What God Cannot Do

There's an old saying, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."(1) This statement follows the train of thought provided by those like C.S. Lewis who claim that our sense of morality points to the existence of a moral God. Without such a God determining what is moral, we can have no moral compass and so "everything is permitted."

Slavoj Žižek, on the other hand, turns this around. He says, "It is precisely if there is a God that everything is permitted."(2) He says this because the concept of God gives people something beyond themselves to appeal to in order to justify their actions. As "the instruments of God's will," they "practice a perverted version of what Kierkegaard called the religious suspension of the ethical: on a mission from God, one is allowed to kill thousands of innocents."(3) He explains,

The vast majority of people are spontaneously moral: torturing or killing another human being is deeply traumatic for them. So, in order to make them do it, a larger "sacred" Cause is needed, one which makes petty individual concerns about killing seem trivial . . . : without it, we would have to feel all the burden of what we did, with no Absolute upon whom to off-load our ultimate responsibility.(4)

We all know this happens. The crusades, the inquisitions, executions of heretics, the list goes on. And is it not the rationale for justifying the darker sides of Calvinism? "Yes, it sounds horrible to us that God would create billions of people just to damn them to hell for ever and ever; yes, it sounds horrible to us that God would raise up Hitler and Stalin to torture and kill thousands, or to bring about 9/11--but it's what the Bible says and we just have to trust God. Who are we to question him?"

This rationale is also used when evangelical Christians talk about the violent actions attributed to God in the Bible. When asked if it was moral for the ancient Israelites to enact genocide, Tremper Longman said, "Yes, by definition it was moral. I may struggle with it, but God defines morality--what is right and what is wrong. If it is initiated by God, it is moral. God defines morality."(5)

Along the same lines, Daniel Heimbach says, "because God defines morality for us and not the other way around, it must therefore be that God acting as a bloodthirsty warrior is sometimes morally justified; and it must also be that at those times fighting on God's side on crusade terms, allowing no surrender, showing no mercy and sparing no one, is also entirely justified."(6)

I cannot overstate how dangerous this thinking is. Not only has it been used throughout history to justify atrocities, but it can and will be used again.

If God is our standard for morality, then it must be an actual standard. If killing a child is morally wrong, it shouldn't be morally right just because God does it. Relativising morality in such a way not only makes morality meaningless, but the answer to the question "What is moral?" becomes up for grabs. Suddenly, whether or not killing children is moral becomes a matter of interpretation. Suddenly, everything is permitted. If Christians really want to claim God as a moral standard, it has to be consistent.

Rather than saying "God determines morality so even if he does something evil, it is good because he does it," we should say, God cannot do anything evil, but only does what is good. There is a standard of morality that God cannot violate, precisely because it is in God's nature to be good, and God cannot be something God is not. Goodness is necessarily part of God so that God's actions cannot contradict it. Thus, if an action is evil, it is evil for God as well and God cannot do it.(7)

Is everything permitted if God exists? No, not if the God we serve cannot possibly initiate atrocities.

How do we avoid the moral relativism often associated with theism? Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the moral standard, and even more, Jesus reveals to us who God is, so that if Jesus wouldn't do it, neither would God. Christian theology should start and end with the question, "What kind of God does Jesus reveal?"

Would Jesus command people to kill men, women and children? Would Jesus create millions of people just to damn them to hell forever and ever? Would Jesus cause Hitler and Stalin to do what they did? Would Jesus bring about 9/11?

Many verses could be cited in response to these questions, but I will just leave you with this simple one: "it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that any of these little ones should perish" (Matt 18:14).

Notes:
(1) According to Žižek, the statement "is usually traced back to The Brothers Karamazov, [but] Dostoyevsky never in fact made it (the first to attribute it to him was Sartre in Being and Nothingness)." Slavoj Žižek and Boris Gunjević, God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2012), 43.
(2) This quote is from the film The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012), directed by Sophie Fiennes. He makes a similar statement in God in Pain, 46.
(3) Žižek and Gunjević, 44-45.
(4) Ibid., 45.

(5) Tremper Longman, III, quoted in William L. Lyons, A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010), 153-154.

(6) Daniel R. Heimbach, "Crusade in the Old Testament and Today," in Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem, eds. Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 190.
(7) For more along these lines, see Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010), particularly chapter 5.

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: "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: 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: "Yahweh is a Warrior" by Millard Lind

Lind, Millard C. Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1980. $14.91. pp.11-232. ISBN 978-0-8361-1233-7. ★★★★☆

When I talked to a professor of mine about this book, he emphasized the fact that Millard Lind is a Mennonite and so, a pacifist. As a pacifist, he would only look at the warfare theology in the Old Testament in one specific light. While this might be true, it doesn't shine through completely in Lind's book. For the most part, Yahweh is a Warrior is an academic overview  and does not attempt outright to address the theological problem that the Ancient Israel's war material poses (except maybe in a comment here and there). Here, I will try to outline his overall treatment of the subject, and with that will provide what I think he might be suggesting as far as the theological problem is concerned.

First, Lind contends that the pre-Mosaic period as put forth in Genesis shows that early Israel was pacifistic (see chapter 2). I won't go into the specifics of his argument, but he basically provides that the violent historical events of this period are seen as wicked. Yahweh is not an agent of war or violence here. The exodus marks the drastic change in Israelite theology, where Yahweh becomes warrior and king; it "provides the fundamental paradigm of holy war in the Old Testament" (p.47). Furthermore, he shows throughout the rest of the book that the holy war narratives in the historical books (and probably the rest of Old Testament--he only covered the historical books) refer back to the exodus. The theology of holy war, then, was a theology inspired mainly by the exodus.

That being said, this was not without gradual changes. As Israel went along, more and more emphasis was placed on the human involvement in war; whereas, in the exodus, Yahweh was the sole agent. This shift in thinking comes to a particular fruition in the monarchical period:

The rebellion of Israel in demanding kingship was not that the people wished to take the next logical step in the chain of social development, but rather that the people wished to change their theo-political system of government for one that was 'like all the nations' . . . , towards autonomy from Yahweh. (p.127)

With this, human involvement in war started to overcome the theology of Yahweh as the lone agent of victory in battle:

In the old tradition a military crisis was responded to by a voluntary militia which depended for victory upon the intervention of the divine. Miracle was now [in 2 Samuel] replaced by professional army. The pathetic attempt to preserve the form of the ancient tradition only highlights the fact that this form was emptied of its real content--faith in the decisive act of Yahweh--and replaced by faith in the professional army. The shift is further emphasized by the fact that Yahweh is not mentioned once in the narrative. (p.118)

As an aside, his use of the word 'pathetic' is probably telling of his pacifism; he obviously doesn't approve. This can also be seen in a statement he makes early on: "If one truly believes in the promise of grace that God will give the land, then one has no need to take the way of works by fighting for it" (p.38). To use the word 'pathetic' is to not understand the way ancient Israel operated as a community. While he no doubt did understand this (and better than I do), we see here the pacifist talking and not the biblical scholar. While I agree with his general sentiment, I wouldn't say the attempt was pathetic. The nature of and the nuance present within Israel's cultural development does not support such a claim.

So, then, one could gather from Lind's treatment that Yahweh liberated Israel from Egypt by force, and from this, Israel developed a theology of warfare, in which Yahweh was always on their side fighting for them, looking out for their interests at the cost of the interests of others. Over time, maybe Israel became a little more honest with themselves, acknowledging that they were the ones waging war. Or maybe their priorities changed; they came to honor warriors above prophets, and armies above Yahweh. Whatever it was, we return to the initial pacifism that defined the pre-Mosaic period when we come to Jesus, whom Lind brings up in the very last page, probably to suggest a kind of supersessionism (p.174).

Lind's approach carries with it a few problems. 1) He relies too much on the historicity of many of the narratives he covers, including the exodus. 2) He relies too much on the documentary hypothesis, which, as far as I have come to see, is more ambiguous than he treats it. 3) He is too confident about the dates of events. His whole treatment of the warfare material basically relies on the timeline he has constructed, one that may or may not actually be accurate. 4) He does not address the question of Yahweh's actual involvement in the war stories of Israel. He doesn't seem to object to Yahweh's involvement in the exodus, and certain comments of his suggest that he does not accept Yahweh's participation in other war stories, like the conquest; but why not? If they are as historical as he treats them, why shouldn't we accept Israel's testimony?

Overall, I would not recommend Lind's book for someone casually interested in the topic of war in the Old Testament. Not that it isn't good, but it is very dense and quite technical. However, for the serious student of this material, do not overlook it. It offers a lot, not just for the study of Israel's warfare theology, but for several areas of Old Testament study.

Purchase Yahweh is a Warrior on Amazon (here)

Book Review: Disturbing Divine Behavior by Eric Seibert

Seibert, Eric A. Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.
pp. xii + 347. $22.00. ISBN 978-0-8006-6344-5. ★★☆☆☆

I have recently started picking up every book that I can find about divine violence in the Old Testament (a probable Master's thesis). The first, thanks to my friend Matt for lending it to me, was Eric Seibert's Disturbing Divine Behavior.

Seibert does a good job explaining the importance of thinking rightly about God (or, at least, not thinking horribly about God), citing examples of people using violent depictions of God to justify their own violent purposes. He also provides a strong case that the ways of looking at disturbing divine behavior in the OT proposed in the past are inadequate and we are in need of a new perspective.

That being said, his suggestion does not provide us with anything better. He essentially makes the case that the narratives of divine violence in the OT are not actual historical accounts, and that Israel was operating under a flawed theological worldview; furthermore, Jesus shows us who God is, and that in many ways the way Israel thought of God is simply wrong and should be rejected.

I sympathize with this view to an extent. I understand the OT as consisted of the people of Israel trying to find out who God is, formulating different theologies as they go along. To the Jewish people, Yahweh is, in many ways, a mystery; and Jesus, for Christians, solves that mystery. So while I sympathize with this aspect of his argument, Seibert's perspective has problems.

For one, he spends too much time on the historical problem. The majority of his argument is spent defending a negative view of the "historical" narratives in the OT. This fails to address Walter Brueggemann’s focus, which is undeterred by historical criticism and deals mainly with Israel’s testimony about Yahweh.(1) Or as Peter Craigie says, "although the historical reality of the wars of conquest may perhaps be removed . . ., the theological ideal remains."(2) Saying it didn’t happen does not even begin to solve the problem.

I suspect he spent so much time with the historical question because of his audience, which clearly consists of undergrads and lay people; the way he writes, and the fact that most of the book consists of introductions to concepts, attests to this. He could imagine how difficult it would be for any normal, Bible-believing Christian to face his view of OT history. If this is a true assessment of his purpose, it is hard to imagine his attempt to be successful. In many places, Seibert is far too bluntly negative to inspire Evangelical Christians. Throughout the book, he says things that most church-goers would be shocked to hear. Peter Enns, in Inspiration and Incarnation, did a good job meeting Evangelicals at their level, and gently leading them to his understanding.(3) The same cannot be said of Seibert.

This leads me to the next problem with Seibert's perspective: his view is too minimalist to be adopted by even a good portion of Christians today. Does he really expect a lot of Christians to go along with a view that outright rejects most OT portrayals of God? They would be forced to discard views espoused in the majority of their canon. Seibert's perspective rides too close to Marcionism for it to be widely accepted in churches.

Another problem with Seibert's view is that it cannot provide anything for Jewish people. I can’t imagine a Jew being okay with any of the points Seibert makes, and I find it odd that an OT scholar like Seibert displays such a lack of regard for Jewish sentiments, as he demeans the ancient Jewish testimony about Yahweh, and is definitely guilty of supersessionism.

My final problem with Seibert's book is technical, rather than ideological. I can't tell if Seibert was, for lack of a better phrase, dumbing down his language, or if he just isn't a very good writer. I don't think I've read a book in which someone repeats phrases as many times as Seibert does. Also, he often included unnecessary asides to remind the reader of something that was not in need of reminding. For example, in a small section on the incarnation, he repeated again and again that Jesus was God incarnate, God in human flesh. At one point, I sarcastically asked my wife, to whom I was reading the book, "Hey, do you think he believes that Jesus is God incarnate? I can't tell." I often felt like this. (Also, he must have had a horrible editor; the book has errors on practically every other page.)

Despite its flaws, Seibert’s book does have many strengths: his recognition of the importance of facing violent passages instead of ignoring them, as well as the importance of addressing this problem appropriately, in a way that inspires good moral behavior and a consistent theology. Also, the fact that he faces the barbaric nature of many passages in the OT, rather than pretending that they’re not as bad as they are. He also assesses well the inadequacy of several other perspectives on this issue, and is refreshingly open to the findings of OT historical criticism (although, he may be going too far). Finally, I respect the amount of weight he puts on the need for a Christocentric hermeneutic. Disturbing Divine Behavior does not provide a bad assessment of divine violence, but it does provide another inadequate explanation. While this isn’t the most well-constructed argument, nor is it the most well-written book, it certainly offers a lot of good insight on this issue, and provides an angle that, at least, needs to be on the table.

Notes:
(1) See Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997)
(2) Peter Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), 50.
(3) Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

Purchase Disturbing Divine Behavior on Amazon (here)