'Exodus: Gods and Kings': Why does God seem so angry in the Old Testament?

'How Human is God' writer Mark S. Smith explains why God is depicted differently in the Old and New Testaments and why he is sometimes shown as an angry figure.

20th Century Fox/AP
'Exodus: Gods and Kings' stars Christian Bale (l.).

Now hear this: God is going to look and sound quite different at the movies this weekend.

Filmgoers are used to the Almighty being depicted with the deep, distinguished voice of a Morgan Freeman or John Huston. But a big twist awaits in the blockbuster “Exodus: Gods and Kings.”

As The New York Times reports, the role of God belongs to 11-year-old British actor Isaac Andrews, who is “stern-eyed, impatient, at times vaguely angelic and at times ‘Children of the Corn’ terrifying.”

The casting is mighty unusual. But many filmgoers won’t be surprised to see the God of the Old Testament portrayed as a harsh and angry figure. In fact, Bible readers often interpret the God of the Old Testament to be much sterner and less loving than the counterpart in the New Testament.

Is there really such a wide gap between these two depictions of God? And what’s behind the Almighty’s seeming fury? For answers, I turned to Mark S. Smith, professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University and author of several books, including this year’s “How Human is God?: Seven Questions about God and Humanity in the Bible.”

Q: One common perception paints the God of the Old Testament as harsh, jealous, and perhaps even vicious, while the God of the New Testament is much more loving and less vengeful. Is this a fair description?

Love and wrath are attributed to God in both the Old and New Testaments. In the New Testament, see "the wrath of God" in John 3:36, Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6, and Revelation 19:15. These passages are no less wrathful than what is in the Old Testament.

The same point applies also to divine violence, which is sometimes associated with the Old Testament God. In the New Testament, Jesus is, on occasion, a source of violence: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword." (Matthew 10:34).

Q: Have you ever seen anyone interpret the God of the Old Testament as an angry child as the “Exodus” movie does?

Not that I know of. This sounds to me like a very modern reading that reads God's anger literally. For me, such modern – and often secular – readings seem fundamentalistic.

Sometimes people read the anger of God as expressed in the Bible without asking what it meant or expressed for ancient writers. They simply respond depending on whether they can or can't relate to such divine anger.

Q: What should Bible readers think about when they consider anger of God in the Old Testament?

The anger of God draws on two social models in ancient Israel, a point that is generally overlooked by people who either strongly embrace the God of the Bible or reject this God.

One of these models involves a social authority. As the biblical scholar Deena Grant has shown, anger was considered a "natural" human response to an inappropriate challenge to someone of higher rank, especially within families. When Israel disobeys God, divine anger expresses a concern that Israel does not  want to be in "God's family."

The second model of human anger is the warrior. Warriors were expected to exert intense anger or fury in battle. God as the divine warrior expresses the basic point that God is indeed able to help Israel and wants to help Israel.

Q: What else should readers of the Bible think about when they consider the personality of God?

They should try to avoid making easy generalizations about God.

God is difficult to know, a point that is dramatized in the Book of Job, chapters 1-2, by the difference between what God and "the satan" discuss in heaven and what Job thinks on earth. Humans don't always – and I suspect, often do not – get to know the mind of God.

Randy Dotinga, a Monitor contributor, is president of the American Society of Journalists and Authors.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.