JUNE 29, 2023

KASPARS OZOLINS

This month, Loren Seibold, editor of Adventist Today, wrote a provocatively titled piece: “The Bible Is a Dirty Book: …which also contains the words of eternal life.” This title, while clearly intended to grab attention, in no way exaggerates the author’s true feelings toward Scripture. For as I read it, I was taken aback by the content no less than I was shocked by the title. Thus it is that the formerly feigned reverence for the Word of God by progressive Adventists gives way to unveiled contempt.

Seibold’s article gives some initial examples of explicit wording and sexually graphic content from Scripture, before moving on to his real objection to the Bible (what he calls “the worst pornography”): its graphic violence. Particularly objectionable to the author is the fact that God is portrayed as commanding the Israelites to slaughter their enemies, seemingly indiscriminately. Seibold cites Deuteronomy 20:16–18 as an example (in the outdated KJV for maximum effect): 

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee…

The three dots at the end of the quotation conceal the entirety of verse 18. This was probably done by Seibold in order to make God’s command appear as unreasonable and offensive to modern ears as possible. The inhabitants of these cities were decreed by God for destruction “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God” (v. 18). Sin is deadly, and a deadly serious matter, at that. But that’s not at all how a modern religious person would view these things.

Seibold is equally incensed at another passage, Numbers 31:17–18: 

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

His response is incredulous, outraged, and mocking: “Seriously? God said you should ‘keep the little girls alive for yourselves’? Since their virginity is particularly noted—uh, what exactly did God intend you to do with them?” Seibold completely leaves out the entire context of Numbers 31, namely that it was commanded as a response to the Midianites’ incitement to sexual sin and spiritual adultery at Baal Peor (Numbers 25).

God did not command the Israelites to keep alive little girls for the perverse satisfaction of Israelite men.

God did not command the Israelites to keep alive little girls for the perverse satisfaction of Israelite men. Instead, this passage protects the innocent Midianite women who had not participated in this horrific sin against the Israelites. However, it seems that Seibold does not care about these details, but is instead trying to drive home his point: The Bible is a dirty book.  

A Christian attitude toward Scripture

I routinely tell my students in class that it is right for believers to wrestle with challenging issues in Scripture, such as the highly controversial “Canaanite genocide” issue. When we read the text faithfully and contextually, good solutions often present themselves, as shown above. But even when we may not get the full picture, or when the solution is not as satisfactory as we might wish, the Bible’s inner theological coherence keeps us grounded. 

I routinely tell my students in class that it is right for believers to wrestle with challenging issues in Scripture, such as the highly controversial “Canaanite genocide” issue.

God is the author of all life. God gives life, and takes life. God has the right and prerogative, as Creator, to take human life (especially in a context of human sin and rebellion). Furthermore, God has the right to use human instruments as a chosen vehicle of divine justice. Governments are charged with carrying out God’s judgment, for example (Rom 13:4). So the difference between vigilante vengeance and legitimate justice is partly due to whether or not God has authorized a particular agent (such as the Israelites) to carry out his judgment. 

Noted Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman helpfully describes some of what is going on in these difficult narratives: “We should not be amazed that God ordered the death of the Canaanites, but rather we should stand in amazement that he lets anyone live. The Conquest [of Canaan] involves the intrusion of the ethics of the end times, the consummation, into the period of common grace. In a sense, the destruction of the Canaanites is a preview of the final judgment.” Notice that the Israelite conquest represents something out of the ordinary. But sooner or later, judgment will come to all sinners, hence our dire need for the gospel. Listen to the sobering words of the Lord Jesus, in response to the crowds who told him about a horrible thing that Pilate had done to some Galileans (Luke 13:2–5):

Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

One day God will set to right every injustice. But that includes the injustice of every sinner, both great and small. That is why these stories about God’s righteous judgment being executed in this life ought to fill us with wonder at the gospel. They ought to make us love the Savior who bore our own judgment in his body so that not one drop of condemnation would fall upon those who believe.

This is what I mean by a Christian attitude toward Scripture. It is fine to have unresolved questions, to seek answers from the text, to wrestle with Scripture. But it is never right for a Christian to question Scripture’s trustworthiness or its goodness, because to do so is to question the trustworthiness and goodness of its Author. There is a very particular attitude toward Scripture which God has promised to honor: “But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my Word” (Isa 66:2).

An unbelieving attitude toward Scripture

If you dig down deep enough (though it is perhaps surprising to some), one key aspect of false religion and unbiblical worldviews is an unmistakable hatred for the God of the Bible and for what the God of the Bible has said in his Word. I said “dig down” because sometimes this reality is hard to uncover, though it truly is there. Some individuals, after reading Seibold’s article, might counter that he doesn’t really hate God, only that he has misunderstood what the Bible actually claims about God and his interactions with human beings. 

While I do think Seibold has twisted the sense of some of the passages he cites in his article, he seems to have a much bigger and fundamental issue with the Bible than merely the odd verse. Listen to his fairly clear evaluation of Scripture:

Someone is going to say here, “You’re trashing the Bible.” No, I’m trashing one very bad way of reading it. The Bible contains the words of eternal life, but not every word in the Bible is a word of eternal life. Much of it is terribly hard to understand—but even when understood, there’s a surfeit of really bad theology, a horrible lack of respect for human life, and much that is utterly irrelevant to spiritual growth. In its pages some great “holy men of God” did convey to us the astonishing love of God and God’s desire to save us. But it appears some of the words in the Old Testament and Revelation were written by angry, vengeful men—or, in Ezekiel’s case, possibly even mentally ill men.

Things are even further clarified when one pays careful attention to the author’s use of pronouns throughout the article: 

• “[this] surely isn’t inspired by my God”
• “a God worthy of our worship has to be better than the god [sic] pictured in Numbers 31:17-18.”
• “our God isn’t always accurately depicted in the book that was written about him.”

Those are fairly shocking admissions. Sometimes Seibold seems to even move past the idea of the God of the Bible merely being a literary invention of its authors: “Undoubtedly some angry person thought God felt that way, but I’d want nothing to do with a God who actually thought that was a good idea [emphasis added].” And again: “It is impossible for me to believe that God insisted on so much violence—and if God did, that’s not a God I can worship or regard as holy in any way [emphasis added].” 

If Seibold hates the God of Scripture, just what sort of God does he profess to worship? What are his criteria for sorting through those parts of this “dirty book” he can accept?

If Seibold hates the God of Scripture, just what sort of God does he profess to worship? What are his criteria for sorting through those parts of this “dirty book” he can accept? His instructions at the end begin with a summary statement: “[T]o be a holy and godly person takes more than just following the Bible.” Ultimately, he claims “we Christians must read it through the lens of Jesus.” In fact, Seibold explicitly sets up a sharp contrast between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament:

When Jesus said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father,” he was correcting the Old Testament. He was illustrating, by his life, that that picture of God was erroneous. That’s why he didn’t say, “If you’ve seen what the Father did in the Old Testament, well, that’s what I’m like.” Because he wasn’t.

Nevertheless, even Jesus can be a fallible guide to what Seibold’s God is like. For among his illustrations of the Bible as a “dirty book” is even a passage from the New Testament (Revelation 19:19–21). This prompts him to lament: “The New Testament, which introduces us to the wonderful figure of Jesus, is not entirely free of taint in this regard either.”

Ultimately, the only fully reliable guide to what Loren Seibold’s God is like is Seibold himself (along with his like-minded Adventist friends). The technical term for this mode of thinking is idolatry. 

The Doctrine of Scripture and the Doctrine of God

The rejection of the trustworthiness of Scripture is not peculiar to progressive Adventism, but lies at the very heart of the entire movement, as its prophetess acknowledges:

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers (Ye Shall Receive Power, p. 225).

Adventists can (and do) make adamant claims about Ellen G. White’s high view of Scripture, as did GC President Arthur Daniells, at her funeral in 1915: “No Christian teacher in this generation, no religious reformer in any preceding age, has placed a higher value upon the Bible.” But White’s teaching of “thought inspiration” is not an isolated phenomenon. It is fundamentally linked to her vast universe of writings that present an alternative worldview (the Great Controversy), an alternative god (“the three great worthies”), and an alternative salvation (the Three Angels’ messages). 

The more fundamental reality of false religious systems is not their faulty doctrine of Scripture. It is their faulty doctrine of God.

The more fundamental reality of false religious systems is not their faulty doctrine of Scripture. It is their faulty doctrine of God. And at the very heart of a faulty doctrine of God is a rejection and hatred of the God of the Bible. As Calvin famously stated: “When the Bible speaks, God speaks.” 

To reject the words of the Bible is not merely to claim to have a different hermeneutic; it is to reject the God of the Bible Himself. †

Kaspars Ozolins

Kaspars Ozolins was born in Latvia to an Adventist family. They moved to Los Angeles where Kaspars attended Adventist elementary and high schools in Glendale, California, and his father was an Adventist pastor. He met Ieva, his wife, while studying in Latvia before pursuing a doctorate at UCLA in historical linguistics. After Kaspars completed an M. Div. at The Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley, California, he served as a research associate at Tyndale House in Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. He is now on the faculty at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as Assistant Professor of Old Testament Interpretation.