Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament (with Special Attention to Christian Theological Perspectives)

Transcription

1 Article Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament (with Special Attention to Christian Theological Perspectives) Currents in Biblical Research 2016, Vol. 15(1) 8 40 The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / X cbi.sagepub.com Eric A. Seibert Messiah College, USA Abstract Many readers of the Bible are troubled by passages in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament that portray God behaving violently and commanding others to do likewise. This article offers a survey of various ways contemporary scholars particularly Christian scholars have attempted to respond to the moral and theological challenges these troubling texts inevitably raise for modern readers. The contributions considered here are mostly from the past twenty years. Seven different approaches are examined, with special attention given to attempts to defend or critique God s violent behavior. Brief evaluation of the relative merits of these approaches is offered along the way. A range of theological perspectives is included, and scholars from a number of different academic disciplines are represented. The article s conviction is that regardless of how these texts are interpreted, readers should not use them to harm others or to justify future acts of violence. Keywords Canaanite, christocentric, divine violence, genocide, God s behavior, images of God, moral, Old Testament, problematic portrayals of God, violence Fifteen years ago, R. N. Whybray offered this sober assessment of the dearth of scholarship devoted to exploring troubling images of God in the Old Testament: The dark side of God is a subject that has received astonishing little attention from Old Testament scholars. The standard Old Testament theologies, monographs about the Corresponding author: Eric A. Seibert, Messiah College, One College Avenue Suite 3053, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, USA. eseibert@messiah.edu

2 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 9 Old Testament doctrine of God, articles about particular passages, even commentaries are almost completely silent on the matter.... It is almost as though there is a scholarly consensus that any criticism of God s character in the Old Testament is inconceivable. (2000: 2) Much the same could be said about the church s reticence to address these difficult images. Many ministers simply ignore troubling texts and their violent portrayals of God. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer refers to these violence-of-god traditions as the elephant in the room of which nobody speaks (2003: xiv). Very few of these violent verses appear in lectionary readings, and most are never used for sermons. Philip Jenkins calls them forgotten texts that have dropped out of memory (2011: 20, 30). Even when they are remembered, they are routinely sanitized in ways that mask their deeply problematic dimensions. The Problem of Divine Violence in the Old Testament Despite the lack of attention typically given to these troubling images, the fact remains that an enormous amount of violence is ascribed to God in the Old Testament (for a shorter version of the analysis presented in this article, see Seibert forthcoming a). Examples of divine violence run throughout the Old Testament (see Nelson-Pallmeyer 2001: 24 53; Seibert 2009: 15 34; Roncace 2012: 41 74). They are not limited to only one part of the Hebrew Bible or to just one particular time period (Whybray 2000: 1 19; McEntire 1999; Davies 2010: 3 21). God frequently sanctions violence against others and routinely behaves violently by smiting and slaughtering innumerable men, women, and children. Raymund Schwager estimates that approximately one thousand passages contain examples of divine violence, leading him to suggest that no other topic is as often mentioned [in the Old Testament] as God s bloody works (2000: 55, emphasis original). Steve Wells puts the number of people slain by God (or God s command) in the Old Testament at approximately 2.5 million, a figure that only includes the number of casualties actually reported (2010: ). When estimates of all the people God ostensibly kills are included, Wells suggests a number nearly ten times greater. As the Bible tells it, God s violent exploits include things such as drowning most of humanity (Gen. 7.23), scorching cities (Gen ), sanctioning war (Num ), commissioning genocide (1 Sam ), and killing large numbers of people (2 Sam ; 2 Kgs ). While reasons are frequently supplied for these acts of divine violence, the killing often appears indiscriminate. People of all stripes young and old, men and women, soldiers and civilians die at the hands of God, either directly or indirectly. There are also many examples of divine violence that do not involve killing but are troubling nonetheless. Numerous passages describe God behaving in violent ways that appear harsh and abusive (e.g., Gen. 16.9; ; 1 Sam ; Job 2.3).

3 10 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) God s behavior in passages like these and many others raises enormous challenges for those who believe God is morally perfect and who claim to base that belief on the Bible s description of God (Carroll 1991: 34 61). There is often a real tension between what people believe about God and what the Bible says about God. This tension is not just between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, as popularly conceived. Rather, the Old Testament itself contains competing and contradictory portrayals of God, and some of these do not fit very well with the theological views of many Jewish and Christian believers today. As John Barton observes, Most Christians probably read the Old Testament to learn about God. They expect it to tell them what God is like, what he has done and what he requires of them. But those who approach the OT in this way are soon disappointed. They find that the God it shows them is, at best, something of a mixed blessing. Although at times he is loving, gentle and trustworthy, at others he seems capricious, harsh and unfeeling.... The information we get about God from the OT seems fairly ambiguous, and we would be hard put... to recognize in it the God in whom Jews or Christians now believe. (1998: 94) This theological dilemma is not easily resolved. Violent biblical texts pose another problem as well. They have been used to do enormous harm to countless individuals. People have justified violence against women, children, indigenous populations, gays and lesbians, and many others by appealing to these troubling texts (Thatcher 2008; Seibert 2012: 15 26; Spong 2005). As Eryl Davies rightly observes, The violence inherent in Scripture has all too often inspired violence and served as a model for the persecution, subjugation and elimination of various peoples in a wide variety of contexts for over two millennia (2010: 20). This is deeply concerning. It has (and should) prompt scholars to give renewed attention to ways of reading these texts that do not perpetuate injustice, oppression, and killing. Although some regard these texts as irredeemable and advocate decanonizing them (Avalos 2007), most Jews and Christians would not regard this as a viable option. Signs of Recent Interest in Addressing Divine Violence in the Old Testament Scholarship related to the moral character of God in Scripture is on the rise, and a number of scholars have recently published books that address some of the troubling images of God in the Old Testament (Young 2008; Seibert 2009; Copan 2011; Lamb 2011; Römer 2013). In addition, academic conferences, like the one held at the University of Notre Dame in 2009, demonstrate a new level of interest in this topic. The papers given at this conference explored some of the moral difficulties raised by God s behavior in the Old Testament. These papers were subsequently published by Oxford University Press under the title Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham (Bergmann, Murray, and Rea 2011).

4 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 11 The question of God and violence has also been highlighted recently in popular Christian publications, both progressive and conservative. It was the January 2011 cover story in Sojourners, which led with Brian McLaren s article, Is God Violent? (McLaren 2011). This topic was also featured as the cover story of the July/August 2013 edition of Christianity Today, which framed the issue as a question of how to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. A considerable amount of recent scholarship has been focused on one particularly violent episode in the Old Testament, namely, the slaughter of Canaanites in Joshua In 2003, Zondervan published a book in its Counterpoint series titled Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on Canaanite Genocide (Cowles et al. 2003). Eryl Davies used Canaanite genocide as a case study in his book, The Immoral Bible, to demonstrate different ways scholars deal with morally difficult parts of the Hebrew Bible (2010; cf. Davies 2005). Douglas Earl recently wrote his dissertation on Joshua 6 11 and subsequently published The Joshua Delusion? Rethinking Genocide in the Bible (2010). In this popularized and condensed version of his thesis, Earl advocates a symbolic reading of the conquest narrative. Most recently, Christian apologists Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan have engaged in a very extensive and wide-ranging treatment of the issue in their co-authored work, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (2014). In addition to book-length treatments on the topic, numerous articles, essays, and chapters have also been devoted to this issue in the past decade (Wright 2008: ; Hazen 2009: 7 90 [especially note Rauser 2009: 27 41]; Bergmann, Murray, and Rea 2011: ; Seibert 2012: ; Enns 2014: 29 70). The current interest in addressing this especially distressing example of divine violence shows no signs of abating anytime soon, and we will return to it repeatedly throughout this article as we consider how various scholars have responded to God s command to kill Canaanites. Why This Recent Surge in Scholarship? A number of factors can account for this recent uptick in scholarship on divine violence. Some has been in response to the so-called new atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who have been especially vocal about God s morally problematic behavior in the Bible. Dawkins (2006) regards the Old Testament God as despicable and completely unworthy of worship or adoration. In an especially colorful and often-quoted passage from his book The God Delusion, he writes, The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (2006: 51)

5 12 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) Christian apologists who respond to statements like these must deal with an array of troubling biblical passages which are otherwise often neglected. The increased attention these texts have received is also understandable given our particular historical context, one that is marked by significant religious violence. In the wake of the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, there have been many discussions about the relationship between violence and religion generally, and between violence and sacred texts specifically. The increased scrutiny of violent verses in the Qur an, for example, has led to increased scrutiny of violent texts in the Bible. This kind of scrutiny is necessary since, as Philip Jenkins observes, Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions... all are in the Bible, occurring with a far greater frequency than in the Qur an (2011: 71). Some of the recent interest in these biblical texts also stems from a desire to provide better explanations for God s violent behavior in the Bible than those traditionally given. Many people are genuinely perplexed by the way God acts in the Old Testament, and some scholarship seems specially designed to help these individuals (Seibert 2009; Lamb 2011; Enns 2014: 66 67). A Brief Word about Definitions Since this article is about divine violence in the Old Testament, it may be helpful to clarify how both violence and divine violence are being used here. Defining violence is notoriously difficult, and much depends upon how narrowly or broadly the term is understood. Elsewhere, I have defined violence as physical, emotional, or psychological harm done to a person by an individual (or individuals), institution, or structure that results in injury, oppression, or death (Seibert 2012: 9, emphasis original). This rather broad definition of violence, which encompasses a wide range of harmful behaviors, will work nicely here. References to divine violence throughout this article refer to violence the Old Testament ascribes to God. It is violence God is said to have perpetrated, caused, or sanctioned in some way. Specifically, this includes (1) violence God commits without using human agents (e.g., sending down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah); (2) violence God commissions, typically unbeknownst to those being commissioned (e.g., using Babylon to punish Judah for their sins); and (3) violence God commands directly (e.g., ordering Israelites to wipe out Canaanites). The Focus of This Article The primary purpose of this article is to survey and evaluate recent research on divine violence in the Old Testament (cf. Joseph 2014: 51 70). My specific concern is to investigate the work of scholars who address the moral and theological difficulties raised by the presence of divine violence in the Old Testament. I have limited my discussion to English publications (for a very helpful discussion of an

6 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 13 important two-volume German work titled Die dunklen Seiten Gottes [Dietrich and Link 1997, 2000], see Barton 2010) that have been produced in the last 15 years or so. The main focus is on Christian scholarship, though I recognize Jewish scholars (and others) have also wrestled with these violent images in significant ways (see Blumenthal 1993; Eisen 2011: 15 64). Readers who are interested in a broader perspective on this issue, including the way both Christians and Jews have historically responded to violent texts, would do well to consult the work entitled, Laying Down the Sword (Jenkins 2011). Although this article deals only with divine violence in the Old Testament, this should not obscure the fact that concerns about divine violence span both testaments. Those wishing to explore divine violence in the New Testament have a growing number of resources available to them (Weaver 2001; Baker 2010, 2013; Neufeld 2011; Neville 2013). Seven Approaches to Divine Violence in the Old Testament Approaches to divine violence in the Old Testament vary widely, and currently there is no consensus on the best way to handle the difficulties caused by these troubling texts. In what follows, I will describe several recent efforts to grapple with this issue. This will provide the lay of the land, so to speak, and will help interested readers see the range of options available to them. Along the way, I will offer some evaluation and assessment of these approaches. 1. Defending God s Violent Behavior The first option to be discussed is one that is championed by conservative Christian scholars. Their basic approach is to mount some sort of defense of God s behavior in the Bible. This is necessary given their view of Scripture and their beliefs about God. Most conservative Christians believe the Bible is fully reliable and trustworthy when it speaks about God. They are convinced that, by and large, the way God is portrayed in the Bible accurately reflects God s true nature. They also tend to believe that God actually did what the Bible claims. Thus, when the Bible says God exterminated the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, drowned the Egyptian army, and commanded the Israelites to kill Canaanites, they believe God really said and did these things. Yet, with equal conviction, they resolutely believe God is completely good and righteous. This means regardless of what God does in the Bible, all of God s behavior is virtuous, even if it seems otherwise. This is what allows Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill to declare, If God is all the Bible says he is, all that he does must be good and that includes his authorization of genocide (2003: 94). By this logic, God can do no wrong in the pages of Scripture.

7 14 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) But assumptions about the Bible s absolute trustworthiness and God s moral perfection do not easily co-exist. For example, how can the wholesale destruction of cities filled with men, women, and children be regarded as morally praiseworthy and reflective of God s goodness? Trying to embrace these beliefs simultaneously creates significant challenges which Christian scholars have attempted to mitigate in various ways (for a survey of options, see Anderson 2004: 32 35; Seibert 2009: 69 88). In what follows, I have isolated a number of different ways conservative scholars try to defend God s violent behavior in the Old Testament. Although I have chosen to discuss each of these approaches separately, scholars who appeal to such arguments often use a combination of these in an effort to convince readers that God s behavior in the Bible is good even when it seems bad. 1.1 The Just Cause Approach. Many conservative scholars justify God s violent behavior by suggesting God had good reasons for harming, oppressing, and even killing certain people. These scholars are often quick to emphasize the wickedness and depravity of the victims of divine violence. They sometimes elaborate on what these people did wrong and why their wrongdoing elicited such swift and terrible retribution. All this is intended to demonstrate that God was justified in acting violently toward these individuals. This is a key argument used by those who defend God s decree to slaughter the Canaanites. Appeal is made to passages such as Leviticus 18 and 20 and Deut. 9.4 to argue that the Canaanites were exceedingly wicked and worthy of death (Copan 2011: ; Wright 2008: 92 94). In his book God Behaving Badly, David Lamb uses this approach to explain why it was right for God to instantly annihilate Uzzah (2011: 27 33; see 2 Sam. 6.7), to send bears to maul 42 boys (pp ; see 2 Kgs ), and to destroy 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (pp ; see 2 Kgs ). In each instance, Lamb elaborates on the nature of the offense in an attempt to convince readers that God acted appropriately and that people got what they deserved even though some might be inclined to think otherwise. As Lamb sees it, God s violence is always purposeful. He writes, Yahweh used violence only to punish the wicked or to protect the weak (p. 112, emphasis mine; cf. pp. 94, 179). Lamb believes that once we understand the true nature of the offence, this will remove or at least dramatically reduce our objections to God s behavior. 1.2 The Greater Good Approach. Another way conservative scholars attempt to defend God s violent behavior in the Old Testament is by explaining how God s actions served a greater good. This approach, closely related to the just cause approach, is also frequently used to make sense of the command to kill Canaanites (Wright 2008: , 107). As Walter Kaiser sees it, These nations were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world (Deut ) (1988: 108). Kaiser believes Canaanites had to be killed for the greater good of

8 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 15 maintaining Israel s religious purity. Just as a surgeon does not hesitate to amputate a gangrenous limb, even if he cannot help cutting off some healthy flesh, writes Kaiser, so God must do the same (1988: 108; see Jenkins 2011: ). Mennonite scholar Elmer Martens (2008) also uses this approach to explain the divine violence involved in both the conquest and the flood narrative. Regarding the slaughter of the Canaanites, Martens appeals to Deut , which suggests the Canaanites needed to be eliminated lest they lead Israel astray with their gods. According to Martens, This is God s case for the preemptive strike. An evil act [killing Canaanites] is allowed in order to prevent a worse evil [Israelite apostasy] (2008: 47). To illustrate the need for such drastic action, Martens cites the contemporary practice of killing herds of cattle when some are infected. In several instances, writes Martens, thousands of cattle surely not all of them infected [with mad cow disease] have been slaughtered. The action was taken in order to arrest the spread of the evil and to safeguard the population (2008: 47). Martens applies this same logic to the flood narrative, and regards God s destruction of the entire human race save eight as being necessary to preserve at least a remnant and to keep humanity from becoming altogether unsalvageable (2008: 48). 1.3 Progressive Revelation. Some defend God s questionable behavior in the Old Testament by appealing to progressive revelation, the idea that God meets people where they are and then gradually leads them to a fuller understanding of who God is and how God wants them to live. Lois Barrett (1987) adopts this approach in her short book The Way God Fights. She writes, The people of Israel found themselves in a culture in the ancient Near East that accepted holy war as the way to deal with national enemies.... God did not tell the people of early Israel to stop going to war any more than God told them to stop speaking Hebrew. (1987: 70) Barrett goes on to say that throughout the history of Israel, God took whatever evil practices God found and used them for good.... God used warfare to lead people toward love and nonviolence. God was always able to take what was there, use it for good, and then ask people to move beyond it into God s better way of doing things (1987: 70). This same perspective is adopted by Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush when they attempt to make sense of God s command to kill Canaanites in the second edition of their introduction to the Old Testament (1996: ). After stating it was standard practice in the ancient world for victors in war to devote people and things to their gods, they write, That such action was customary does not, of course, make it right, but it does help explain why the Israelites did not think it necessarily wrong. God takes the people where they are, and leads them step by step until at last they will be where God is.

9 16 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) Divine revelation is progressive. At this point, the Israelites did not have as their Torah the Sermon on the Mount ( love your enemies ). This understanding of love had to wait for the New Joshua (Jesus) to make it known in his life and death. (1996: 148) This way of dealing with some of the morally disturbing parts of the Old Testament has recently been championed by Paul Copan, who speaks of God meeting Israel where they were but pointing them to a better path (2011: 57 69, quotes from p. 61; cf. Chapman 2013: 62 67; Sprinkle 2013: 37 71). According to this view, some of God s bad behavior in the Old Testament simply reflects God s gracious accommodation to the limitations of finite and fallen human beings (for more on accommodation, see Sparks 2008: ). God encountered the people of Israel in their social and historical context, instructed them in culturally relevant ways, and participated in their (sometimes morally problematic) practices. God did this in order to communicate with them in ways they could understand and to lead them to a fuller and more accurate understanding of God s will for them. 1.4 It s Not as Bad as It Seems. Many conservative scholars defend God s behavior by arguing that the problem is not as bad as it seems. One way they do this is by emphasizing the moral superiority of Israel s laws and practices over those of the surrounding nations. Compared to other ancient Near Eastern literature, writes Lamb, the Old Testament is shockingly progressive in its portrayals of divine love, acceptance of foreigners and affirmation of women (2011: 23, emphasis mine; cf. pp. 53, 63, 75). Similarly, Copan believes Old Testament laws demonstrate a greater moral sensitivity and a marked improvement over other ancient Near Eastern law codes (2011: 86). For example, while God s approval of slavery in ancient Israel may look like an expression of divine evil from our vantage point, it should not be regarded this way when viewed in historical context. Copan claims that various Old Testament laws related to slavery, laws that were ostensibly from God, regulated the practice in a way that made it much more humane in Israel than elsewhere (Copan 2011: ; 2012: ). Another way to argue that things are not as bad as they seem, and that God s behavior in the Bible is not evil, is to challenge commonly accepted interpretations of troublesome texts. Though passages like Deut and Deut certainly seem to suggest that the Israelites were to kill every last Canaanite, not everyone agrees. Some believe the language used in these verses, and in places like Joshua 6 11, should be understood more figuratively (Flannagan 2012: ). This, along with other evidence, leads some to conclude that God was commanding Israelites to kill only soldiers. They believe that Canaanite civilians, women, and children were not included in this divine directive (Hess 2008: 29 30; Copan: 2011: ). For many readers, this would considerably lessen, if not completely alleviate, the moral difficulties associated with God s command to kill Canaanites.

10 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 17 Additionally, some scholars regard the use of the term genocide as an inappropriate way to describe what God ordered the Israelites to do to the people of Canaan (Zehnder 2013). They believe there was far less killing than is often assumed, and that God s intent was to expel rather than exterminate the Canaanite population. The most comprehensive effort to make this case is the very recent book by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? (2014). They explore this question from a variety of different angles and conclude God did not command genocide. One key component of their argument is the point just mentioned, that the Old Testament emphasizes driving out rather than wiping out the Canaanites. In addition, Copan and Flannagan contend the language of utterly destroying, letting nothing that remains breathe, and showing no mercy should be understood hyperbolically. They argue that God never intended the Israelites to completely annihilate every last Canaanite. Hence, in their view, God cannot be charged with genocide (depending on how that term is defined), though God s behavior would still be deemed problematic by some since it involved the forced relocation of thousands of Canaanites. 1.5 Trusting God While Acknowledging Unanswered Questions. Sometimes, those who defend God s violent behavior frankly admit they do not fully understand it and cannot satisfactorily explain it. These scholars will often utilize explanations like those just described, while acknowledging they still have unanswered questions. A striking example is found in Christopher Wright s (2008) recent reflections on Canaanite genocide in his book, tellingly titled, The God I Don t Understand. Wright devotes two chapters to the issue of Canaanite genocide and appeals to many of the arguments noted above. That notwithstanding, he feels these answers are not entirely satisfactory. I have wrestled with this problem [the conquest of Canaan] for many years as a teacher of the Old Testament, says Wright, and I am coming to the view that no such solution will be forthcoming. There is something about this part of our Bible that I have to include in my basket of things I don t understand about God and his ways (2008: 86). Toward the end of his discussion, he again acknowledges his own uncertainty about God s behavior while affirming what the Bible says in this regard: This is the way in which God in his sovereignty chose to work within human history to accomplish his saving purpose for humanity and for creation, including me. I may not understand why it had to be this way. I certainly do not like it. I may deplore the violence and suffering involved, even when I accept the Bible s verdict that it was an act of warranted judgment. I may wish there had been some other way. But at some point I have to stand back from my questions, criticisms, or complaint and receive the Bible s own word on the matter. (2008: )

11 18 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) While some may regard Wright s simple trust in the Bible as commendable, others will see it as dangerous, especially when it renders the character of God in such a dubious light. A similar approach to the herem texts is taken by Matthew Schlimm (2015: 79 81). Schlimm contends that we are not to imitate God s violence in the Old Testament (a very important point), and emphasizes that the conquest of Canaan was a unique event that should not be used to justify further acts of violence (pp , 80 81). Schlimm briefly offers some perspectives that help put the practice of the ban into context and then goes on to say that these texts should always leave us uncomfortable (p. 80). Yet, he offers little advice about how to deal with that discomfort. He simply says, Perhaps the best Christians can do is prayerfully ask why God would ever allow such a command to enter into the Bible (p. 80, emphasis mine). As Schlimm sees it, answers to many of the Old Testament s perplexing questions will remain elusive (p. 82; cf. Martens 2008: 51 52; Sloan 2008: 128, ). Schlimm reassures us this is okay because real, honest faith emerges in the midst of unsettled ambiguities, unanswered questions, and unresolved problems (p. 82). While that is undoubtedly true, so is its opposite. Many people lose their faith, or do not cultivate faith in the first place, because of the unresolved problems they have with the violent way God is often portrayed in the Old Testament. 1.6 The Dangers of Defending Divine Violence. I have lingered over various attempts to defend God s behavior in the Old Testament because they represent the recent efforts of many scholars to deal with the issue of divine violence. Yet, before we move on to consider other approaches, a brief word of evaluation is in order. While I do not doubt the sincerity or piety of those who come to God s defense in the ways just described, I find their arguments thoroughly unpersuasive, and I have critiqued them elsewhere (Seibert 2009: 69 88). Apologetic efforts to reassure readers that God s bad behavior in the Old Testament is good seem forced, in my opinion, and often fail to grapple seriously enough with the very harsh implications of divine violence. Moreover, while it is certainly valuable to consider the reasons given in the Old Testament for various acts of divine violence (as conservative scholars do), we are under no obligation to agree with those reasons simply because the Bible says so. Nor should we feel any pressure to defend God s behavior in the Bible when that behavior seems immoral. Thom Stark (2011b) offers a comprehensive (and withering) critique of Paul Copan s (2011) attempt to defend God in his (Copan s) book Is God a Moral Monster?, and Randal Rauser (2012) offers a brief, but trenchant, critique of David Lamb s (2011) similar efforts in his (Lamb s) book, God Behaving Badly. The scholarly efforts to justify genocide and other moral atrocities in the Bible create a number of serious theological, hermeneutical, and moral problems (for an excellent critique, see Stark 2011a). Seibert (2013) identified ten problems

12 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 19 associated with the effort to defend biblical genocide: (1) it classifies something profoundly evil as good, complicating efforts to use the Bible as a moral guide; (2) it enables people to use these texts to justify similar moral atrocities today; (3) it distorts God s character; (4) it hinders people from believing in God; (5) it undermines Christianity s credibility; (6) it encourages an uncritical reading of the Bible; (7) it regards violence as virtuous ; (8) it exhibits a disturbing lack of compassion for the Other ; (9) it perpetuates misguided assumptions about the Bible; and (10) it fails to engage certain key issues and approaches for interpreting these texts. I would raise these same concerns in response to efforts to justify other examples of divine violence in the Old Testament as well. 2. Balancing God s Violent Behavior with God s Other Behavior Some scholars have sought to mitigate certain difficulties associated with the violence of God in the Old Testament by pointing readers to other, more congenial images of God. They emphasize and rightly so that violent images do not tell the whole story. The Hebrew Bible contains many images of God that do not involve killing, bloodshed, or warfare. God is also portrayed as one who extends mercy, grace, and love. In order to form an adequate view of God, these scholars believe we need to bring multiple portrayals into the conversation. Kirsten Nielsen speaks of the need to balance the various traditions in the Bible and believes this is what will keep people from misusing certain texts (2013: 212). To that end, she urges readers to consider all images of God in both testaments (2013: ). Thomas Römer (2013) also finds merit in this approach. According to Römer, the reason some scholars reject troubling portrayals of God in the Old Testament is the result of an uncritical reading of the Hebrew Bible, a reading that fails to take into account the historical setting and cultural circumstances of the Old Testament itself (2013: 6). To remedy this, Römer explores the historical context of some of these passages, a context he believes helps explain why God was viewed in certain ways at certain times. For example, he sees considerable Assyrian influence in the composition of Joshua 1 12, a text he believes is best assigned to the reign of King Josiah in the latter part of the seventh century BCE. He believes the function of this text was polemical, to emphasize that Yhwh was more powerful than any of the Assyrian deities. In order to make this claim, the authors of Joshua felt it necessary to emphasize Yhwh s ruthlessness on the battlefield to demonstrate that Yhwh was a warrior par excellence. Yet this comes at a cost, namely, making Yhwh appear as severe and warlike as Assur (p. 80). Römer regards this emphasis as regrettable but understandable in its historical context (p. 80). Römer immediately follows this discussion with a section titled Disarming the God of Conquest (2013: 80 86), which emphasizes how this image is

13 20 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) counterbalanced by other passages that modify or critique it (2013: 80 81). Here Römer looks at a number of passages that do not depict God commanding people to go to war and that suggest human warfare of the sort found in Joshua 1 12 is no longer needed or necessary. He speaks of a demilitarization of warlike traditions (p. 84) and notes how the image of warlike Yhwh no longer serves to justify human war (p. 85). For example, in the Deuteronomist version of Israel s escape from Egypt through the Red Sea, the emphasis is on the people doing nothing, and in the Chronicler s revision of Israel s history, there is no mention of a military takeover of the land of Canaan. Römer concludes, Biblical passages describing a warlike God were revised during the exile to present a God who was decidedly less violent (2013: 85). Römer regards this as being very significant. He writes, These revisions should have made it impossible for human beings to condone, on a biblical basis, war and conquest. Unfortunately, that has not been the case (2013: 85 86). Although Römer does not really tackle the theological question of how these passages ultimately should or should not inform our views about God, he is deeply concerned that people not use violent images of God as justification for further acts of violence. Römer also discusses how certain xenophobic or exclusivistic tendencies seen in passages like Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra 9 are countered in the book of Genesis by the ability of Abraham s descendants to coexist with other peoples. He regards the God of Genesis as a God of coexistence, who certainly chooses Abraham, but does not demand that he separate himself from the other inhabitants of Canaan (2013: 89 90). As Römer sees it, It is not by chance that the history of the Hebrew people begins by presenting us with a peaceful image of God that counterbalances other biblical images of God as a conqueror (2013: 90, emphasis mine). This approach has some very beneficial aspects. For instance, it provides the reader with a more accurate picture of what the Old Testament actually says about God by demonstrating the wide range of perspectives on the nature of God found therein. It also demonstrates that these perspectives do not all agree one with the other. There is considerable diversity in the Old Testament when it comes to the way God is portrayed. This approach also demonstrates that Israel was engaged in a conversation about the nature of God, a conversation that has been canonized (cf. Brueggemann 1997). This conversation reveals that the people of God sometimes had very different and even mutually exclusive ideas about what God was like. Yet, questions remain about whether this approach constitutes a solution to the moral and theological dilemmas raised by the violence of God in the Old Testament. Regardless of how much balancing is done, it is just not possible to neutralize the violent images with more positive ones. As much as we might wish it to be so, the presence of nice portrayals of God do not make the nasty ones disappear (cf. Fretheim and Froehlich 1998: ; Enns 2014: 46 49).

14 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 21 These troubling images remain fixed in the canon and their very presence in this authoritative collection continues to be problematic. 3. Critiquing God s Violent Behavior Rather than defending God s violent behavior in the Bible, or trying to neutralize it by emphasizing God s nicer side (Enns 2014: 46), some scholars believe we must confront it and critique it. These scholars believe it unwise to try to justify God s genocidal decrees, mass killings, and abusive behavior. They regard such attempts as apologetic efforts to make unsavory and unpalatable portrayals of God fit preconceived notions of God s goodness, fairness, and righteousness. But doing so is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It simply does not work. Rather than attempting to explain why God s bad behavior in the Bible is somehow good, many believe it is better to be honest about the problematic nature of these texts. When the Bible portrays God behaving violently or abusively, readers need not and, indeed, should not uncritically accept these as accurate depictions of God. Nor should they try to justify behavior that would be judged as unethical or immoral by any other reasonable standard of measure. Instead, they should be willing to critique portrayals of God that are unworthy of God. Yet, as noted at the beginning of this article, throughout the history of biblical scholarship, there has been hesitancy among most scholars to question let alone criticize God s behavior in the Bible. While biblical scholars have pursued all sorts of historical, literary, and textual questions for some time now, questions about God s behavior have been largely unwelcome, and most Christian scholars have been extremely reticent to say anything negative about God s behavior in the Bible. Thanks to the rise of various forms of postmodern criticism, this resistance to critiquing biblical portrayals of God is less pronounced than previously. Still, critique remains the exception rather than the rule, and the vast majority of commentaries do little in the way of challenging God s ethical and moral behavior in the Bible. In what follows, we will examine several ways some scholars have attempted to move beyond this. 3.1 A Shared Assumption: The Bible Does Not Always Get God Right. In one way or another, all of these critiques share a common assumption, namely, that the Bible does not always get God right (Thatcher 2008: 58 64). This assumption is rooted in a certain understanding of the nature of the Bible, one that does not envision God exercising excessive divine control over the process. Those who recognize human involvement in the production of these texts and take into account the cultural constraints under which these texts were produced find it unnecessary to accept every Old Testament portrayal as an accurate representation of God. They

15 22 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) realize that these texts reflect the worldview, assumptions, and biases of individuals living in antiquity. Thus, it comes as no surprise that God is routinely described as being parochial, patriarchal, and violent. Like all ancient Near Easterners, Israelites believed God used sickness, natural calamities, and warfare as means of divine judgment. And, like others, they believed God sanctioned their wars and gave them victory (or defeat) in battle. In many key respects, the Israelites conceived of God, and God s interaction with the world, much like that of their neighbors. Therefore, since Israel s understanding of God was heavily influenced by its historical-cultural context, it is necessary to be discerning when using these ancient texts to think about the character of God. There are choices that need to be made. Terence Fretheim believes we must distinguish between the textual God and the actual God when reading the Old Testament (Fretheim and Froehlich 1998: 116), an insight I have built upon in my own work (Seibert 2009: ). A similar approach is advocated by Neil Richardson, an ordained minister in the British Methodist Church, who has recently published a helpful book titled Who on Earth Is God? Making Sense of God in the Bible (2014). In this book, Richardson repeatedly emphasizes the need to distinguish between claims made about God in the Bible and the real God. He writes, We cannot say it too often: God cannot have said and done all that the Old Testament portrays God as saying and doing. The real God is very different (p. 61). Richardson makes this assertion, in part, because he does not believe everything in the Old Testament actually happened and because he regards certain portrayals of God to be morally unacceptable, even if understandable given the historical context. For Richardson, the implications of this are profound, both in terms of our view of God and in terms of the way we read Scripture. It means we cannot go on ignoring or trying to justify texts which attribute cruel behaviour to God (p. 61). We do not need to accept violent Old Testament portrayals of God as revealing what God is actually like. 3.2 A Reader-Response Approach. Reader-response criticism is an interpretive strategy that is particularly useful for addressing the morally troubling parts of the Old Testament. This approach operates on the assumption that readers are accountable for how they read. Therefore, they must give careful consideration to the values and views their readings promote. Readers have a responsibility to do more than just analyze texts, they must also evaluate and assess the claims made in them. This enables readers to embrace what is morally praiseworthy in the text while critiquing what is morally objectionable regardless of what judgments are made within the Bible itself. Eryl Davies (2010) promotes this approach for dealing with morally difficult passages in the Bible. In The Immoral Bible, Davies considers the strengths and weaknesses of five different approaches to biblical ethics, one of which is

16 Seibert: Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament 23 reader-response criticism. He strongly believes this approach is essential when dealing with troubling texts like the conquest of Canaan. As Davies sees it, The need for an ethical critique of Scripture is surely no more apparent than in these texts.... What sort of deity is it who appears to approve of such wanton and meaningless destruction? (2010: 126). Davies regards the portrayal of God in this narrative as seriously defective and urges us to engage in a critique of this narrative (p. 126). In fact, according to Davies, To remain passive, unperturbed and non-committal in the face of such gratuitous violence is nothing less than an abdication of our responsibility as biblical exegetes (p. 146). Scholars like Davies (and others) who read the Hebrew Bible this way are free to critique God s behavior in the Bible. This often involves reading against the grain and being willing to draw different conclusions about God than the text might suggest (Clines 1995: ). For instance, even though the Old Testament depicts God commanding genocide, readers should reject this image as unreliable since genocide is undeniably evil. Likewise, Danna Nolan Fewell invites us to critique, or interrupt, Old Testament texts that neglect children or are harmful to them in some way, including texts that portray God as being responsible for their death (2003: 19 40). Similarly, texts that portray God approving of various acts of violence against women must be rigorously contested since they do not accurately reflect God s good character (more on this below). As Davies describes it, Adherents of this strategy maintain that readers of the Bible have a right and, indeed, a duty to probe, question, and oppose statements that seem to them to be morally unacceptable. Far from being passive recipients of the text, they are encouraged to become active agents whose duty it is to subject the ethical implications of the Hebrew Bible to critical scrutiny. (2010: ) This approach to reading the Old Testament inevitably challenges certain traditional notions of inspiration and biblical authority, and this will require readers to rethink what these concepts mean when used in relation to the Bible (see Sparks 2012). It also raises the crucial question about what kind of criteria should guide readers attempting to discern which images are most trustworthy. On what basis should one portrayal of God be regarded as revelatory while another is judged to be unacceptable? This is a very important question, one that needs to be thought through carefully. Otherwise, readers run the risk of simply accepting images of God they like while rejecting those they do not. 3.3 A Christocentric Approach: Using Jesus to Critique Divine Violence in the Old Testament. A number of Christian interpreters have suggested using some form of a Christocentric hermeneutic as the means to determine how accurately various biblical texts portray God (Nelson-Pallmeyer 2001; Janzen 2003; Cowles 2003; Seibert 2009). Since Jesus is thought within this perspective to most

17 24 Currents in Biblical Research 15(1) clearly and completely reveal God s moral character, Jesus becomes the standard by which all portrayals of God are evaluated. As C.S. Cowles expresses it, In the New Testament, Jesus is not defined by God; rather, God is defined by Jesus. Jesus is the lens through whom a full, balanced, and undistorted view of God s loving heart and gracious purposes may be seen (2003: 22). The character of God revealed in Jesus enables us to discern the extent to which various Old Testament portrayals of God accurately represent what God is like. In the words of David Janzen, The stories that reflect the God revealed in Jesus Christ will then function as the lens through which we interpret the rest of the biblical material and will be our guide to a truer understanding of the character of God and God s relationship to humanity (2003: 57). When the God Jesus reveals is used to evaluate various Old Testament portrayals of God, significant differences immediately become apparent. We see that God is not the kind of being who commands or condones acts of genocide, warfare, or killing. For scholars operating in this vein, the God Jesus reveals never abuses or oppresses people, and never behaves unjustly or immorally, despite various Old Testament passages that seem to suggest otherwise. Jesus reveals a God who serves rather than dominates, who forgives rather than retaliates, and who saves rather than slays sinners. In short, Jesus reveals a nonviolent God. As Nelson-Pallmeyer observes, The God revealed by Jesus is incapable of violence. God is infinitely loving, giving, gracious, hospitable, and compassionate. God is not violent (2001: 345). Brian McLaren also uses Jesus as his guide to determine what to do about violent portrayals of God (2010: ). McLaren speaks of the Bible containing less mature images of God and more mature images (p. 108). These could be regarded as different snapshots of the way people viewed God over time. McLaren believes that when better pictures emerge, the old ones are not discarded, but remain as a record of the people s evolving thoughts about God s character (p. 103). In order to see God most clearly, it is necessary to look at the most mature images. These are the images that most resemble Jesus (p. 114). When this is done, it becomes clear that the character of God, seen in Jesus, is not violent and tribal. The living God is not the kind of deity who decrees ethnic cleansing, genocide, racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia, war, religious supremacy, or eternal conscious torment. Instead, the character of the living God is like the character of Jesus. (2010: 118) Interpreters using this vantage point believe they have a principled approach that can help them determine the degree of correspondence between the textual and actual God. When Old Testament images of God are evaluated and found wanting, it is important to critique these problematic portrayals, stating clearly that God is not like this. This goes a long way toward resolving many of the moral concerns these disturbing images raise.