Denver Seminary

1 von 4

http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/dark-god-...

OUR CAMPUSES
GIVE NOW

A Denver Journal Review

Dark God: Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament

01.03.14 | Denver Journal, Old Testament, M. Daniel Carroll R. | by Thomas Rmer

A Denver Journal Book Review by Dr. M. Daniel Carroll R.,

Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary,
January 2014

Thomas Rmer, Dark God: Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament.
Trans. S. ONeill. New York, NY: Paulist, 2013. $19.95. Paperback. vi + 154 pp.
ISBN 978-0-8091-4796-0.
Rmer, professor at the Collge de France and the Faculty of Theology and
Science of Religion at Lausanne University, wrote this book to respond to lay
questions about the God of the Old Testament. This volume is an English
translation of the third French edition, which appeared in 2009. Its six chapters
deal with images of God that trouble believers today. Rmers purpose, he says in
the Preface, is to show that the Old Testament texts that might shock us have
arisen in specific historical circumstances and it is theologically inadmissible to use
these texts indiscriminately, whatever the reason (p. vi). This statement alerts the
reader that Rmer defines his method primarily as historical: to situate a text in its
proper context, he believes, is to understand it correctly and thereby force a
rethinking of modern critiques.

30.05.2016 09:44

Denver Seminary

2 von 4

http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/dark-god-...

Rmer begins the Introduction with a brief recounting of queries of the Old
Testament God that can be traced from Marcion in the second century A.D.
through the Enlightenment period to the twentieth century. The problem with these
interpretations, echoing his earlier words, is that they reflect 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 (p. 6). Rmer proceeds to
map out his view of the evolutionary development of Israels theology, from
polytheism to monotheism. With this, he can say that the Old Testament is a
collection of disparate beliefs. Therefore, we should expect to encounter differing
interpretations of God in the text, which then must be evaluated for their legitimacy
in their time and place and also for today.
Chapter one deals with the question, Is God Male? The author surveys the male
images of God: YHWH as king, spouse or lover (Rmer inserts a discussion on the
Asherah inscriptions of Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud), and father. With the
concept of father and Genesiss statement that both male and female are created
in the image of God, ideas that Rmer dates late, the royal ideology of a privileged
relationship with the deity is now in the process of being democratizedthat is,
extended to all. In addition, in later periods maternal images of God begin to
surface (even though God is never called mother). So, it is not fair to say that the
Old Testament has strictly a male definition of God.
The topic of the second chapter is, Is God Cruel? The issue here is human
sacrifice that God apparently sanctions. Though forbidden in the Law, God asks
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22). The author explains that this is the only time
God demanded human sacrifice, even as he provided a substitute. From the exilic
context to which he assigns this passage, Rmer says that Genesis 22 actually is
a polemic against human sacrifice. Next, he deals with the sacrifice of Jephthahs
daughter (Judges 11). He sees the silence of God in the narrative not as an
endorsement, but as God expressing disapproval of such religious aberrations.
Lastly, Rmer deals with Jacobs encounter with God in Genesis 32 and Moses in
Exodus 4. Again, Rmer interprets these against the backdrop of the exile or after
the return to the land. He places the case of Moses, Zipporah, and the
circumcision of their son (by a woman!) within the debates at that time of
integrating non-Jews into the people of God. Neither the Jacob nor the Moses
story allow for any facile, triumphalist views of God. In sum, these passages
actually are about human failings and wrong perceptions of God.
The question for chapter three is Is God a Warlike Despot? In the opening
paragraphs Rmer rejects the options of spiritualizing texts where God is a warrior
or pitting them against the supposed New Testament God of love. Dating Joshua
and much of Deuteronomy to the seventh century, when Judah was under
Assyrian hegemony, he argues that these texts were designed to subvert Assyrian
ideology by demonstrating that Yahweh was stronger than the Assyrian gods.
They do not reflect historical events. At the same time, these passages are
counterbalanced by others that undermine any notion that Israel is capable of
saving itself with war. The exclusionary stance of Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra 9
reflects the fear of post-exilic Jews of loss of their identity. In contrast, the Joseph
story (Gen.37-50) offers a more conciliatory attitude toward living among others.
As in his other chapters, Rmer dates passages in such a way to illumine their
(unacceptable) views and contrasts them with others that champion more inclusive
views.
In the fourth chapter Rmer discusses Is God Self-Righteous and Humans Mere
Sinners? That is, does the God of the Old Testament limit human freedom? He

30.05.2016 09:44

Denver Seminary

3 von 4

http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/dark-god-...

begins with an analysis of Genesis 3, which he sees as not dealing with what is
called original sin but rather with free will. He also discusses the strictures on
human sexuality, which often seem focused on procreation, but he then presents
the Song of Songs as a poem to erotic love.
In chapter five the author responds to the query Is God Violent and Vengeful?
The first half of this chapter interprets Genesis 4 as a myth to explain the existence
and origins of human violence, as well as to demonstrate Gods desire to forestall
its spread. Rmer then turns to passages that call out for divine vengeance (e.g.,
Ps. 137, 58). These, he says, express longings for Gods violent intervention on
behalf of the oppressed. While these may be an encouragement for those who live
in such situations today, they do not justify a theology of violence. These passages
essentially leave vengeance in Gods hands, thereby preventing their appropriation
for human violence.
The sixth and last chapter is titled Is God Comprehensible? How can one explain
the existence of misfortune in a world that supposedly was created good? To
respond to this perennial human doubt the Old Testament presents a theology of
retribution, where evil is seen as reward for sin. At the same time, though, Job and
Ecclesiastes problematize any absolutizing of this view. We are left with the reality
that God and his ways are not completely understandable.
The Conclusion restates Rmers main points that problematic concepts of the Old
Testament need to be situated in their proper contexts and that God cannot be
squeezed into neat categories. The author closes this volume with these words,
The God that the Hebrew Bible presents to Jews, Christians, to the whole of
humanity, has not finished questioning us, astonishing us, and calling into question
our too-well established theological ideas (p. 146).
The topic of this book is timely, and it is interesting to see that the issue of some
potentially uncomfortable images of God in the Old Testament is not limited to the
United States. Recently several books have presented negative evaluations of the
Old Testament, so it is important that there be appropriate defenses of the Bible in
response. What needs to be asked, of course, is whether Rmers work fills that
need. To some degree, the success of his project depends on the strength of his
presuppositions and dating of texts. Perhaps those who start from a similar
framework will find Dark God helpful. For those who do not, however, parts of the
argument are problematic. For instance, if one does not agree with Rmers
evolutionary view of God and (hypothetical) dating of texts, then some of his
solutions lose their weightsuch as, the situating of Deuteronomy and Joshua
within the time frame of the neo-Assyrian empire. There is a solid scholarly corpus
that takes stances on these issues that are more in line with the biblical
presentation of Israels history and theology (and still another that would take more
radical views on such topics). Rmer, in other words, writes from a critical posture
that echoes the consensus only in some circles.
Coupled with this historical-critical matter is the reality that the Old Testament itself
places these passages within different literary contexts. That is, they are not
presented as texts to be read like a critical reconstruction might have it. Thus,
even if what the author says might have merit, the book does not respond to how
to deal with the Old Testament as we now have it. The critical reconstruction does
not handle the ethics of the canon, which ultimately is what raises the questions of
the average reader, both in the past and today.
In spite of these fundamental drawbacks to Rmers arguments, there is value to

30.05.2016 09:44

Denver Seminary

4 von 4

http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/dark-god-...

Dark God. To begin with, the authors commitment to the Old Testament as
scripture is clear and his conviction that the God of the Bible is complex and not
totally knowable is laudable. Throughout Rmer states that there is a continuous
thread of divine nonviolence, justice, and love across the Old Testament. This
reviewer also did find some of the points interesting (the critical stance aside),
such as the suggestion of considering Genesis 22 (at least in part) as a polemic
against human sacrifice, and helpful, like the summary of the maternal images of
God.
At a time when the Old Testament is under so much scrutiny, Rmers Dark God is
a solid contribution to a more sympathetic perspective, even if it works from a set
of assumptions with which not all will agree. Still, this volume is another voice in
this ongoing contentious conversation, worthy to be heard and gleaned for
insights.
M. Daniel Carroll R., PhD
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament
Denver Seminary
January 2014

6399 South Santa Fe Drive, Littleton, Colorado, USA 80120 | 800.922.3040

Follow Us On Social Media

| info@denverseminary.edu
Business Hours: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM | Privacy Policy | Alert Line | Copyright
2015 Denver Seminary

LOGIN

Powered by Academia 360 College CMS

30.05.2016 09:44