God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?

by David T. Lamb

How does one reconcile the loving God of the Old Testament with the harsh God of the New Testament?

Main purpose of the book and problem the author is hoping to address

While the God of the Old Testament does get angry, what characterizes him is love.

The Bible first calls God simply “God,” elohim (Gen 1:1). He is referred to by this name frequently throughout the Old Testament (approximately 2,600 times).[18] God is also called either adon or adonai, “Lord” (Gen 15:2), over four hundred times in the Old Testament. God’s personal name, however, in the Old Testament is Yahweh (in Hebrew, hwhy). Traditionally, it has been spelled “Jehovah” in English, but more recently it might be spelled without vowels as YHWH. In modern English Bibles, this name is typically translated as “the LORD.”[19] While the Bible includes a variety of divine names, God is called Yahweh far more than any other name in Scripture, over 6,800 times. When he introduced himself to Moses, God basically said, “Please, call me Yahweh” (Ex 3:15).[20] It is significant that God tells his people to call him by a name (Yahweh) and not a title (the LORD). So, when speaking about the God of the Old Testament, I will refer to him by his name, Yahweh. Jesus is referred to in many ways in the New Testament, including “Son of Man” (Mt 8:20), “Son of David” (Mt 1:1), “Immanuel” (Mt 1:23) and “Lord” (Mt 7:21). More than five hundred times in the New Testament, Jesus is called “Christ,” but his personal name, lest we forget, is simply “Jesus,” and he was called this far more than either “Lord” or “Christ,” almost a thousand times (958). So, when speaking about the God of the New Testament, I will use the name Jesus.

Nice names of God summary

“Yahweh” or even “Jesus,” the two names the Bible uses most often for God. When we don’t use personal names for God, an aspect of the relationship is lost.[21] The biblical pattern of referring to God primarily as Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament tells us that God wants to be on a first-name basis with his people. This model of intimacy in relationship between God and his people characterizes both testaments.

Is there a trnsion between reverence and relationsip and respect ehen ee odnt use personal names but instead use proper ones?

The Exodus pattern seems to generally fit the entire Old Testament: Yahweh delivers them. They complain. He is patient. They promise to obey. The first opportunity they get, they disobey. Yahweh eventually becomes angry and punishes them. The name “slow to anger” for Yahweh seems appropriate.

microwave. It’s hard to imagine waiting for four hundred years for anything. One of the main purposes of delaying divine judgment is that it gives people opportunities to repent. Because Yahweh delayed the judgment on Nineveh, they eventually repented, and he turned away from his anger (Jon 3:5-10).

Therefore, we could argue that the woman—the second draft—was an improvement on the man—the first draft. We might think that a draft analogy isn’t appropriate for the Bible, but if you were to ask most Christians what is more important, the Old Testament or the New Testament, we know what they would say. The one that came later is superior. Genesis 1 also supports this idea, since the humans were created last and on the sixth day after God had created everything else (plants, animals, sun, moon and so on), as the pinnacle or crown jewel of his creation. So, are women superior to men because they came later?

Funny quick argument

If it is okay for women to compose sections of the Bible, perhaps we should let them teach it?

BOOM GOT 'em

While Joshua 10:40 and Joshua 11:12-15 speak of everyone being destroyed, elsewhere in Joshua and Judges a different perspective is given. These other texts repeatedly state that the Israelites did not kill all the Canaanites; they couldn’t even drive all of them out of the land (Josh 13:1-6; 15:63; 17:12; Judg 1:19-34).[12] The book of Joshua even refers to foreigners not just living among the Israelites but also participating in the covenant renewal ceremony (Josh 8:33, 35). To reconcile these two divergent perspectives on Israel’s conquest, a nonliteral reading of the texts that speak of “all” people being destroyed is required. Based on the textual evidence, we can conclude that the Israelite conquest was not as severe as the two short passages (Josh 10:40; 11:12-15) might suggest.

If Yahweh were racist, he would punish only other nations, not his own. God granted Israel the land, but he also removed them from the land, despite his promise to them, because they were wicked just like the Canaanites. The reason he did not give the land fully to Abraham earlier is that the iniquity of the inhabitants was “not yet complete” (Gen 15:16). So, even though the residents of Canaan deserved punishment hundreds of years earlier, God was gracious and slow to anger, giving them centuries to repent (see chapter two, “Angry or Loving?”). Part of our problem with the conquest narratives comes from our discomfort with judgment more generally, but since punishment is found throughout Scripture, we need to continue to work to understand it and see how it fits in with God’s mission to bless the nations.

Punishment is a consistent theme in te Bible, so ee have to read punishment naeratives through this lens.

Third, we make friends with people from other ethnic backgrounds. In the year 1219, while Christians from all over Europe were traveling thousands of miles to kill Muslims, Francis of Assisi traveled thousands of miles to talk to Muslims about Jesus. He famously risked his life in the middle of a siege to befriend one of their leaders, the sultan Malik al-Kamil in Damietta in northeast Egypt, a man as culturally different from Francis as one can imagine. Yet the sultan was impressed by Francis and reportedly said to him, “I would convert to your religion, which is a beautiful one, but I cannot: Both of us would be massacred.”[21] If more Christians today practiced hospitality toward people of different races like the Samaritan did in Jesus’ parable or befriended people of other faiths (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and atheist) like Francis did in Egypt, there would be more Christians.

Francis of Asisi love of neighbors

were young. The main problem with Denis’s letter, however, is his premise that to record something you are somehow glorifying it. By his logic, we shouldn’t read the Philadelphia Inquirer because it records—and therefore glorifies—murder, warfare, terrorism and rape.

Historical record keeping does not equal divine approval

The main point of the story, however, is not that Yahweh picks on children but rather that Yahweh protected the life of Elisha. To add support to the idea that Elisha’s life was in danger from this gang of over forty teenagers, a series of manuscripts of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) records that the boys also threw stones at Elisha, which could easily have killed an old man. A cynic might say the Septuagint just added the details about the stoning of Elisha to justify his violent reaction, but it is more reasonable to assume that Elisha had a strong reason to be worried about his own life—they really were trying to stone him. Otherwise, why would he send bears to attack these teenagers immediately after he had just saved the lives of many people from their own city by purifying their poisoned water source (2 Kings 2:19-22)? Elisha didn’t start the fight but was simply acting in self-defense.

of the first sin. Two crucial lessons can be discerned from this tragic story. First, temptation questions the goodness of God’s commands. Second, sin results from perceiving God not as good, generous and gracious, but as mean, stingy and legalistic. A proper understanding of God and his laws is, therefore, vital to resist temptation and avoid sin.

really don’t know what is behind these laws, but since the vast majority of the Old Testament laws make sense and are obviously good laws, it is reasonable to assume that there is a particular societal problem that these types of laws are addressing. Because God is a good lawgiver, he makes laws that are specific enough to deal with contemporary issues and actual circumstances that he knew his people would face.

Many ailments people suffer from today (sports injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, the common cold, job-related ulcers, stress-induced insomnia, strokes and so on) are caused in part by ignoring the divine mandate to rest. What is often the first thing a doctor tells a sick patient? “Get some rest.” God gave that prescription thousands of years ago. Humans know that rest is good, but we still need God to remind us to rest, to command us to rest and occasionally even to punish us when we don’t rest.

like to tell people, “My God commands me to have sex, eat and rest. Can your God beat that?”

Ultimately, the reason the psalmist loved God’s law was not because he was a legalist but because he loved God, and following God’s laws brought the psalmist into deeper relationship with God. God’s command not to covet (Ex 20:17) was meant to bless the Israelites by freeing them from anxiety over possessions and by making them more dependent on the God who delivered them from Egypt. The commands to have sex, to eat, to rest, to celebrate, to be generous and not to covet were all meant as good gifts from Yahweh to his people. While we may be tempted to think that God wants to burden us with laws and obligations, the author of Psalm 119 knew that his commands were a means of grace and a way for him to bless

While we think of all the commads that mightg seem co trlling about YHWH, do we think of all the commnds that bring floueishing like celebration, sex and sleep?

Christian legalism takes three basic forms.[13] First, God’s laws are viewed as a way to earn salvation.

Second, God’s laws are viewed as a means to pay God back.

Third, God’s laws are viewed as merely a duty or obligation.

The main point that these texts are making is not simply that God is unchangeable, but that God is unchangeable about his commitment to bless his people. And those additional words make a huge difference in how the message of divine immutability comes across. Unchangeability is not necessarily a valuable end by itself, and in certain contexts it would be bad, as we will see. What makes it good is that God is unwaveringly committed to doing good.

The doctrine of immutability should be related to thd consumation and blessing of God for his people.

In general, Yahweh changes in the context of showing compassion toward his people, often responding to human intercession, as he did for Hezekiah.

When our systematic theology comes into conflict with the Bible, the former needs to be modified, not the latter.

As we look at the contexts of these passages, we see not a divine contradiction but a consistent pattern. The Old Testament characters themselves understood both the changing and the unchanging aspect of God’s nature. Moses, David, Hezekiah, the psalmist, Jeremiah, Amos, Joel and Jonah all knew that the flexible aspect of Yahweh’s character does not change. According to the Old Testament, God is predictably flexible, constantly changeable and immutably mutable, at least in regard to showing mercy toward repentant sinners.

God's immutability is his care towArds sinners which may cause him to consisteetly change

When Does God Change or Not Change in the Old Testaments The Old Testament references below use the Hebrew verb naham (except Num 14:20 and Mal 3:6), which has three primary meanings: 1. To relent, repent or change one’s mind. The references below fit this meaning. 2. To regret or feel sorry. Yahweh regrets making the humans (Gen 6:6, 7). 3. To comfort or show compassion. Yahweh will comfort Zion (Zech 1:17). God does not change. He is faithful, consistent and dependable. There are four divine immutability Old Testament references: 1. Balak of Moab tries to force Balaam to make Yahweh curse Israel, but Yahweh has promised to bless Israel, so he won’t change and curse them (Num 23:19). 2. Yahweh won’t change his mind about removing Saul from the throne (1 Sam 15:29). But the context also says Yahweh regretted (naham) making Saul king (1 Sam 15:11, 35). 3. Yahweh won’t change and remove the messianic figure from the priesthood (Ps 110:4). 4. Yahweh doesn’t change, so Israel has not perished (Mal 3:6). God changes. He is merciful, compassionate and gracious. There are sixteen divine mutability Old Testament references: 1. Twice Moses intercedes and Yahweh relents, so the judgment against his people is reduced (Ex 32:14; Num 14:20). 2. David’s census. Yahweh relents and stops the pestilence (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron 21:15). 3. Yahweh heard the cry of his people and relented according to his hesed (Ps 106:45). 4. Yahweh relents so much he gets tired of it (Jer 15:6). Yahweh may rel...

GREAT REFERENCE

We are good at quoting “happy” passages at people who are in pain. But when Jesus was on the cross, he didn’t focus on a hopeful psalm or song (“Always look on the bright side of life . . .”) but on a lament. If Jesus lamented, maybe we should

God Is Fascinating, Relational and Good