Book Review: "Holy War in the Bible," Edited by Heath Thomas, Jeremy Evans and Paul Copan

Thomas, Heath A., Jeremy Evans and Paul Copan. Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013. pp.9-352. ISBN 978-0-8308-3995-7. ★★★★★

There are 13 contributions in this collection of essays on divine war in the Old Testament, providing a solid, comprehensive treatment of this difficult and important topic. While I could write a review of all 13 contributions individually, such a task would not only be incredibly time-consuming, but perhaps also completely uninteresting to you. Thus, I am forced to summarize each contribution and respond briefly.

Douglas Earl's first contribution, "Joshua and the Crusades," suggests that the book of Joshua has not been used in church history as a proof text for crusading, despite the claims of those like Roland Bainton.(1) He goes through a host of pro-crusade literature, showing that the book of Joshua is almost never used as support for the crusades, while other ancient Hebrew texts are. He says this is due in large part to the popular allegorical reading of the war passages presented by Origen.(2) While this is interesting, one wonders what exactly it contributes to the discussion. After all, while Joshua wasn't really used to support the crusades, Earl did find use of passages from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Habakkuk, and Haggai in support of crusading.(3) Given this, I can't help but ask, "So what?" Furthermore, that Joshua wasn't used to support crusades doesn't make any less horrendous the war activity in the book of Joshua.

Stephen Chapman's chapter, "Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision," is helpful and well-informed. He makes a good case for the rejection of the term "holy war" to describe the OT's war narratives, opting instead to use terms like "divine war" or "Yahweh war" (most of the contributors to the collection express agreement). About the war material itself, he emphasizes that the wars were not enacted "out of vengeance, rage or ethnic hated but self-protection."(4) While he recognizes that this take away all the horror, it does show that the purpose of the war material was not "to glorify vengeful slaughter . . . but to confess God as the sole source of Israel's deliverance."(5) Furthermore, he says that the OT does not suggest war is ever holy, but only that God "is willing to participate in what is profane and wicked in order to bring about what is good." War, he says, "is always evil."(6) Ultimately, the Bible moves toward peace and a rejection of war, and so Christians should do the same. While Chapman's treatment of the topic is helpful, he doesn't quite solve the theological problem at hand. He seems to imply that God sometimes wills evil. A good and holy God cannot will evil, even if it is supposedly for the purpose of a greater good.

Heath Thomas approaches the topic differently in his contribution, "A Neglected Witness to 'Holy War' in the Writings." Essentially, he says that we have in Lamentations an example of the people of God contending God's warrior activity, providing us with a model for a faith that wrestles with God, a faith that refuses to positivistically accept divine violence, but autonomously questions and challenges God, though not without reverence and a commitment to return to trust and praise. While I applaud Thomas' comments on lament, I don't think what we have in Lamentations can be properly described as wrestling with the warrior activity of God. He says Lamentation provides "a radically different response to the issue of YHWH war as one finds, say, in Deuteronomy or Joshua."(7) Well, sure, but this is because war in Lamentations is against Israel and not her enemies. It is easy to be anti-war and upset by God's actions when the war God wages is against your own people! Had God been fighting for Israel, I highly doubt the author of Lamentations would have been so negative.

While Timothy Gombis, in his contribution "The Rhetoric of Divine Warfare in Ephesians," does not contribute much to a response of the theological problem of divine war in the Bible, he nevertheless provides a fantastic study of warfare in Ephesians. He highlights the counter-imperial, subversive nature of Paul's teaching, which describes a war that is fought through self-sacrifice and becoming a justice-seeking community. He says, "The church's warfare involves resisting [imperial] influences, transforming corrupted practices and replacing them with life-giving patterns of conduct that draw upon and radiate the resurrection power of God. The church's warfare, then, involves purposefully growing into communities that become more faithful corporate embodiments of Jesus on earth."(8) To that, and to the rest of his overview of Ephesians, I give a wholehearted "Amen!"

Alan Bandy's contribution deals with "Vengeance, Wrath and Warfare as Images of Divine Justice in John's Apocaylpse." The title provides a pretty good summary of the argument in his chapter: in Revelation the implementation of justice is manifested in vengeance, wrath and warfare. I have mixed feelings about Bandy's treatment. He highlights well that God's "vengeance" and "wrath" in Revelation really just mean the wicked will reap what they sow, and do not imply excessive or retaliatory action. Furthermore, he shows that "the way to victory for believers [in Revelation] is the way of the Lamb via martyrdom," so that Christian warfare is a.k.a. self-sacrifice.(9) However, when he gets to the section "The Returning Warrior King and Judge," his respect for nuance and rich understanding of John's imagery almost go completely out the window, as he offers a face-value reading of Jesus' return, here understood as a very violent war. What happened to victory via martyrdom? While his footnotes show that he has read several Revelation scholars that offer nonviolent readings of Rev. 19, he not only shares none of their insights, but he does not even dialogue with their arguments. That being said, it is otherwise a good discussion of justice in Revelation.

"Compassion and Wrath as Motivations for Divine Warfare," by David Lamb, is another essay the title of which provides the summary of the argument. Lamb does not deal with the morality of God's warrior activity in the Bible, but merely the motivation for such action, which he says is rooted in God's compassion and a strict commitment to justice. Because of this, Lamb says, God's warriorship should actually be praised. While Lamb's analysis of compassion and wrath in the Bible is insightful, his response to the war material in the Bible is positivistic and amounts to an insufficient response to the problem.

Douglas Earl returns for a second contribution with "Holy War and חרם," which contributes more to the discussion than his first. He makes a strong case for a symbolic (as opposed to a literal/historical) understanding of the herem passages of the Hebrew Bible (see here, my review of Niditch's book on war in the Hebrew Bible, for a discussion of herem). While he essentially suggests the same thing Jerome Creach does in his book Violence in Scripture (see my review, here), I was much more convinced by Earl. Space does not permit me to go over his argument, so I am forced to merely say that it is quite compelling. Though I still think the OT contains some theology that Jesus would have us shed, Earl's treatment of the subject has left me with a lot to ponder.

Daniel Heimbach provided my least favorite contribution in this collection: "Crusade in the Old Testament and Today." After a long discussion comparing just war and crusades, he states that a crusade cannot be considered as morally wrong in itself, because for God, "allowing no surrender, showing no mercy and sparing no one, [can be] entirely justified." Furthermore, God "owes no explanation for anything that he does." He evaluates us "and we have no standing to evaluate him."(10) It seems to me that Heimbach isn't all that familiar with the OT if that is his conclusion. Jeremiah, to use one example of many, evaluated God and accused him of betraying and violating him (see Jer. 20, and my discussion, here). Fortunately for Christian ethics, Heimbach says crusades can only be justified if they are initiated by God and led by God in a way that could be verified.(11) Still left is the immense theological problem posed by the crusading activity of God in the OT, a problem Heimbach flippantly and unfairly dismisses.

Insight returns with Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan's contribution, "The Ethics of 'Holy War' for Christian Morality and Theology," which analyses the OT literature in comparison with other ancient Near Eastern literature and concludes that the battle stories are hyperbolic in nature. Thus, for example, the author of Joshua didn't really mean to suggest that the Israelites literally "left no survivors" (10:28, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40), but was merely utilizing a typical ANE hyperbolic literary device. They convincingly show this based on examples from ANE literature, as well as the biblical narrative, which often seems to contradict itself as Israelites often encounter survivors of peoples they supposedly destroyed completely. While this doesn't solve the theological problem of a violent God, it successfully makes the war material not as bad as it seems...but it's still pretty bad.

Glen Stassen (R.I.P.) also contributed to this collection, with a chapter entitled, "The Prophets' Call for Peacemaking Practices." I have to say, I was a little disappointed by his essay. I am an advocate for Stassen's Just Peacemaking initiative and an admirer of him and his work, but this chapter was a little underwhelming. It's really more of an overview of Norman Gottwald's book All the Kingdoms of the Earth.(12) Don't get me wrong, I love Gottwald, and Stassen provides some grade A quotes, but the title of the chapter is a little misleading, as it is mostly an overview of the prophetic vision of justice and peace over against imperial systems; it is not so much about peacemaking practices. I was disappointed because peacemaking practices are what Stassen usually offers so well. For this reason, I would suggest the reader supplement Stassen's contribution here with his contribution to War in the Bible & Terrorism in the 21st Century,(13) or his book Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace.(14) And please do! His assertion that regardless of whether you're a just war theorist or a pacifist, Jesus has called us to seek peace--and that despite popular opinion there are practical ways governments can seek peace--is urgently needed.

Robert Stewart brings the discussion into new territory with his, "'Holy War,' Divine Action and the New Atheism." He responds primarily to Richard Dawkins, suggesting that OT holy war is not an argument against belief in God. While he does this convincingly, he does not sufficiently dispel OT holy war as an argument against biblical inerrancy. He asks, "is it the case that God, who created all other living beings, does not have the right to take back the life that he has given?"(15) God may have the right to take back the life that he has given, but that does not mean that to do such a thing is loving and morally right. I have the right to kill someone who attacks me and threatens my life, but that does not mean killing someone in self-defense is loving and morally right (in fact, I would say it's not). Furthermore, taking back life is not the only problem, nor is it all God is said to have done in the OT. Violence on the part of God is the problem. For example, God is depicted as responsible for mass rape in Num. 31:18, Deut. 20:14, and 2 Sam 12:11. While his discussion is humble and fair, Stewart's insistence on biblical inerrancy is its weakness.

Murray Rae's contribution, "The Unholy Notion of 'Holy War'," is, unsurprisingly, one of my favorites. In his first section, he talks about the pacifism of the early church, providing several quotes from early church fathers, and then discusses the reasons for the church's widespread change of heart (Constantine's "conversion," the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, and Augustine's influence). The second section deals with objections to pacifism from Reinhold Niebuhr and Karl Barth, who essentially said that pacifism is unrealistic because every once in a while coercion is necessary. He responds to them in the third section by appealing to the teaching and example of Jesus, whose self-sacrifice and resurrection provide the model for Christian ethics. Jesus, he says, "refused the temptation of political or armed power and accepted that it would cost him his life." Furthermore, this example "is to be followed not because a more satisfactory outcome is thereby assured [in human history] but because it is not our will but God's that should be done." Thus, to think in terms of war being sometimes necessary is to think in strictly human terms, which amounts to "the abandonment of Christian ethics."(16) On divine war in the Bible, Rae says, "Christians must take more seriously" the new commandment which Jesus introduced which is "more stringent than the old," and in which "war waged with the implements of violence and destruction is always a failure . . . [and] can never be holy."(17) Altogether, I found this to be one of the strongest and most compelling contributions.

The final contribution is "'Holy War' and the New Atheism" by Stephen Williams. Approaching new atheism from a different angle than that of Stewart, Williams highlights several problems with New Atheist thinking, which is guilty of the same kinds of errors as those of Christian fundamentalism; namely, they are based on straw men, sweeping generalizations, caricatures, and simplistic literal readings of Scripture. One example is the New Atheist reading of the "holy war" passages in Scripture, which Williams says are pre-Christian.(18) A nuanced reading, he says, would "seek to understanding the ways of God in the Old Testament," utterly defined by pathos and which respond to violence with grief.(19) So at the very least, divine war was an accommodation that God made with sorrow for the sake of preserving Israel in order for Jesus to penetrate our violent world with his message of peace. While he is often insightful, Williams' line of thinking is sometimes hard to follow and his chapter lacks focus. His assertion at the end that New Atheism is a "holy war" against religion is odd and I couldn't help but feel like I missed the point.

The afterward, written by Jeremy Evans and Heath Thomas and entitled "Old Testament 'Holy War' and Christian Morality: Where do we go from here?" seeks to wrap things up by providing what needs to be considered in future discussions of this pressing issue: 1) we shouldn't confuse an "is" with an "ought" in Scripture, meaning we shouldn't see all the violence in the Bible as divinely ordained, but should distinguish what is divine violence from what is not; 2) we need to distinguish between objective and absolute commands, meaning we should set apart commands that were for a specific time, situation, and people and not for all followers of God; 3) we need to pay attention to the vital role of Scripture (see here for a recent blog in which I posit that the issue of divine violence is primarily an issue of the authority of Scripture). While I agree with all of these, their discussion of them includes conservative assumptions that do not apply to progressive Christians, including certain contributors to this collection. For example, they say at one point "God indeed commanded 'holy war'," which begs the question, "What about the many Christians who don't believe he did?"

Overall, Holy War in the Bible is perhaps the best introduction to the topic of divine war in the Bible that one could read. It would have been even better if they included a chapter on war in Revelation (the one on wrath and vengeance doesn't quite cover it), and if they included a contribution from a more liberal perspective. Notwithstanding, I highly recommend it, as it offers several differing viewpoints, all of which are presented with sophistication. It also includes a tremendous bibliography, and each chapter has a ton of footnotes with other great sources to check out. For the thoughtful Christian, for the student or teacher of the Bible, for the Pastor, for whoever interested in this topic, get this book. It's probably the best place to start.

Notes:
(1) See Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960).
(2) See Earl, "Joshua and the Crusades," 39.
(3) See Ibid., 29-34. 
(4) Chapman, "Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision," 57.
(5) Ibid., 63.
(6) Ibid., 65.
(7) Thomas, "A Neglected Witness to 'Holy War' in the Writings," 82. Holy war is put in quotes throughout the book, because several contributors note the invalidity of the phrase for referring to the Bible's war material. One wonders why they didn't just call the book "Divine War in the Bible" or something else, so that all the contributors didn't have to put "holy way" in quotes all the time.
(8) Gombis, "The Rhetoric of Divine Warfare in Ephesians," 100. Emphasis his.
(9) Bandy, "Vengeance, Wrath and Warfare as Images of Divine Justice in John's Apocaylpse," 114.
(10) Heimbach, "Crusade in the Old Testament and Today," 190.
(11) See Ibid., 196.
(12) Norman Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near east (New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
(13) Glen H. Stassen, "Just Peacemaking Reduces Terrorism between Palestine and Israel," in War in the Bible & Terrorism in the 21st Century, eds. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 127-148.
(14) Glen H. Stassen, Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace (Lousville: Westminster John KNox Press, 1992).
(15) Stewart, "'Holy War,' Divine Action and the New Atheism," 273. Emphasis his.
(16) Rae, "The Unholy Notion of 'Holy War'," 306.
(17) Ibid., 310-311.
(18) Williams, "'Holy War' and the New Atheism," 323.
(19) Ibid., 324.

Purchase Holy War in the Bible on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "Violence in Scripture" by Jerome Creach

Creach, Jerome F. D. Violence in Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013. pp.xi-286. ISBN 978-0-664-23145-3. ★★★★★

After WJK Press completed their Interpretation commentary series, dedicated to providing "Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church," they jump-started a special themes series to go along with it. Jerome Creach's Violence in Scripture is part of that series, and after reading it I am looking forward to reading the others. Creach is a well-rounded scholar whose study is enriched by early church fathers as well as the best of modern biblical studies, which he brings together quite nicely in his treatment of violence in Scripture.

With regard to the flood story, in chapter 1 Creach posits that, given its genre, it "was not meant to be read as an historical account. . . . [So], although the story portrays God making 'an end to all flesh' (Gen 6:13), it does not intend to say that God actually made an end to all flesh."(1) He says the flood narrative "is really about God's struggle to maintain creation in the face of humanity's spread of violence. . . . [D]ivine judgment amounts to the return of the precreation state in an attempt to correct creation and reestablish the order necessary for life."(2)

He essentially says the same thing of the narrative of the plagues. He follows Terence Fretheim in saying that Pharaoh is the "anticreator" who with his violent oppression is destroying God's creation and moving it towards a state of chaos.(3) He also follows Fretheim's analysis of the plagues, which he reads "as 'signs' of creation's rebellion against the Egyptians."(4)

In chapter 2, Creach addresses the warrior theology of several Old Testament texts. He says, "the image of God as warrior . . . is closely related to the picture of God as judge and arbiter of justice."(5) Therefore, war is understood as one of the ways God establishes justice in the world. Furthermore, Creach says that by "assigning war to God, as part of God's judicial actions, war is taken out of the hands of humans as a tool at their disposal. Any use of war for selfish purposes then becomes illegitimate. If this perspective is taken seriously it makes war extremely difficult to justify."(6) But doesn't that leave it open for war to be justified at times as the necessary action against a people that are moving God's creation towards chaos and rebelling against God's justice? For such scenarios, it seems that there would be no reason to reject the use of war. Yet Creach still maintains that, "Far from empowering any human being to engage in war, [the Bible] denies humans the right to fight. The battle is left to God."(7) Lori Rowlett rightfully asks, "Why would a deity who commands pacifism for his people engage himself in the slaughter of thousands of other people?"(8)

It is when Creach talks about herem in the OT in chapters 3 and 4 that his argument starts to become pretty unique. Of the Israelite war with the Amalekites, he says,

Whatever "history" lies behind the story in 1 Samuel 15, that history is now used for a larger religious purpose. The Amalekites do not represent so much real historical foes as the forces of disorder that threaten to undo God's creation. Thus the promise to eradicate the memory of Amalek must be understood against the backdrop of order and chaos.(9)

Elsewhere he says the Amalekites are "a prototypical enemy that represent the forces of evil."(10) So, the emphasis in 1 Samuel is not on a historical people that have to be destroyed, but the spirit and way that those people represented which Yahweh will not tolerate. Creach quotes Avi Sagi who said that the "war against Amalek is waged with the book," the implication being that it was not waged with actual weapons and violence.(11) Furthermore, Sagi says, "the 'remembrance' of Amalek [that must be destroyed refers to] a memory that encourages a way of relating to and controlling others through violence."(12) 

While I certainly see the value of this interpretation--and I think this is the message that should be drawn from the story--I don't think it can reflect the actual purpose of the text, nor do I think it properly addresses the theological problem--that is, that Yahweh is the kind of God that commands the death of "women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3). Creach resurrects the allegorical approach of early church fathers like Origen in a sophisticated and well-informed manner. Unfortunately, it still comes off as a weak way of dealing with the issue.

He does the same sort of thing with the account of Canaanite genocide in Joshua.

The story of placing the people of the land under the ban seems to have served [Josiah's] reform movement largely as an emblem of purification, but was not meant to be taken literally.(13) 

Josiah was not dealing with Canaanites in the land, but with his own people, who often practiced the worship of their God with elements of the worship of Baal and other deities (2 Kgs. 23).(14) 

"Canaanite" in Judges is a code word for the kind of society that works against God's intentions for shalom. Thus the charge for the Israelites to drive the Canaanites out of the land is really a charge to establish justice and to reject the death-producing society the Canaanites represent.(15)

This reading is more plausible than his reading of the Amalekite story, but it still falls short in my mind. Though he's right when he says that the purpose of the story was to support Josiah's reform and not necessarily to record actual historical events, the text still reflects an ideology of war and a theology of a divine warrior.(16) Gerhard von Rad denied historical reality to the so-called "holy war" narratives, but he still maintained that something like holy war went on in ancient Israel.(17)

I think the messages Creach draws from these narratives should be embraced, but only alongside of an acknowledgement of the incomplete theology within them. I think it is still necessary to reject certain elements of the text's theology, but Creach is reluctant to do so. He speaks of those who "separate the presentation of God as a warrior in the text from the real God . . . [understanding] the text as a flawed work, a relic of the past that naturally presents God in ways that are imprecise and culturally conditioned." Of such people, he says that "the complete separation of the real God from the textually embodied God seems misguided. Such an approach also overlooks the potentially positive role [the image of God as warrior] plays in Scripture and in Christian theology."(18)

This is somewhat of a straw man. Fretheim distinguishes between the "textual God" and the "actual God,"(19) but he doesn't then say that the image of God as warrior never plays a positive role in Scripture or theology. There is nothing wrong with imaging God as a warrior, as long as we say he is a warrior "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms," and not against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12). Indeed, I follow Greg Boyd's "warfare worldview" in which Christ is always working as a warrior against evil,(20) but that doesn't mean I embrace all the images of God as a warrior in the Bible, particularly those which depict God as violent.

Creach's reluctance to reject certain OT theologies is made clearer when he talks about Jesus and the New Testament in chapter 7. He says, "Jesus did not offer a corrective to Old Testament ideas . . . , it is most accurate to say that Jesus presents for Christians a normative interpretation of the Old Testament, not a repudiation of it."(21) However, he seems to contradict himself on this point. He has a great discussion in chapter 6 about the relationship between 2 Kings 1:9-12, in which Elijah calls down fire from heaven upon his enemies, and Luke 9:51-55, in which Jesus rebuked his disciples for suggesting that they call to God to send fire to consume the Samaritans. He says that Jesus' message in Luke 9 is unambiguous: "Jesus seems clearly to repudiate Elijah's actions" (emphasis mine).(22) But 2 Kings 1 does not merely describe Elijah's actions, it describes God's actions as well. So for Creach to make this claim, he has to admit that Jesus is calling for his disciples to reject a certain OT theology. Creach instead claims at the end of the book that the OT does not contain "instructions and stories that have values that Jesus then rejected."(23) These are conflicting claims.

I wish I had space to cover some of the other topics Creach covers in the book. For example, he includes a phenomenal discussion of hell in chapter 6. In a well-rounded and nuanced manner, he makes the case that the Bible leaves the door open to the possibility that hell is not forever, and that Jesus will seek the reconciliation of its inhabitants after death. His presentation is not only compelling but also much-needed.

Overall, this is an incredibly informative book for a Christian studying violence in the Bible, particularly the OT. While the title is "Violence in Scripture," I was disappointed to find that it includes very little discussion of violence in the NT. Notwithstanding, I definitely recommend the book to those interested in the topic. It is a good resource for all readers--student, pastor, scholar, whatever--and its insights go beyond the topic of violence, as Creach supplies important and illuminating discussions of a number of biblical topics, accompanied by a fantastic bibliography.

Notes:
(1) Creach, 36.
(2) Ibid., 34.
(3) See Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991).
(4) Creach, 82. Also see, Terence E. Fretheim, "The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster," Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 3 (1991), 385-396.
(5) Creach, 56.
(6) Ibid., 58.
(7) Ibid., 238.
(8) Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1996), 68.
(9) Creach, 93.
(10) Ibid., 89.
(11) Avi Sagi, quoted in Ibid., 95.
(12) Sagi, quoted in Ibid., 96.
(13) Ibid., 98.
(14) Ibid., 108.
(15) Ibid., 131.
(16) See Niels P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1991), for the case that "Canaanite" is code for "Assyrian."
(17) See Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. and ed. Marva J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991).
(18) Creach, 48.
(19) See Terence E. Fretheim, "Is the Biblical Portrayal of God Always Trustworthy?" in The Bible as Word of God in a Postmodern Age (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 97-111.
(20) See Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
(21) Creach, 229.
(22) Ibid., 159.
(23) Ibid., 238.

Purchase Violence in Scripture on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence" by Lori Rowlett

Rowlett, Lori L.  Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1996. pp.8-195. ISBN 1-85075-627-9. ★★★★☆

In this work, Lori Rowlett set out to deconstruct the Joshua literature from a new historicist perspective; that is, by assessing the historical context in which the text was conceived. Rowlett goes along with the widely accepted theory that the Deuteronomic History (Joshua-Kings) was formed largely in the era of King Josiah's reign. With this, she says "the DH was written as propaganda for Josiah's reform."(1) The propaganda found in the book of Joshua, she says, uses a rhetoric of violence "to serve as a warning to the people of Josiah's kingdom that the post-imperial power of the central government could and would be unleashed upon any who resisted its assertion of control."(2) In this, Josiah was "adopting the violent ideology of [Israel's] oppressors. The same ideology that had undermined their identity was now being used to exert their identity. The rhetoric of violence appropriated from the oppressor is turned by the oppressed into a vehicle of self-reconstitution."(3)

This understanding of Joshua runs contrary to the reading posed by Walter Brueggemann and Norman Gottwald. Brueggemann says, "Following the general analysis of Gottwald, the city-states [like Canaan] are to be understood as monopolies of socioeconomic, political power that are managed in hierarchal and oppressive ways."(4) Furthermore, early Israel was "an antimonarchic, peasant movement hostile to every concentration, surplus, and monopoly."(5) So then, in Joshua, "Yahweh is allied with the marginalized, oppressed peasants against the monopoly of the city-state."(6)

K. Lawson Younger critiques this understanding, saying that Joshua

utilizes a common transmission code observable in numerous ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts, employing the same ideology. Since the ideology which lies behind the text of Joshua is one like that underlying other ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts--namely, imperalistic--, then 'egalitarian, peasant' Israel is employing a transmission code (a 'communicative mode') which is self-contradictory.(7)

Younger's analysis lines up well with Rowlett's claims. However, one wonders how much the use of a certain transmission code (by which he is referring to the literary form of the text) can say about the ideology of the author. Could it be that the use of a common ANE transmission code says only that the transmission code was common and not that it carries with it an imperialist ideology?

Furthermore, it seems to me that Rowlett's approach to Joshua/King Josiah is unnecessarily negative. Yes, an ideology of 'otherness' permeates the book of Joshua, but it seems to me that her assertion that the book utilizes a rhetoric of violence to keep King Josiah's people in check goes beyond what the data provides. The small kingdom of Judah does not strike one as an oppressive imperial system, especially given Israel's reputation for being "always in the shadow of the empire."(8)

Jerome Creach offers a different approach to Joshua:

Josiah sponsored the writing of the first draft of the history in order to support his religious and political reforms that focused mainly on purifying worship and limiting the cult to the Jerusalem temple. The story came into its final form while Israel was in exile in Babylon. In other words, the story of Israel's sweeping conquest of Canaan was told by people who themselves had no land and who were powerless before the great empires of their day.(9)

While Creach is more confident about the book's composition than I think is warranted, his more positive view of the book's purpose is valid. Throughout Israel's history, surrounding empires posed as threats to their existence. Israel was always a vulnerable people, even in their periods of autonomy. This small people, as Gottwald says, "had achieved something by combining forces under the aegis of their empowering deity."(10) Thus, devotion to Yahweh, the sovereign ruler of all of creation, was absolutely necessary in order for them to compete with the surrounding empires.(11) This could provide a viable reason for the texts associated with King Josiah's reign.

However, Rowlett is also negative about the theology of the book of Joshua, claiming that it has more to do with divine sanction of King Josiah than it does King Josiah's devotion to Yahweh. She says,

in the text of Joshua, the sovereign is really Yahweh. Therefore, Joshua, King Josiah's stand-in, can appear to be motivated only by loyalty and obedience to the deity, rather than by an attempt to assert his own power. This is one of the rhetorical devices employed to mystify the inequities of the social order and to advance the power of the monarchy. The rhetoric depends upon the evocation of sentiment by employing a kind of false modesty: Yahweh is really in charge. Joshua (and by extension Josiah) poses merely as Yahweh's humble servant, acting as his proxy. However, since Joshua is functioning as the deity's proxy, Joshua happens to be the most powerful of all human beings since he and only he has been chosen by Yahweh . . . as an instrument of the deity's sovereignty. Furthermore . . . the discourse of and within the text is politically self-serving and not quite as selflessly pious as it appears on the surface. The things that Joshua and King Josiah do in apparently humble servitude for Yahweh, the sovereign, happen to enhance their own power and sovereignty immeasurably.(12)

While this reading is plausible, it is not the necessary conclusion that it is presented as. It could just as well be said that the book of Joshua is an anti-imperial script designed to inspire devotion to Yahweh in order to stand up against the powers of the empire. Their 'rhetoric of violence' could have been "part of the struggle to build and defend a [subversive] communitarian society" in the midst of a world of empires.(13)

Overall, Rowlett brings some very interesting claims to the table. While I think some of her conclusions are examples of the tendency in modern biblical scholarship to choose the more negative conclusion under the mistaken impression that the negative conclusion is always right, I do think she has a lot to offer, and her claims should be weighed and measured with further study. I definitely recommend Rowlett's book to the serious student of the Hebrew Bible.

Notes:
(1) Rowlett, 44.
(2) Ibid., 183.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Walter Brueggemann, Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua (Eugene: Cascade Book, 2009), 15.
(5) Ibid., 20.
(6) Ibid., 24.
(7) K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1990), 255.
(8) See Walter Brueggemann, "Always in the Shadow of the Empire," in The Church as Counterculture, eds. Michael L. Budde and Robert W. Brimlow (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000), 39-58.
(9) Jerome F.D. Creach, Violence in Scripture, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 113.
(10) Norman Gottwald, "The Biblical Prophetic Critique of Political Economy: Its Ground and Import," in The Hebrew Bible in its Social World and in Ours (Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 1993), 358.
(11) Creach, 113-114.
(12) Rowlett, 174-175.
(13) Gottwald, 358.

Purchase Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God & Canaanite Genocide"

Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Edited by Stanley Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. pp.7-218. ISBN 978-0-310-24568-1. ★★★☆☆

Stanley Gundry's Counterpoints in Bible & Theology series offers a lot of helpful introductions to various biblical and theological issues. Usually, the Counterpoints books are well-rounded and consist of multiple viewpoints. Given the series' reputation for providing several different viewpoints, I was disappointed and a little confused by this collection of arguments, which would be more properly titled "Two Views on God and Canaanite Genocide." There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the approaches of Eugene Merrill, Daniel Gard, and Tremper Longman. All three are conservative scholars and, despite the curious [misleading] titles of their views (moderate discontinuity, eschatalogical continuity, and spiritual continuity), they all basically have the same understanding of how to interpret the violent material in the Bible; that is, all three affirm the infallibility (and probably also the inerrancy) of Scripture, that God did exactly as the text suggests, and that all of the violent actions attributed to him are moral and just. So then, the book consists of one liberal view (that of C.S. Cowles) against three equally conservative views. This is very odd, since there are clearly many more approaches than just these two. Roger Olson highlights nine in his article "Every Known Theistic Approach to Old Testament 'Texts of Terror'" (although, I think his use of 'every' is an overstatement).(1) One wonders if this set-up was purposeful, that Gundry wanted three conservative views against one liberal view to discourage readers from adopting the liberal view.

Since three of the views in this book are so similar, the conservative scholars' responses to each other consist of an unnecessary overview of the argument they're responding to, a pat on the back, and a struggle to find things with which to disagree. For example, in Gard's response to Merrill, one of his few critiques is that Merrill takes the 1000 years referred to Revelation literally, a point of difference which has nothing to do with God and Canaanite genocide. For this reason, one could just read Cowles' responses to the conservative approaches and skip the others.

What is also unfortunate about this book is that I doubt it will help much in the divide between Christians on this issue. The reason I say this is because the most crucial aspects of this issue were not given ample focus. I think the problem of divine violence in the Bible centers around two things: the authority of Scripture and how to interpret Revelation. Obviously, there are more factors at play, but I do think these two carry the most weight.

Most Christians will say that the Bible's violent depictions of God are at least troubling. The problem is, most Christians regard all of Scripture as infallible and as God's self-revelation. So when the Bible says God did something, there is no question, he definitely did it. Thus, it is first and foremast an issue of the authority of Scripture and how we are to read/interpret Scripture. The fact that all three conservative scholars mentioned the authority of Scripture in response to Cowles supports this understanding.

Also at the center of this issue is how we interpret Revelation. A central argument for those like Cowles who say that the violent depictions of God in the Old Testament do not reflect what he actually did or his actual nature, is that Jesus in his life and teaching presents a very different portrait of God, one who loves enemies, rejects using violence and reprimands those who use violence. At the end of the day, the only major element that complicates this understanding of Jesus is the book of Revelation, which seems to depict Jesus as the same kind of violent warrior that Yahweh is depicted as in the OT. This argument is used by all three conservative scholars in their responses to Cowles.

One can only really discuss divine violence in the Bible if one deals with how to interpret the disturbing parts of the Bible while maintaining its divine inspiration, and also by explaining how the depictions of Jesus in Revelation don't imply that he is a violent warrior. While I agreed wholeheartedly with most of what Cowles had to say, he unfortunately did not dedicate much time to addressing these core issues. He didn't discuss the authority of Scripture at all, and he limited his discussion of Revelation to a single quote from a scholar of Revelation in a footnote not even in his main contribution but in one of his responses to the others. Quite inadequate.

Overall, while I have highlighted the deficiencies of this collection of arguments, the book isn't altogether inadequate. It can still serve as a good introduction to the war material in the Bible and how we Christians should respond to it. That being said, I don't think it properly served its purpose, and I hope that a more comprehensive book that similarly focuses on the dialogue of opposing views will be put together in the future. If it does, hopefully it will represent more than two views, and hopefully it will include a much-needed discussion of the authority of Scripture and of the book of Revelation.

Notes:
(1) Roger Olson,  "Every Known Theistic Approach to Old Testament 'Texts of Terror," Patheos blog, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/07/every-known-theistic-approach-to-old-testament-texts-of-terror/

Purchase "Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide" on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem" by William Lyons

Lyons, William L. A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem: The Contributions of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter C. Craigie, and Tremper Longman, III. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010. pp.i-219. ISBN 978-0-7734-3834-7. ★★★★☆

I should begin this review by stating that Dr. Lyons was a professor of mine at Regent University. I had four classes with him, and he was my favorite professor. Beyond that, he has counseled me on academic papers, as well as on the next steps of my academic career, and we have maintained a friendship since my first semester at Regent, one that continues to strengthen. He even guided my wife and I through marriage counseling and officiated our wedding. Given our relationship, it would be very easy for me to just sit here and pat him on the back with a 5-star review singing his praises. However, if you know me, you know that I can have a close relationship with people while also being openly, even harshly, critical of their views. And I think you'll find that Dr. Lyons--though his teaching was a milestone in my life and was monumental to the development of my thinking, my research and my writing as a student--is no exception to the honest scrutiny and criticism that I put into my analysis.

The purpose of Lyons' book is to provide an overview of the work of three evangelical Old Testament scholars, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter C. Craigie, and Tremper Longman, III on the issue of warfare in the OT, particularly that of herem. Their work, as well as the work of scholarly evangelicals in general, has largely gone overlooked, and so Lyons lends focus to them and their claims, as he himself is an evangelical OT scholar.

He starts the book by outlining the major claims of evangelicals, one of which is the unapologetic belief in the Bible as the infallible word of God. For example, Longman refers to "the fact that the divine Author stands behind all of Scripture" (emphasis mine).(1) Lyons also quotes Mark Noll, who said that for evangelicals, "where the Bible speaks, God speaks."(2) In this, all of Scripture is God's self-revelation, which leads Longman and other evangelicals to see the whole Bible "as a single writing that presents an internally consistent message."(3) I would like to ask him what leads him to think that the Bible has God as its author, since such a claim is not made anywhere in Scripture.

What I find problematic about the divine authorship understanding of Scripture is that by embracing it, a multitude of conclusions are automatically made about the text before dealing with the evidence. For example, when the Bible says that God told Saul, "attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam 15:1-3), before studying, say, the other ancient near eastern cultures that claimed their wars were also divinely commanded, an evangelical will say that God did indeed command such horror, because he/she is already committed to that view of Scripture. The God revealed in Jesus Christ has to be exactly like he is described by the authors of the OT, because the Bible was written by God and offers a single, consistent theology. Thus, conclusions are made before examining the evidence (which probably has something to do with why evangelical scholarship has been overlooked).

Not only is this, to me, flawed investigation, but it also creates problems for the evangelical mind, as evidenced by the fact that Kaiser, Craigie, Longman, and Lyons all inadequately address the theological problem of divine violence. They all provide what I consider to be pat answers, as they essentially appeal to either mystery, God's wisdom and righteousness, or the evil of the victims of his violence. But what other response could they provide given their view of Scripture?

I find Longman's approach in particular to be troubling, as he seems to dehumanize the war narratives of the OT. Lyons criticizes him for not addressing the problem of divine violence in his book God is a Warrior (see my review here). Longman addressed this to Lyons by saying that the book was "an exercise in biblical theology, not ethics,"(4) as if God commanding genocide isn't a theological issue! What is troubling to me is that when he was asked by Lyons "Is herem moral?" he responded in the affirmative, because "If it is initiated and directed by God, it is moral. God defines morality."(5) If something is immoral, it shouldn't be moral just because God does it (I think of Nixon's words to David Frost: "If the president does it, it's not illegal"). Such a definition of morality makes morality completely relative, and thus meaningless. If we cannot say that something as terrible as genocide is immoral, then what can we say is immoral? Lyons would probably describe my assessment as a desire for a "kinder, gentle God." Sure, if all it takes to be a kinder, gentler God is to not kill women and children, then, yes, I do believe in a kinder, gentler God!

My favorite of the three scholars Lyons discussed is Peter Craigie, who acknowledged the unholy nature of war in the OT: "Can the ruthless requirement for the extermination of the enemy--men, women, and children--in anyway be regarded as holy? I think that it can not!"(6) Unfortunately, rather than letting this lead to questioning his expectations of Scripture, he settles for a strange dualism between God's activity and God's moral being, that essentially amounts to saying that God did and did not participate in the violence that is ascribed to him.(7) Lyons is right to critique his approach.(8)

With his book, Lyons points out what is being ignored in the OT academic community, that is, the scholarship of evangelicals. His overview is comprehensive and informative, and he includes insightful appendices and footnotes. For the evangelical studying the OT's war material, or for those interested in the overlooked sides of the topic of war in the OT, this is a great resource.

Notes:
(1) William L. Lyons, A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem: The Contributions of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter C. Craigie, and Tremper Longman, III (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010), 128.
(2) Ibid., 13.
(3) Ibid., 134.
(4) Ibid., 158.
(5) Ibid., 154.
(6) Ibid., 107.
(7) Ibid., 117.
(8) See Ibid., 174.

Purchase "A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem" on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "War in the Hebrew Bible" by Susan Niditch

Nidith, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. pp.3-180. ISBN 978-0-19-509840-4. ★★★★★

In War in the Hebrew Bible, Susan Niditch provides an overview of the diversity of ideologies and practices of war in the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, she goes over seven types of Israelite warfare:

the herem (placing under the ban, devoting to total destruction) as God's portion, in which total annihilation of the enemy is practiced as a sacrifice to God; 

the herem as God's justice, in which total annihilation of the enemy is necessary for the preservation of holiness in Israel due to the evil of the enemy; 

the priestly ideology of war in Numbers 31, in which virgin women are spared because they haven't been defiled/marked by the enemy; 

the bardic tradition of war, in which war and warriors are glorified as noble, and a kind of chivalry and respect towards enemies is developed; 

the ideology of tricksterism, in which the weaker community of Israelites use deception to outwit the more powerful enemy; 

the ideology of expediency, used by Israel when they possessed considerable power, is a more brutal war tradition in which violence knows no bounds and emphasis is placed on going to whatever lengths to get the job done; 

and finally, the ideology of nonparticipation is that in which the Israelites do no fighting, but Yahweh is the sole agent warring and bringing victory on behalf of Israel.

With these categories, Niditch offers a helpful schema for studying the Hebrew Bible's war traditions. Although, it might have been better arranged in a somewhat more chronological order, with regard to Israel's history. While I understand the difficulties of developing a timeline for Israel's development, and while the arrangement she has provided flows well ideologically, it might have been more helpful if Niditch provided a progression of thought in Israel's history. For example, she places the ideology of nonparticipation (in which the Israelites sit back and watch as God does all the fighting for them) at the end of her book, even though this war tradition is the kind found in the earliest textual example of war in ancient Israel, that of the victory at the Red Sea in Exodus 15.

While the book's sub-title is "A Study in the Ethics of Violence," it might have been better as, "A Study in the Israelite Ethics of Violence." I would have appreciated more input from Niditich's own approach to the ethics of violence. Hints of it are present in the text, but it mainly consists of Israelite approaches to the ethics of violence--which, of course, is absolutely necessary to the book, but I don't think it should have taken focus away from Niditch's own views.

That being said, this is an essential study for the student of the Hebrew Bible, and definitely the student of the Hebrew Bible's war material. Niditch's analysis offers a very informative and helpful overview of the war traditions of ancient Israel. While an even more thorough analysis would have been even more informative and helpful, what I found with War in the Hebrew Bible is the best overview on the subject I have read so far.

Purchase War in the Hebrew Bible on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "God is a Warrior" by Tremper Longman & Daniel Reid

Longman, III, Tremper and Daniel G. Reid. God is a Warrior. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. pp.7-224. ISBN 978-0-310-49461-3. ★★☆☆☆

In God is a Warrior, Tremper Longman, III and Daniel G. Reid provide an overview of the warrior theology in the Bible, particularly geared toward evangelical Bible students. The first half of the book is dedicated to describing the Old Testament's warrior theology, and the second describes the warrior theology of the New Testament. One has to read between the lines to get at what Longman and Reid are suggesting, but what one finds is a conservative evangelical take on the Bible's depiction of God as a warrior. Essentially, Longman and Reid provide that all of the Old Testament's claims about God's militant nature are echoed in the New Testament: "the Lord of the second covenant is the same as the Lord of the first" (p.188).

The most pervasive problem with the book is its lack of dialogue with opposing or alternative views. This is most likely due to the fact that the purpose of the book is to inform evangelical students about the Bible's depiction of God as a warrior. Even so, one should not teach by telling the learner what to think. In order for students to actually learn, they have to be presented with differing viewpoints.

An alternate view which Longman and Reid could have benefited from entertaining is that of T.R. Hobbs in his book A Time for War. He affirms that the New Testament echoes in a lot of ways the warrior theology of the Old Testament. The main difference is that Hobbs understands the New testament as transforming that theology, instead of simply affirming it: "the key to understanding [Jesus'] ministry, his message and his death and eventual resurrection, is the transformation which popular and traditional concepts undergo in his teachings."(1) To say that the New Testament utilizes a lot of the same warrior language that the Old Testament used is not to say that the NT affirms everything about the OT's warrior theology. As Hobbs suggests, it would be better to see the transformation that the warrior theology undergoes in the NT.

Ironically, Longman and Reid outline quite well the transformation, without acknowledging that it is indeed a transformation. In most of the discussion of the OT warrior God material, Longman and Reid go over the enemies of Israel that become God's enemies. In the OT, God was a warrior against flesh and blood. However, in all of their discussion of the NT warrior God material, God is a warrior against the principalities and powers, against evil, against chaos. I think an essential and radical claim that the NT dares to make is that Yahweh is not a warrior "against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12).

Another essential element that Longman and Reid miss is the new way of doing battle revealed in the NT. In the NT, victory is achieved through self-sacrifice, not coercive force. The Cross reveals the true nature of God's warrior activity, and it is echoed in Revelation, in which, "The Messiah has certainly won a victory, but he has done so by sacrifice . . . [and] the people of the Messiah . . . share in his victory, but do so similarly, by sacrificial death rather than by military violence."(2)

As an overview of the Bible's warrior theology, Longman and Reid's book is informative, but no more-so than other books on the subject. Furthermore, their lack of dialogue with opposing views, and their argument's (perhaps consequent) lack of nuance makes this book second-rate.

Notes:
(1) T.R. Hobbs, A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 230.
(2) Richard Bauckham, "The Victory of the Lamb and His Followers," in The Theology of the Book of Revelation, ed. James D.G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 74, 77.

Purchase God is a Warrior on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "Ain't Gonna Study War No More" by Albert Curry Winn

Pablo Picasso, "Man with a Lamb."
(Featured on the cover of the book,
which unfortunately could not be found)

Winn, Albert Curry. Ain't Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition of War. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. pp.ix-236. ISBN 978-0-664-25207-9. ★★★★☆

In Ain't Gonna Study War No More, Albert Curry Winn lays out the ambiguity of Scripture's teaching on war and peace to come to terms with how Christians should practically apply that teaching. Winn highlights the ambiguity by constructing an overview of war in the Bible, as well as peace in the Bible. What Winn found was a consistent affirmation throughout Scripture that God is no stranger to the use of war, and that it has often been a part of his will. However, Winn also found a consistent affirmation throughout Scripture that peace is ultimately God's way and is the grand goal that is being sought after.

Winn asks, What do we do with this ambiguity? Supremely informed by John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, Winn suggests that we emulate Jesus, who chose the prophetic, suffering-servant way of peace over militarism. The disciples, he says, made the same choice. And as Christians, we should make that choice as well. We should choose the "reverse fighting" of laying down our lives instead of violently standing up for our rights.

Winn makes no attempt to resolve the theological problem of the diversity of Scripture's theology of war and the violence attributed to God in many places in Scripture. He simply suggests that the Scriptural witness ultimately calls Christians to choose the way of peace and leave the rest to God.

The weakest of Winn's overviews is the one on the ambiguity of Jesus' teaching on war. The examples he gives of Jesus supporting the use of violence aren't as self-evident as he treats them. Not only does he fail to provide a good explanation for how they imply Jesus' sanction of violence, but he also doesn't dialogue with alternate readings of the passages. For example, he says Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 do not offer pictures of a peaceable kingdom, "but of a kingdom connected in some way with violence" (p.16). The Matthew verse says that the kingdom of God "has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force," which is Jesus' commentary on the persecution of John the Baptist. The Luke verse, referring to the same event, says that "everyone tries to enter [the kingdom] by force." It seems clear to me that these verses say that the kingdom suffers violence as many try to seize it--like what was done to John the Baptist. To take these verses and try to say that the kingdom of God advances by force and violence is to go way beyond the text, especially given the rest of Jesus' ethical teaching on violence.

Ironically, Winn later says that Christians are called to live a life of peace. If they're called to live a life of peace, how can he say that they may be in special cases given divine sanction to use force to expand the kingdom? He describes the kingdom of God as a peaceable kingdom that rejects the use of violence and seeks the abolition of war, but he says here that Christ's kingdom is connected in some way with violence. He contradicts himself on this point.

When Winn revisits Jesus' teaching toward the end of the book, he cites the predictions of the destruction of the temple as examples of Jesus utilizing the so-called holy war tradition and saying that God will use war against his people. However, he does not quote an example of Jesus implying that God will be an active part in the destruction of the temple. That the predictions are reminiscent of the prophetic tradition is not enough to say that Jesus meant that God will be an active warrior as he was depicted in the Old Testament. Winn says that Jesus is ambiguous, having taught both war and peace at different times--but his support for the pro-violence aspect of Jesus' teaching is weak.

While he stresses biblical ambiguity, Winn concludes that peace should be the way of the church and that Christians should seek the abolition of war, a conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree. More could be said about the other topics discussed in the book, as Winn also yields insights on other biblical topics. If you want a good introduction to war and peace in the Bible, as well as the teaching of Yoder and those like him, from a well-versed Old Testament scholar, then this would be a good book to check out.

Purchase "Ain't Gonna Study War No More" on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "God the Economist" by M. Douglas Meeks

Meeks, M. Douglas. God the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. $24.43. pp.xi-272. ISBN 978-0-800623-29-6. ★★★★★

God the Economist is not a book promoting the values of Republicans or Democrats, of Tea Partiers or Socialists, or of Marxists or Libertarians. It is a book that asks the question, "What would Jesus do?" Douglas Meeks seeks to construct an economic ideology based on the model of the Trinity, and he does it better than most of the attempts I have seen. These are the reflections of a Christian dedicated to understanding the kind of economy Jesus wants us to look to as a goal. Whatever your economic ideals, this book will be a challenge.

Norman Gottwald aptly stated in his review of the book that Meeks "reads theology economically and economics theologically." Meeks begins by showing the lack of focus on economics in the church, as well as the reluctance of economists to speak of God. Whether or not the church addresses economics, it has a profound effect on how Christians live their lives, and how churches are run. And whether or not economists acknowledge God-concepts, God-concepts are at work in their economic ideologies. Both groups, says Meeks, will find their ultimate guide in the community of the Triune God, modeled in Jesus Christ.

Meeks provides that an essential move toward Christ-like economics is abandoning the emphasis on scarcity. Rather than focusing on hunger and gain, the economy should be centered around the livelihood of the members of the community (or, to use his word, the 'household'). Livelihood is a God-given human right. As children of God, we have been blessed with the right to experience his righteous abundance. When scarcity takes over, accumulation becomes the goal. Focus is taken off of the household and placed on one's self. Walter Brueggemann laid this out in a presentation on the narrative of accumulation vs. the narrative of abundance: an ideology of scarcity leads to anxiety about not having enough, which leads to self-focused amassment, and then monopoly and oppression.

The book gets pretty technical at times, but never too technical. Much of what Meeks says is quite profound. If you follow me on Facebook or Twitter, you'll know that I've been posting quotes for days. What the book could have used more of are ideas for practical application. Meeks provides a great framework with which to pursue practical application, but he himself does not offer a whole lot in that arena. This isn't necessarily a flaw, though, as it seems hard to imagine his ideas not inspiring creative action.

The need today for a book like God the Economist cannot be overstated, as the church continues to lose sight of Christ's model for money management, our nation is experiencing greater and greater wealth inequality, and our middle class is growing weak in the face of an ever-amassing few who exploit workers, accumulate wealth and power, and gain more and more sway in the government of our society. We are in desperate need of Jesus' model of other-focused generosity, rooted in the abundance of God. I encourage all who care about the economy, Christian or not, to read this book. And even more, I implore Christians to read it, as it contributes significant insights to how the church can and should approach society in the future.

Purchase God the Economist on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "The Nature of Love: A Theology" by Thomas Jay Oord

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: A Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010. $22.49. pp.vii-195. ISBN 978-0-827208-28-5. ★★★★★

In his book The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord seeks to construct a theology centered around the defining element of God's nature: love. In his introduction, he highlights the demeaned role love has played in theology, and understands well the reasons for this. For example, he recognizes the difficulty of building a theology of love given the loose definition of the word. In spite of the often undefined nature of love, he provides a well-rounded and helpful definition, the essential element of which is promoting overall well-being.

After his introduction, he has four sections. The first deals with Agape, the second with Eros, and the third with Philia. The three together encapsulate what love is to Oord. Agape, he says, is love in spite of; Eros is love because of; and Philia is love alongside of. In each section, he deals with an interpretation of one of the love forms that he subjects to critical analysis. His discussion of Agape dialogues with Anders Nygren. In the Eros chapter, he deals with Augustine. With Philia, he talks about the theology of Clark Pinnock. The last chapter of the book is dedicated to laying out his "Essential Kenosis" theology of love.

The Agape and Eros chapters are very strong. He exposes the flaws of Nygren's and Augustine's ideas about love. Nygren essentially said that love means self-sacrifice, and that humans do not love, but God is the one loving through us. Augustine said that love is either enjoyment of something for its own sake, or enjoyment of something for the sake of something else. He also believed that God is the only one who should be loved, and that we should love others for the sake of loving God, instead of loving others for their own sakes. While their ideas of love involve much more, this provides a general idea of what Oord was arguing against. And his arguments against these views are quite convincing. He completely dismantles the validity of their claims, and in a cool and collective way. I've seen Oord speak before, and I was struck by his charm and the smoothness of his presentation. This demeanor is present in his book. He describes the views of Nygren and Augustine as 'insufficient' while the reader thinks 'ridiculous'.

The chapter dedicated to Clark Pinnock is not quite as strong as the previous two. As he lays out Pinnock's Open theology, it's almost like he's making a case for it, which is to be expected since his Essential Kenosis theology lines up with Open theology on many issues. But there is one crucial difference: Pinnock said that God sometimes coerces, and Oord believes the God of love never coerces.

The problem with Pinnock's thinking, Oord says, is that God has the ability to prevent evil but doesn't, which is why Pinnock fails to resolve the problem of evil. Included in his discussion of coercion is a discussion of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo--creation out of nothing. Oord says creatio ex nihilo, which Pinnock embraced, implies coercion. He uses this to justify dedicating a section of his book to refuting creatio ex nihilo. However, I don't think it fits well with the rest of the book. He doesn't really explain how exactly creation out of nothing implies coercion, and his alternative understanding of creation is not given the extensive explanation that it warrants. It almost seems like he put it in there so that he could have another thing to critique Pinnock on.

The ideas present in Oord's Essential Kenosis theology that distinguish it from other theologies are fascinating and worth consideration. He says that since God's nature is love, he loves others necessarily. In this, there is no divine self-limitation to provide freedom for creatures; God necessarily provides freedom for creatures because it is his nature as love to do so. I find this concept compelling, and while he can be and probably often has been accused of down-playing the omnipotence of God, I think his theology provides a better approach to the problem of evil than theologies that claim that God can and sometimes does unilaterally intervene to prevent evil, but most of the time thinks human freedom is more important than preventing evil. While I advocate Greg Boyd's warfare worldview, Oord makes significant contributions to the theodicy discussion.

It is difficult to write a review of this book because so much is said in it and I have so many things to respond to. Being concise is something Oord does well; he says a lot in a small amount of space. The Nature of Love is a short book, but it covers a multitude of topics (though, a few of them could use more elaboration). He gives the reader a lot to think about.

Oord has presented a robust and reasonable theology of love, which resolves problems that other theologies bring up, without creating too many of its own. He also provides a good platform for dialogue between Open theists and Process theists. His book is very thought-provoking and it brings to the table ideas that need to be given significant attention in addressing God's nature as love.

Purchase "The Nature of Love: A Theology" on Amazon (here)

Book Review: Divine Presence Amid Violence by Walter Brueggemann

Brueggemann, Walter. Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009. $8.37. pp.ix-82. ISBN 978-1-60608-089-4. ★★★★☆

In Divine Presence Amid Violence, Walter Brueggemann tackles the question, "How could the God of the Bible mandate violence?" by talking about the nature of biblical revelation and using Joshua 11 as a case study.

Informed by Norman Gottwald's Marxist-like understanding of Israelite sociology, Brueggemann says that the city-states in Joshua 11 were "monopolies of socioeconomic, political power that [were] managed in hierarchal and oppressive ways" (15) and were propped up chiefly by their military power, their horses and chariots (Josh. 11:4), which "symbolize and embody oppression . . . [and] serve only to maintain the status quo in which some dominate others." So, he says, "Yahweh authorizes their destruction" since he is "the sworn enemy of such modes of power" (33).

Reading the book, this "contextualization" seems a little too easy. However, I think Brueggemann makes a pretty good case for this understanding of such cases of divinely sanctioned violence. That being said, I doubt it can be maintained throughout the Old Testament, for every instance of so-called 'holy war'. It also begs the question, Is violence justified if it disarms the powers of oppression? Or, better, Would Jesus condone violence if it disarmed the powers of oppression? For many, this is a simple question; but I think if we're honest enough, it isn't so easy. Brueggemann seems to think violence would be justified in such cases, as Yahweh's mandate was an "authorization for a liberating movement--which [was] sure to be violent, but only violent against weapons" (23, emphasis mine).

The question of divine violence is not the only one addressed in this little book; he also deals with the question of revelation, a topic about which he has a lot of insight. He says, "the canonical literature does not offer a settled, coherent account of reality; rather it provides the materials for ongoing disputatious interpretation" (10). The Israelites were also engaged in such disputatious interpretation, which Brueggemann says they did through memory (particularly that of the Exodus), a yearning for justice, and established leadership (27).

With this, he suggests that revelation in passages like Joshua 11 "is not self-disclosure of God," but a communal interpretation of events based on memory, yearning and leadership (35-39). Memory, because they learned from the Exodus that Yahweh is the enemy of oppressive powers; yearning, because Yahweh is the God of the liberation and justice that they so earnestly desire; and leadership, because of the chosen mediators of the presence of Yahweh, particularly Moses (see Josh. 11:12, 15, 20 and 23).

The question then becomes, Do we accept their interpretation of God's character? This is a question Brueggemann leaves open. He is not uncritical of Israel's theology, but he does provide a contextualized framework through which Joshua 11 can be studied that can make their theology seem less primitive. That this framework can be applied to all the holy war texts, as well as the other texts in which Yahweh sanctions violence, is what I doubt.

Overall, this is well worth the read. I recommend reading it before buying it to see if you want to keep it around; it's very short and can easily be read in one sitting. In fact, if one were to put it on normal-size paper, without the extra spacing between lines, it would be a long article rather than a book. I wish Brueggemann would have dedicated a more extensive work to this topic. He has the resources, and clearly doesn't mind writing (seriously, how does he write so many books?). It would have been beneficial if he had tackled several texts, instead of just the one. Nevertheless, it's a good read, and if Joshua 11 bothers you (and it should), Brueggemann can definitely help.

Purchase Divine Presence amid Violence on Amazon (here)

Book Review: Texts of Terror by Phyllis Trible

Trible, Phyllis. A Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1984. $13.60. pp.ix-128. ISBN 0-8006-1537-9. ★★★★★

I bought a used copy of Texts of Terror and found that, despite describing the condition as "Used - Very Good," the previous owner took a paper clip or something and carved on the cover under the title: "Very bias Account." I guess he didn't like it (maybe it wasn't a 'he'...maybe). I thought, to be fair, it does say "Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives." The author introduces her bent right in the title, so why was he so surprised that he carved a warning on the cover before selling it?

After reading the book, I think the previous owner had to have much more of a bias than Trible does. In fact, I found it funny that Walter Brueggemann in his forward for the book said things like, "[Trible's] presentation is free of every theoretical encumbrance." (p.ix) Indeed, while her four chapters wrestle with sagas that are particularly troublesome for feminists (Hagar, Gen. 16:1-16, 21:9-21; Tamar, 2 Sam. 13:1-22; an unnamed concubine, Judg. 19:1-30; and the daughter of Jephthah, Judg. 11:29-40), she is very fair in her assessments of them, and does not impose some kind of agenda onto the texts.

In fact, Trible's treatment of the texts is where the quality of her work lies. We have here an example of rhetorical criticism in its purest form. Her attention to detail in analyzing the narratives often produced wonderful insights, so that no page was left insipid. For example, Judges 19:30--at the end of story about the unnamed concubine being captured, betrayed, raped, tortured, murdered, dismembered and scattered--says, "And all who saw it said, 'Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day.'" Trible observed that the "verbal forms and the object [of the verse] are all feminine gender,"which , she says, "highlight[s] the woman who is the victim of terror." (p.81) Just about every page includes interesting observations like this.

Trible's studies revealed a grand poetry of the biblical prose, a mark that must have influenced her own writing, as Texts of Terror is extremely well-written. When talking about the statement the editor of Judges made after the story of the unnamed concubine--"in those days there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes"--Trible made a clever observation considering the Davidic monarchy: "David pollutes Bathsheba; Amnon rapes Tamar; and Absalom violates the concubines of his father. In those days there was a king in Israel, and royalty did the right in its own eyes." (p.84) The book is full of such clever word-play.

Her analysis of the sagas themselves is equally commendable. So many of the biblical narratives are written so that a lot happens in just a few verses. Trible slows it down. Each story as presented in her book is read with eagerness, as it moves along with a building intensity. She is a fantastic story-teller.

Going into her work, I was expecting an attempt to resolve the theological issues raised by the narratives she covers. Why did Yahweh tell Hagar to return to Abram and Sarai? Why didn't Yahweh intervene to tell Jephthah not to sacrifice his daughter like he did with Abraham and Isaac? However, theological issues are not the focus here. Trible's focus was to single out women in the Bible who suffered terrible defeats, and who have so often been unheard and overlooked in biblical study. She focused on giving a voice to the voiceless, in order for the reader to do the same. This, she accomplished, and she did it well.

Purchase Texts of Terror on Amazon (here)