Dr David Lamb ..."the Bible guy"

God Behaving Badly: Is God Angry, Sexist and Racist?
The cheeky title sucked me right in, so I contacted Dr. Lamb to learn more about his new book. I read a (free) PDF copy, and shot him some questions. His answers are below. Since he took the time to write about the tough stuff, I figured he’d be okay if I pitched with a hardball. I hope you enjoy it.

PLUS. Check out what I wrote up as a review for the book at Amazon, here. I don’t pull punches, with my pros and cons. It’s a blogger integrity thing.

Also–See how you can get your very own free, signed copy at the end of the post.

INTERVIEW:
Dave, thanks for giving me a PDF copy of your book to read. Here are a few burning questions:

1. Your sense of humor comes out a lot in GBB, which makes it enjoyable to read. (Old Testament and theology stuff is often a dry topic, have you noticed?) So, am I right to assume that you and D.A. Carson are not involved in a comedy improv group together?

Carson keeps asking me to come on tour with his troupe, but previous engagements prohibit.

Yes, I’ve noticed that books on the OT or theology aren’t generally enjoyable to read. The most critical initial reader of the book didn’t like my tone and humor. He wanted me to use words like “ontological”, but I’ve told close friends if I ever use that word they have permission to dope-slap me instantly. I wanted to write a book that not only discussed some of the most troubling passages in Scripture, but also made people laugh. George Bernard Shaw said, “If you are going to tell people the truth, make them laugh, or they will kill you.” That’s my personal motto.

2. What prompted you to write the book? (An experience?  A conversation? A “journey”? A course you were teaching? etc.)

I love teaching on difficult texts and ignored texts. This book brought those two interests together.

It’s hard to say something fresh about John 3:16 (“been there, done that”). It’s not hard to say something fresh about Uzzah (2 Sam. 6 The guy God smote after he touched the ark to steady it for falling.) because preachers and teachers are afraid to talk about texts like that. No one’s heard a sermon on Uzzah before, so the one I give might be the best one they’ve ever heard.

It also comes out of either insecurity or defensiveness. When you teach OT in the world where the NT reigns supreme you feel like you want to address that situation, to defend the OT and YHWH. Ultimately, it breaks my heart that people don’t love and appreciate the OT and the God it describes.

3. So, do you consider GBB a theological book? ….Or, what category do you think it fits into?

My favorite question to ask students while discussing a biblical text is, “What do we learn about God here?” I guess that makes me theologian, although, I’d rather be called a student of the Bible (or better yet, “a Bible guy”).

GBB is mainly a book about the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. I don’t quote many scholars, theologians or apologists, but at the back GBB has a 5-page Scripture index filled with literally hundreds of Bible references.

4.  I think the ones most likely to best appreciate your book are
Seekers, Doubters, and untrained or new Christians. Though well-researched, it does not  read like an academic-styled book. Who do you think it’s best for?

The primary audience includes people who are troubled by what they read in the Old Testament. I think that means everyone.

5. Your book covers a really tough and confusing issue with regards to Old Testament Law. Rape. On page 179 you say, “Even though God hates rape, he commands a woman to marry her rapist.” Ugh. I don’t think this argument really works to help your point, Dave. Can you explain this topic a bit more?

The dynamics of courtship and marriage in the OT context are indeed much different than they are today. Many of us realize that most rapes are committed not by strangers, but by acquaintances, and I’m pretty sure this was true in OT times, so some of these dynamics may come into play into contexts like Deut. 22, which may have been comparable to a “date rape”. The distinction between rape, and seduction between people who know each other sometimes blurs, but the fact that various OT laws are engaging this topic, and are generally mandating severe penalties for the perpetrator in order to protect the victim was progressive in the ancient Near East.

6. Suppose someone argues that you are just making a bunch of excuses for God to make him a “better sale”. How would you respond to that?

Yep. That’s true. Although, it’s hard to sell something if you believe your product is crap. Gifted salespeople could do that. I couldn’t. It helps to have a product that you believe in. The God that I encounter in the pages of the Old Testament is highly compelling, so it makes for an easy sale, even with all the smiting.

I don’t deny that I have a bias (I’m post-modern). I try to state my biases up front. I would want to hear what the bias is of people who think I’m making excuses for God. Once we get our biases out in the open, then I would want to look at the text together and discuss it. Hopefully, we could then learn from each other.

7. I appreciate that you don’t claim to know everything about the meanings of the laws, recorded acts, and motivations of God in the Testaments. In general, would you like to encourage readers to be okay (flexible) with not knowing all the whys and particulars in the troubling passages of the Bible? Do you see a practical application for doing this?

We’re going to need to be OK without knowing all the whys because these texts will never fully make sense to anyone. We need to work to gain understanding, but we won’t arrive at that point ever. If someone thinks they understand all the troubling Bible texts, they are either naïve, deceived or arrogant. In GBB, I’m trying to give people helpful tools for understanding tough texts (I hope to do more of that in a future book). If we’re OK with not fully solving these problematic passages, then we can be free to look at them and begin to make more sense of them.

The practical application is that students and teachers of the Bible would not avoid, but they would seek out troubling texts and be eager to teach on them. These texts have profound lessons to teach us about God and God’s character. I personally believe Paul wasn’t high when he said “all Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof…” (2 Tim 3:16), so maybe we should teach “all Scripture”. And Paul was talking about the Old Testament primarily. Most pastors and Bible teachers might say they agree with Paul, but when you look at what they teach and preach on, they don’t agree with Paul.

8. What one thing (or you can pick a few) do you think people get wrong when they try to understand the God recorded in Scriptures?

I could pick a lot of things, but if I had to focus on one thing people get wrong I’d say people want a God they can completely understand and predict. Our tiny brains can’t fully comprehend God and his behavior. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but he’s not going to fit neatly into our systematic theology framework. This shouldn’t surprise us because we can’t fully understand people and people are made in God’s image. Both God and humans are complex, mysterious.

God also wants to have a real relationship with us not to fit into our conceptual framework of the divine. At risk of being trite, C.S. Lewis said in the Chronicles of Narnia that “Aslan is not a tame lion”. The first time I read that it didn’t make sense to me. Later, it just made me mad. Now, I think it’s brilliant. We want to tame God by putting him into our conceptual frameworks so we can understand him. That’s just not going to happen. If I were God (a big “if”), that would piss me off.

9. Anything else you’d like to add?
 This book is meant to encourage people to not be afraid of the Old Testament and the God it describes.  It addresses 7 problems, each in only 1 chapter.  So, it’s not meant to give a final exhaustive answer to these questions, but hopefully it can be a starting point.  I could recommend other books that go into more detail, but the best way to keep working on these issues is to study and discuss problematic passages in the context of community, with family and friends, in small groups and Sunday school classes.  As people do this, they will deepen their relationships with each other, as well as their relationship with God.

I agree! Thanks, Dave, and thanks to all of you for reading. To read more from Dave find his blog, here.

WANT YOUR VERY OWN SIGNED COPY—FREE?

For a chance to win a signed copy (and a box of chocolates from me), click the Tweet This button below. Not on Twitter? For shame! Making a twitter account takes 90 seconds. Go for it here: Otherwise–Link to this page from your Facebook page, an email, your blog (or other social media). Someone will be chosen November 20th. The more times you tweet, or link here, the better your chances. Whoot- Whoot!

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...perhaps putting the smite on someone.

On Wednesday, I have something special for ya’ll. My interview with David Lamb will be posted. It’s one of the most interesting interviews I’ve ever done. In his new book, he covers smiting, among other things. It’s called God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?

In advance of this über cool post, I want to throw out something to chew on.

What bothers you most about God? Just be honest. Maybe nothing does, or maybe you think he smites people recklessly in the Old Testament accounts. Maybe you think he has Anger Management Issues… whatever it is, let’s hear it.

Then we’ll tackle (or approach might be the more accurate word) at least some of those things this week.

Also, feel free to check out these related previous posts:

The Man Upstairs Fallacy

Confusing God with the dad you got (Also features best “worst dad” photo. seriously.)

God with a Spatula (Does God spank us?)

 My personal review of David Lamb’s God Behaving Badly (at amazon)

Thou Shalt Not (Moses Heston)

Have you ever heard someone say, “The Bible says you can’t get a tattoo.” or “God’s law says women shouldn’t dress like men,” or made some truth statement about Christian conduct based on The 10 Commandments, or one of the laws from Leviticus or Deuteronomy?

Can New Testament Christians (most of us reading this) spurn these laws, since they were written for West Semites of long ago? Or, on the other hand, which Biblical laws must apply to Christians today? I’ve noticed a bit of a pick and choose sort of thing, have you?

Paul says Christ fulfilled the law…but how does this play out practically in Christian living?

Opinions vary. Culture or our experiences can overshadow our decisions on this stuff. It doesn’t just break down into categories of legalist vs. lawless.

I’d like to address that today.

I won’t do it alone. Instead I’ll defer to a far smarter person than me. A helpful PDF document here, from my professor at ETS, Dr. David Dorsey, may inform your study of God, and improve your Christian living or outlook.

Try to muscle through the academic nature of this excerpt. Highlighted words are linked to definitions, if you need them.  And please comment or respond in some way.

David Dorsey– An excerpt from last page of article:
[JETS 34:3 (September 1991) p. 312-322]

I would suggest the following theocentric hermeneutical procedure for applying any of the OT laws, whether the law be deemed ceremonial, judicial, or moral:

1. Remind yourself that this law is not my law, that I am not legally bound by it, that it is one of the laws God issued to ancient Israel as part of his covenant with them. When I look at this law I am looking over the shoulder of the Israelite (just as I am, for example, when I consider one of God’s messages through Jeremiah to the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the final days before the city’s fall).

2. Determine the original meaning, significance and purpose of the law. What was its point? Why did God issue it? What apparently were his motives in giving it? (Allegorizing, spiritualizing and typologizing here are counterproductive, succeeding only in obscuring the original significance and purpose of the law.)

3. Determine the theological significance of the law. What does this law reveal about God and his ways? A law, as mentioned, reveals a great deal about the lawgiver. What does this law reflect about God’s mind, his personality, his qualities, attitudes, priorities, values, concerns, likes and dislikes, his teaching methodologies, the kinds of attitudes and moral and ethical standards he wants to see in those who love him? In spite of the fact that these 613 laws were issued to another people who lived at another time under very different circumstances than ours (again, like the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah), they come from the God whom we too serve, and they represent a vast reservoir of knowledge about him and his ways.

4. Determine the practical implications of the theological insights gained from this law for your own NT circumstances. To take an example from the civil laws, Exod 22:25 states: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” First, this law is not my law. It was part of Israel’s covenant with God (Christian bankers can relax—for a moment). Second, as far as the point of the law is concerned, it forbids the charging of interest when lending to a poor person, presumably to assist the person who is in a financial crisis in such a way that his recovery will be possible and the repayment will not be overly burdensome. A second purpose is undoubtedly to encourage the individual Israelite to be openhanded and generous, to be sensitive to the needs of the poor, and to be ready and willing to help needy people in practical ways even when it will not result in one’s own financial gain.

What theological insights come from this law? The Person who issued this law is obviously concerned about the physical and emotional well-being of the poor. Moreover he apparently wants his people to have a similar sensitivity toward the poor, to be willing to help the needy sacrificially.

If you are interested, read the full document here. (10 pages)

Have you thought about the Bible this way? Share something.

Don’t be tempted to …ahem… peg Jael as the Biblical forerunner of the fierce “Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling”. She was a nobody who cared for sheep and endured the harsh elements.

As a tent dweller of the Kenite clan, she was riffraff to the nth degree. (The spiffy clothing you may see her depicted in is just wishful thinking. A bath would be hard to come by, let alone silk fineries, and dainty hairstyling.)

The Biblical story of Jael is hardcore violence! (10 sec read here)

So-NEVER doubt this, Jael is one shrewd and formidable female; and she clobbers an expert of war, with her own violence, as a part of God’s plan.

She’s sharp, very sharp.

Mighty Warrior, Sisera...almost pinned

Could this be one instance (of many) where a Bible story may effect an impressionable mind? Perhaps envision the scene following a Bible study at a female penitentiary … “Yo, ladies, are you ready to get your Jael on!? Wooo…” Okay, maybe not. But, I can totally see a Bible inspired video game for Christian families….rated T for Teen (of course)… that includes this scene. The object would be to get in the most spike poundings before the warrior wakes up. That’s completely obvious, right?

Incidentally, this story also proves how brilliantly somniferous warm milk can be. Note to self.

Most importantly, this story begs us to root for Jael, and everyone like her. She’s an impoverished foreigner. A diminutive herding woman. And she triumphs in a crucial battle to save a whole nation. Underdog doesn’t begin to describe her.

This isn’t just an astonishing battle tale, or reversal of fortune story, it’s a message of hope for all of us up against the odds. God gives us the strength to peg and conquer our obstacles. God’s character is shown in this and the many underdog stories in the Bible. Literarily unheard of, this story is like no other. No other ancient literature in the world included women very much, let alone full- blown heroines. But, God captures his heart for us in this story of an unlikely woman who saves an entire people group from destruction.

Remember this: Undoubtably, you have God’s camaraderie when the odds are against you, or when your foes or circumstance seem too great to overcome. God has mercy for your “type,” and it is his joy to help you prevail. Keep your hope in the Lord, the Almighty King.

Do you ever feel like an underdog?
What would you like to pin and conquer?

Wicked good Tip for my readers: Stay current with all the sites you like, and the latest from here, quickly and easily with Google Reader.

Which one sounds wrong?

A. Do you have the guts?
B. Put your heart into it.
C. Make up your heart.

What is the heart?
The answer might surprise you.

In modern times, the “heart” has been called, “the feeling mind”. That sounds pretty good to me. What do you think?

A recent visitor responded to my post Is Chocolate Filling my God-shaped Hole? with the comment below (edited down). I think it would help to respond through a post, also. Now we can open up the whole thing to dialogue a bit more. Thanks for your contribution on this topic.

Visitor Response to Post–Submitted: on 2010/12/03 at 3:10 pm
The way I look at it, viewing the heart and mind as separate is extrabiblical; thus, in fact, “that thing that ‘falls in love’ or gets sentimental” *is* the mind. So the modern “follow your heart” does not connote the *opposite* of the biblical “heart,” but rather only *part* of it. Bottom line, I can’t trust my mind or my heart, or even my own spirit completely… only God is 100% trustworthy. As for filling our “voids” with things “besides” God, I try to remember that God gets the credit for all good things anyway…

My response:
I should have also pointed out [within that post] that the Hebrew equivalent of the emotions or passions (what many now consider the “heart”) were also referred to differently than the mind (i.e. set a different category, if you will–the bowels or “guts”). The “guts” implied connection with those qualities of emotion, and so forth.

To sum up: In the Bible, (most especially in the Old Testament)…

1. What is translated as “heart” (in the KJV and others) is closer to what we now term as “the mind”. More specifically, the individual’s command center, or the place where decisions are made– which includes the will.

2. What we may think of as “the heart” that is, passions, desires, emotions, in the Hebrew language is connected with “the guts” or “bowels” of a person. For instance, “In his guts he loved her”. Yes, it sounds awkward, at best.

Even more controversy:
THE SOUL

There is a big dissimilarity in the Hebrew vs. English renditions of the word often translated in English as “soul”. In Hebrew, it refers to the whole being. The whole person (So, no. It does not mean a ghosty thing that floats to the clouds like in Warner Brother cartoons). We can understand it in our context more this way when we say, “30 souls were lost [died] in the shipwreck.”

Hey, everyone, please, weigh in.
This post is open to opinions, thoughts, comments, or if you’re of the particular stripe…exegesis.
(Yes. That’s the BIG word of the day.)

Exegesis (EGGs -eh- Jesus) is this definition here. It’s not a variant, or French spelling of “Eggs and Cheeses” which we may be tempted to think at first blush, right? 

"Eggs and Cheeses" (Not Exegesis)

(click photo to find its source)

Tomorrow’s post–
“Does your Breakfast (and your deity) make you AWESOME?”

. . . when Moses was grown . . . he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens —Exodus 2:11

Have you thought about discouragement in this way?

Your thoughts or comments are encouraged.

One story in the Bible has be a source of inquiry, and much confusion. It is the story most often called “the rape of Dinah.”

Most English translations offer a poor rendering of the Hebrew. Here is the story in English and Hebrew, along with a write up of the passage by Jon Dorsey, Old Testament studies graduate student, and son of David Dorsey PhD a foremost Hebrew and Old Testament scholar. (you can wiki him here)

Genesis Chapter 34 בְּרֵאשִׁית

Response from
Jonathan Dorsey November 10 at 10:36am

We recently talked about this in class. The clincher for seduction lies in a Hebrew word study, and a little knowledge of how Hebrew is used. The key to the word study lies in Deut. 23 – 28. The word translated “rape” or “sleep with” in each case – (Deut. & Genesis) are all the word shacav, which does not mean rape all by itself, but simply “to lie down (with)”. David and Bathsheba “shacav”ed…

Gen 34:2 Shechem took her, shacav’s her, and anah’d (violated) her.

Deut 22:23 – Man meets betrothed girl and shacav’s her and anah’d (violated) her in town – both die – man because he anah’d (violated) her, and the women because she did not scream out for help (meaning she wanted to shacav).

Deut 22:25 – Man meets betrothed girl in country – shacav’s her – she screams out for help, he hazak’s (overpowers) her.

Deut 22:28 – Man meets non-betrothed girl – shacav’s her anah’d (violated) her – they should marry. [He should pay the bride price to her family, to compensate them for their loss of a daughter, (who would now not be desired as a wife, traditionally) and he must care for her financially always.]

Like Hebrew in general, one is forced to look at the context of the verse to determine the the exact variation of a word that has multiple uses. It looks like the Dinah story matches with the cases of Deut.23 and 28. Because similar words to describe the events are used: the man shacav’s her, and anah’d (violates) her. The context in these three cases do not suggest force – In the case of Deut. 28, they are supposed to marry. This would be SICK if it were not a case of clear seduction. So if a women is shacav’d, and anah’d (violated), and no other word in the context suggest violence, force, or coercion, we are left with a Hebrew word phrasing that means seduction.

However, we see that Deut. 25 stands apart – we have a new word introduced – hazak (overpowers), and the fact that she screams for help – these are all context clues that the shacav-ing was clearly not consensual, and the man will die as if he committed murder.

The Dinah seduction has plenty of context clues in the wording to point to the fact that she was not raped. Shechem spoke tenderly to her, he asked her father for her as a wife, etc. In addition to our word study, we can see these statements as we are supposed to see them – as a man who has fallen in love with Dinah. His actions were wrong / dubious though – sleeping with her and not being married is a violation, and keeping her with him while they asked Jacob for his blessing for their marriage, etc.

Even though Dinah’s thoughts are never shared with the reader, it would be assumed that the writer would put something in to make it clear to the audience if it was not consensual (such as was done in Deut. 22:25). This is required for the Hebrew audience when the words used are ambiguous – such as shacav, which needs additional context clues to tell the reader what kind of shacav it was. He would have used the word hazak or the fact that she screamed or something. The author would not leave the audience with an ambiguous situation and not clarify if it was rape or seduction – the same word (shacav) is always used for both. With the context clues we have, and the fact the the same guy wrote both Deut. and Genesis and clearly drew apart stories/cases that showed the difference between rape and seduction, it seems fairly certain that Dinah is a case of seduction.

Sorry I messed up my references – Look in Deut 22:23-28!! Deut. 22:25 is the one that clearly is rape. Deut. 22:23 and 22:28 are talking about seduction.

Also, the word for “take” – lach – does in NO way suggest violence when Shechem “lached” Dinah. If it did, the author would need to reinforce that notion with some adverb or other wording in the sentence to make that clear. Since he does not, we are left to see this as simply “spirited away” or “stole away with her” or “took her to his crib” or something. :) A Hebrew word study of using the verb “lach” in with a person as the verb receiver would be useful. I did so, and in every case I reviewd (the first 10) , it is not forced or done by overpowering. Abraham “lached” his wife and left to go to the land of Canaan. Lamach “lached” for himself two wives.

-Jon Dorsey

#  #  #

Please leave any comments you have.