Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Tough Questions about God and His Actions in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2015. See here to buy the book.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is a biblical scholar, who has taught the Old
Testament and has written many books and articles. In this book, Kaiser
addresses tough questions about God in the Old Testament. Kaiser also
interacts with the New Testament, including passages that many consider
misogynistic, as well as passages about food.
Overall, this is a good book. It offers some of the stock apologetic
answers about God in the Old Testament, yet I still learned from the
book. Kaiser also wrestled with questions, and the Discussion Questions
at the end of each chapter were thoughtful and open-ended and did not
assume that one had to agree with Kaiser. There were times, however,
when I wished that Kaiser provided actual documentation for claims that
he was making—-about Canaanite life and religion, about the dating of
the Book of Job, etc.
I can better critique the book by going through each chapter. I will
not be exhaustive, but I will convey some of Kaiser’s points, and my
reactions.
In the Introduction, Kaiser talks about Marcion, an ancient Christian
who distinguished between the God of the Old Testament and the God of
the New Testament. Kaiser also referred to biblical scholars and
theologians who portrayed the God of the Old Testament as harsh, in
contrast with the loving and merciful God of the New Testament. Kaiser,
of course, disagrees with such views. I appreciated Kaiser’s academic
discussion of this issue. At the same time, I doubt that Marcion or the
scholars whom Kaiser critiques were getting there impressions from
nowhere: Paul himself appears in places to contrast the old covenant
with the new covenant, presenting the former as a ministry of
condemnation, discipline, and wrath, and the latter as a ministry of
grace.
Chapter 1 is entitled “The God of Mercy or the God of Wrath?” Kaiser
argues in this chapter that God is rightfully angry at sin, and yet
God’s anger is small when compared with God’s vast love. I did not
learn anything radically new from this chapter, and I think that
Kaiser’s points are valid. At the same time, I do not think that
Kaiser’s insights will eliminate all feelings of discomfort that one may
have when reading the Old Testament, particularly when God’s wrath
appears to hit innocent people (through collective punishment, arguably,
or when God kills children through the Flood and the Conquest).
Chapter 2 is entitled “The God of Peace or the God of Ethnic
Cleansing?” In this chapter, Kaiser addresses God’s command for Israel
to kill all of the Canaanites and take their land. Kaiser essentially
argues that the Canaanites were sinful and that God was punishing the
Canaanites through the Israelites. Kaiser refers to a Ugaritic writing
about a bloodthirsty deity, maintaining that the Canaanites were
imitating the depraved actions of their gods. Kaiser’s argument is
consistent with elements of the biblical narrative. Yet, I still have
questions. Would the Canaanites or their gods look so one-sidedly bad
if we looked at Ugaritic literature without the agenda of wanting them
to look bad so that God looks good? Is not the slaughter of Canaanite
children a moral problem? Moreover, while Kaiser contrasts the biblical
Conquest with Islamic jihad, they look to me like they overlap: both
portray people as instruments of God.
Chapter 3 is entitled “The God of Truth or the God of Deception?” In
this chapter, Kaiser addresses biblical passages in which God appears
to deceive or to command deception. Kaiser also interacts with the
question of whether it is ever legitimate for a person to lie, referring
to biblical passages in which righteous people lied, dissimulated, or
concealed information for a righteous or a practical end. Kaiser
appears to take a strong stand against lying: Rahab and the women who
delivered the Israelite babies were wrong to lie, as far as Kaiser is
concerned, even if their actions were protecting life. But Kaiser is
rather tolerant towards Samuel telling Saul that Samuel was going off to
sacrifice, rather than telling Saul that he was going off to anoint a
new king to replace Saul. Regarding divine deception, Kaiser maintains
that God permits deception but does not command it, even though Kaiser
acknowledges that God’s permission can be portrayed as God’s activity or
command. Kaiser likens this to Jesus telling Judas to betray him
quickly (John 13:27): Jesus was not really commanding, authorizing, or
endorsing his betrayal, but was giving Judas permission, and yet it
comes across in the form of a command. In the Discussion Questions,
Kaiser asks if misleading an opponent as part of a sport or war is
permissible. That is a good question, and it made me think about times
when God’s people in the Old Testament misled their enemy (i.e., Gideon
arguably did so). Kaiser is a bit too absolutist, in my opinion, but he
did make me think about how literally we should take passages about
divine deception.
Chapter 4 is entitled “The God of Evolution or the God of Creation?”
In this chapter, Kaiser argues that God in Genesis 1 created ex nihilo,
that the biblical creation account differs from other ancient Near
Eastern ones, and that Genesis 1 is inconsistent with evolution. This
chapter was interesting for two reasons. First, Kaiser referred to how
interpreters have addressed the question of why God in Genesis 1 created
light on Day 1, but the heavenly bodies on Day 4. Second, Kaiser notes
that each day of creation is punctuated with “and there was evening,
and there was morning, (such-and-such day).” Kaiser asks why this
punctuation does not mention the afternoons. I had never thought about
that. While I understand that the Jews have long counted each day as
beginning at evening and lasting until the next evening, I wonder after
reading Kaiser if there was a different Israelite tradition: that the
day actually ended on the morning of the following day.
Chapter 5 is entitled “The God of Grace or the God of Law?” In this
chapter, Kaiser argues that God’s grace and God’s law are present in
both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Kaiser also wrestles with
the question of which aspects of the Old Testament law Christians are
supposed to keep. Kaiser argues that Christians are supposed to keep
the Ten Commandments, that they do not have to observe the ceremonial
“patterns” that Christ fulfilled, and that they should abide by the
principles behind all of the laws, even those they do not literally
observe. This chapter was good in laying out different positions on law
and grace. Kaiser did not always offer support for what he was saying
(i.e., that the Ten Commandments are eternal), however, plus, as far as I
recall, he did not explain how Christians should relate to the Sabbath
commandment, which is part of the Ten Commandments.
Chapter 6 is entitled “The God of Monogamy or the God of Polygamy?”
In terms of argumentation, this was probably the best chapter in this
book. Kaiser argues that God’s standard was and is monogamy (even
though Kaiser can understand the rationale for polygamy in an ancient
cultural setting), and Kaiser argues against the view that God in the
Torah permitted polygamy. For example, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 says that a
man with two wives has to honor the firstborn son of the unloved wife,
and Kaiser argues that the man does not have the two wives
simultaneously, but rather that his first wife died, then he married
again. I do not know how well Kaiser’s interpretation here works, but I
do respect him for addressing that passage. Kaiser also argues that II
Samuel 12:7b-8 does not mean that David married Saul’s wives because
that would mean that David married his mother-in-law, which is a capital
offense in Leviticus 20:14. (Plus, Kaiser states, Saul’s wives in the
biblical text do not appear in the lists of David’s wives.) Kaiser’s
conservative approach to the Bible is manifest here, since Kaiser
presumes that the Book of Leviticus preceded the time of David,
something liberal scholars going back to Wellhausen (maybe beyond) would
dispute. I wonder, though: if God’s standard in the Old Testament was
monogamy, why did so many righteous people in the Old Testament, David
included, transgress that standard, without batting an eye?
Chapter 7 is entitled “The God Who Rules Satan or the God Who Battles
Satan?” This chapter did not seem to me to be a direct answer to that
question; rather, Kaiser was going through the portrayal of Satan in the
Old Testament. Kaiser was arguing against liberal scholarly views,
such as the view that the serpent in Genesis 3 was not the devil, and
the view that Satan was not always conceptualized as God’s adversary but
rather as God’s prosecuting attorney. Regarding Genesis 3:1, Kaiser
argues that it means that the serpent was craftier than the creatures
God made, not that the serpent was one of the creatures that God made in
the Garden; the former is more consistent with seeing the serpent as
the devil. This chapter offered me things to think about: Kaiser said
that the story in Isaiah 14 (Helel, translated in the Latin as
“Lucifer,” trying to take the throne of God) was unparalleled in the
ancient Near East (even if some of the names appear in ancient Near
Eastern literature), and that there is evidence that Tyre peacefully
surrendered to Babylon (which is relevant to Ezekiel 28, which
prophesied the destruction of Tyre, but which many maintain was not
fulfilled as the text prophesied). I tend to go with the standard
historical-critical views that Kaiser critiques. For example, I tend to
interpret the serpent in Genesis 3 in light of ancient Near Eastern
depictions of serpents at the time, not in light of the devil, which
seems to me to be a later development in Jewish religion. (Kaiser in
this chapter does not support his claim that the Book of Job, in which
ha-Satan is a character, dates to the second millennium B.C.E.) God can
reveal things to people that are beyond their historical context, but
would God do so, if God’s aim is to communicate to people within their
historical context? Would not God do so in terms that are familiar to
them? Kaiser himself, in questioning whether the food laws in Leviticus
11 relate to health, states that “If the distinctions between clean and
unclean were based on science, then the reasons for those distinctions
were unknown for thousands of years” (page 161). Is Kaiser implying
here that God’s revelation occurs within the context of where people are
and what they already know?
Chapter 8 is entitled “The God Who Is Omniscient or the God Who
Doesn’t Know the Future.” Kaiser argues that God is omniscient, and
Kaiser disputes open-theism, the idea that God does not know the
future. Kaiser takes a position against open-theism, but he does not
casually dismiss it; rather, he wrestles with it, acknowledging reasons
that people may arrive at such a conclusion from the Bible.
Chapter 9 is entitled “The God Who Elevates Women or the God Who
Devalues Women?” Kaiser appears to take an egalitarian position here.
He offers an interesting history of the interpretation of I Corinthians
11 in light of a veil, and an interesting take on I Timothy 2:11-15.
(In his view, it does not forbid women to teach but requires them to
learn first, so that they are not like Eve, who sinned in ignorance. I
am not entirely convinced, but it is an interesting interpretation.)
Kaiser does well to note the times when women are treated with dignity
in the Bible. At the same time, he seems to ignore, in this chapter at
least, the aspects of the Torah that are patriarchal (i.e., husbands or
fathers can nullify women’s oaths, but women cannot nullify their
husband’s oath, Numbers 30; daughters can only inherit if their father
does not have sons, Numbers 26-27).
Chapter 10 is entitled, “The God of Freedom with Food or the God of
Forbidden Food?” This chapter took me by surprise, for Kaiser appears
to argue that the New Testament does not nullify the food laws of
Leviticus 11, and that Christians today should observe them. I heard
this view during my time in Armstrongism and Seventh-Day Adventism, but I
did not expect to read Walter Kaiser supporting that kind of view!
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Kregel Publications, in exchange for an honest review.