving his own perspective. Moberly has a way of bringing to life the text of the Old Testament as he pushes against simplistic approaches to given texts. Very insightful, thought-provoking and worth reading for anyone desiring a fresh look at various portions of the OT.