The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence

by Matthew Curtis Fleischer

“Do not leave alive anything that breathes.” – God

The violence in the Old Testament is one of the biggest obstacles facing Christianity today.

Believers regularly identify it as one of the most confounding and challenging aspects of the entire Bible.

Unbelievers often cite it as one reason why they don’t believe.

A few prominent atheists even use it to publicly demean God’s character. Richard Dawkins claims the God of the Old Testament is “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

In The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, Fleischer cuts through the rhetoric and popular misperceptions to provide a compelling, scripturally based, and highly readable case for a good, just, and loving God, one who is not only not bloodthirsty but who actually hates violence.

If you have ever struggled to understand or appreciate what God was doing in the Old Testament, you will love this book. You might even discover a deity who is more beautiful than you have ever imagined.

“In the first six pages of his new book, Matthew Curtis Fleischer describes the problem of divine violence in the Old Testament as well as anyone ever has. In the following 200-plus pages, he offers Christians committed to biblical authority an intelligent and humane way of interpreting those passages, leading humanity from violence to nonviolence in the way of Jesus. Fleischer is an attorney, and he makes his case with clarity that would win over any unbiased jury.” - Brian D. McLaren, author of The Great Spiritual Migration

Genres: Christianity, Theology, Old Testament, Religion

255 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 17, 2018

Reviews

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

1.5 stars. Rounded up for effort. Fair research, poor organization, elementary writing, poor editing.

The author really needed a strong editor with knowledge of religious textual norms to help him out. For just a few examples...
- Referring to God exclusively as "he" is utterly unacceptable in 2018.
- Instead of saying "Old Testament" (which he regularly and unprofessionally shortened to OT), the more appropriate names are Hebrew Bible or Jewish Scriptures.
- Referring to theologians/academics as "professors" puts you in the posture of a student, immediately reducing your own credibility.

But also, the content was extremely lacking and, at times, problematic.
- Despite leaning *HEAVILY* on the work of others, very little of it was new or framed in a fresh way, and, troublingly, I cannot recall a single woman, Jewish scholar, or person of color he referenced or quoted. (Also, much of the work quoted is at least a generation of scholarship old. For example, the repeated use of Yoder, without appealing to his critics and theological offspring, is simply ridiculous.)
- The book contains many whiffs of supercessionism that made me REAL nervous. For example, he refers often to the "moral immaturity" and "primitive human hardheartedness" (21) of the peoples whose lives are chronicled in the Hebrew Bible, which forced* God into incremental revelation. Perhaps he is speaking of a chronological, and not a racial, deficiency, but it teeters dangerously toward anti-Jewish sentiment, particularly when you combine it with these other claims:
--- that the humans encountered in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Jews) were "in a violent mud pit of their own making"(92),
--- that "all Scripture is ultimately about Jesus"(172),
--- and this rather appalling statement: "unlike Israel, we [Christians] are to embody God's fully revealed kingdom and perfect ethical ideals"(101).
Where does this leave modern Jews? What ought our posture be to them? This train of thought might lead, somewhat charitably, toward vigorous evangelism, or, uncharitably, toward white supremacy.
- *God "WAS NOT ABLE," the author says, to work nonviolently with the Jewish people. "Herem [war] was not God's idea, but rather... a custom so deeply engrained that God NOT ONLY HAD TO TOLERATE IT, BUT ACTIVELY TO RETAIN IT"(81). This limitation on divine ability is presented without sufficient evidence to support its theological basis. Moreover, a divine choice (rather than inability) is, frankly, a much more persuasive Gospel. That God participates in human violence in solidarity with us is still troubling but much more persuasive than the situation the author presents: That God, being unable to guide those pesky primitive Jews-- or to otherwise intercede nonviolently-- sighs heavily, rolls up God's sleeves, and gets God's unmitigated murder, genocide, and bloodlust on.
- There's a lack of evidence given for several claims. For example, that the Jews (who are repeatedly presented as a monolith) "were essentially pacifistic from the second century until the twentieth"(54). Really? Please, tell me more.


Finally, a critique that goes to editorial *and* content deficiencies, the thesis of the book is laughable in scope and goal. The introduction (erroneously listed as the first chapter) ends with the claim that "I will vindicate God's character."

Hey bro, God doesn't need you to vindicate her character.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any honest reader, Christian or otherwise, will recognize there are challenges within the Bible. For example, even skeptics and persons of other faiths understand Jesus taught a nonviolent ethic (sometimes they understand this better then Christians!). Yet the Old Testament presents a God who often commands, or just commits, violent murder and destruction. How does one square this with the God seen in Jesus, where loving your enemies to the point of dying for them, is the message?

This is the challenge Matthew Fleischer undertakes in this book. His argument covers a lot of ground. Essentially, he argues that God’s creation was intended to be nonviolent. Violence was a human idea. Thus, even within the Old Testament we find God, through the prophets and in other ways, pulling the people towards nonviolence. In other words, nonviolence was not totally new in Jesus but was God’s intention the whole time.

I’m convinced this is true. Fleischer’s book is filled with quotes from other scholars and we’ve read many of the same people, so I am already biased towards his conclusion. This is the sort of book I think I could recommend to the average Christian asking questions about the Old Testament. It is readable and to the point. Further, while Fleischer quotes scholars, he writes pastorally. That is another reason I could see myself recommending this book.

At the same time, there came a point where I realized Fleischer was slipping into the sort of problems I see those who write apologetics falling into. Christian apologetics are arguments that knock down attacks to Christianity and present positive reasons for Christianity. This is all well and good, but apologists often smooth over the rough edges. In an effort to present a good case, they tend to sometimes simplify things. Fleischer falls into this at times by writing as if these arguments totally solve the issue. They are good arguments! But its not like they are full-proof and anyone with half a brain and a modicum of rationality will be convinced. Even with these arguments, I think an honest reader will still be disturbed by aspects of the violence. In this, I’d prefer the style of Christopher Wright’s The God I Don’t Understand. Wright offers arguments, but still admits the problems are not fully solved.

For example, at one point he argues that if the President of the United states freed a tribe of Africans from slavery and returned them to the land they had once lived in, and removed the current residents, we would laud that President. My thought was, no we wouldn’t! Sure, Fleischer sharpens the analogy to say the current residents are committing child sacrifice and other crimes. Even then, I don’t think if a US President or anyone else ordered an invasion and massacred these people, we would celebrate it. Rather, we’d see it as genocide. Add to that, this argument ends up basically saying, “Well, the Canaanites were evil so they deserved it.” That has to sit uncomfortably with any reasonable person. Any people group we want to say is totally evil – whether ancient Canaanites or today – still has innocent children, right?

The apologetic move here is to argue the Canaanites deserved it, God gave them time to move, and God is just. Yet, after spending the first nine or so chapters arguing this, Fleischer shifts to arguing that maybe God didn’t actually do it. This again reveals that apologetic mindset. Throughout the book Fleischer quotes all sorts of writers: Paul Copan, Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, Brian McLaren. The unfamiliar reader will simply assume all these wonderful Christian scholars agree! Yet the reality is, Copan’s solution to Old Testament violence is much different than Boyd’s. The two even spoke at length on their disagreements on the show Unbelievable. Copan’s view seems to undergird Fleischer’s first 2/3 of the book, while Boyd’s is the last 1/3 or so.

I guess my problem here is that while Fleischer’s book is wonderful, the astute reader will notice the dissonance. Does Fleischer believe God used violence, commanded violence, as a sort of means to an end? Or does Fleischer believe ancient Israelites could not help but think God commanded it since that was their understanding of God, but we understand in Jesus that God is nonviolent? Does Fleischer believe that God empowered weaker Israeli armies to defeat and destroy larger Canaanite ones? Or did Israel defeat them and give credit to God, though we know God does not use violence?

I don’t see how both can be true. Fleischer could have written differently, showing that some Christians (like Copan) argue that God commanded violence and empowered Israel to win victories while other Christians (like Boyd) argued God never commands violence. Rather, he just tosses them all out, appearing in the end to side with Boyd. Maybe Fleischer isn’t sure which he believes (I tend to side with Boyd but am not 100% sure). Maybe he thinks there is a midway view? Whichever it is, Fleischer needs to be clearer that different Christians (the ones he quotes) give different answers.

To be fair, Fleischer does note the shift from one argument to a different one between chapters 9 and 10. I just think he should have been clearer that he was presenting two types of arguments which are clearly not the same. Both do provide answers to the problem and the reader can pick one. But in making his case, Fleischer too quickly smooths over the differences.

The problem for me then is, while I think he lays out so much good in this book, what happens when the interested Christian reads Copan, Boyd, etc.? I know when I was in college, I loved Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. At the same time, when I moved on and began reading New Testament scholars, I realized many of the issues Strobel simplified were actually quite complex. I was okay with that, and I don’t think Strobel (or Fleischer) is being deceitful. But when building a case for Christianity, if we round off the rough edges to win an argument today, what do we do tomorrow when those we convinced begin discovering the rough edges that remain?

Overall, as I said, I enjoyed this book. There is a lot of good here. I’ll recommend it, though I will offer the caveats I mentioned above. The best thing I can say is Fleischer’s heart shines through. This may be why he has a few long paragraphs where every sentence starts with the same phrase (ten sentences in a row starting with “It reveals a God who”, or eight sentences in a row starting with “Just as”.). This rhetoric might sound good from the pulpit, or maybe it’s a matter of taste, but I found it distracting.

I’m giving it three stars for the content. I’d love to give it four, as I received a free copy from the author, but I imagine he wants the honesty. If he was more clear on which view of OT violence he actually endorsed (Boyd or Copan), I’d probably move it up to four.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every reader of the Old Testament wrestles with the violence they find there. God in the Old Testament, sanctions wars, even calls for the destruction of women and children and seems merciless and genocidal in his dealing with the Canaanites. In contrast, in the New Testament, Jesus's response to human violence is to die on a cross. Is there any way to reconcile the violent God of the Old Testament with the God of love revealed in Jesus?

The angst over the violence of God in scripture is where Matthew Curtis Fleischer begins The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence. He notes the violence in its pages and the real stumbling block to belief which OT violence is to non-Christians. Fleisher is a reader, a writer, and an attorney.  Here he weighs evidence, and builds a case, asserting that not only are we able to reconcile the OT's violence with the New Testament's non-violence "but also how it supports the NT's case for nonviolence and how the OT itself advocates for nonviolence" (7).

Fleischer builds his case in twelve chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic—the problem of violence in the Old Testament. In chapter 2, he introduces his key to reconciling the two testaments, namely, 'incremental ethical revelation.' That is, the Old Testament represented an advancement of the ethics in ANE culture (e.g.  legal protection for the disadvantaged, criminal penalties more humane, the roots of egalitarianism and women's rights, rules of warfare, etc). Fleischer writes, "Although God's OT laws and actions were imperfect, incomplete, fell short of the created ideals, and left much to be desired by current standards, they constituted a significant ethical improvement at the time" (21). And yet there were moral concessions to where people were at (e.g. Mosaic divorce law). 

In chapter 3, Fleischer fleshes out how Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets, examining Jesus' six antitheses and the ways Jesus' moral law didn't 'transgress OT laws' but 'transcended it (30-31). He develops this further in chapter four, highlighting the ethical movement toward non-violence as fulfillment in the Bible (e.g. God's condemnation of violence, the anti-violence of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus' non-violent commands and the non-violence of the cross). Chapter 5 discusses the nature and purpose of incremental revelation, God establishing his existence and authority and teaching the basics of obedience to his people before moving on to higher moral standards.

Chapters 6 through 9 re-examine what the Old Testament says about Israel as a 'set apart people,' the Canaanite conquest, and God's character as revealed in the Old Testament. The establishment of Isreal as a 'holy nation,' and the punishment of the Canaanites were indeed violent; nevertheless, Fleischer traces the movement toward non-violence in the Bible, and how violence not being an essential aspect of God's revealed character.  Chapter 10 notes that a lot of the violence in the Old Testament is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, not commanded by God but carried out by human hands. Chapter 11 describes the incremental revelation of God's character in scripture (again, culminating in Jesus). Chapter 12 concludes the book, a closing argument for biblical non-violence.

Fleischer training as a lawyer serves him well as he weighs the evidence of scripture and builds his case. I think he makes a strong case for incremental ethical revelation, and as a Christian reader of the Old Testament, I'm inclined to agree with the concept. He calls as his expert witnesses like Bible scholars (e.g. Richard Hays, Christopher Wright, David Lamb, N.T. Wright, etc ), theologians (William Cavanaugh, Jacque Ellul, Jurgen Moltmann), Anabaptist thinkers (John Howard Yoder, Donald Kraybill, Greg Boyd), apologists (especially Paul Copan), as well as popular authors (Preston Sprinkle, Derek Flood, Brian Zahnd).  Fleischer synthesizes their insights into a Christocentric ethic, claiming that Jesus was where the story was moving, and He is the moral of the story.

Certainly, Fleischer notes the movement toward non-violence is already in the Old Testament. However, his Christological focus makes this is really the Biblical Case for Nonviolence. The New Testament ethic has pride of place, and the ethical development in the Old Testament is seen as steps along the way until we get to Jesus. I'm am inclined to agree with Fleischer's reading and focus, though I wish he spent more time exploring the antiviolence of the prophets (particularly their understanding of shalom and the eschaton). The case for nonviolence is really there in the Old Testament.

I also wish his chapter on the Canaanite conquest was more detailed. He says some great stuff here. He mentions some things in passing that mitigate against understanding the conquest as a genocide (e.g.  ANE hyperbole, the nature of the settlement at Jericho, God's judgment in relation to Genesis 15:16, the limited nature of the military campaign, Israel's stalling tactics, and the counter-narrative of Judges showing a more peaceful conquest of the land). I think these are important things to wrestle with when you look at the book of Joshua, but they do not wholly alleviate our modern discomfort with what we find in its pages. As the Canaanite conquest is a central complaint of New Atheists (e.g. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins), and this is the central chapter of this book, I wish he took a more detailed look at it, and the concept of Herem in the Deuteronomistic history.

But then I'm kind of an Old Testament guy, so wanting more engagement with the text, may be my own proclivity. I like a lot that Fleischer is committed to reading the Old Testament as scripture—acknowledging the influence its human writers but also understanding it as a revelation of God. This is a pretty solid look at the issues which I happily recommend. I give this four stars. - ★★★★

Notice of Material Connection: I received a copy of this book from the author in exchange for my honest review

 

[Clayton Keenon · Rating 2 out of 5]

* I was give a free copy of this book by the author in exchange for an honest review. *

I ought to like this book. If you scroll through my "read" books, you'll see that I really like some of the books that this book cites. I've given high ratings to books like Fight by Sprinkle, Skeletons in God's Closet by Butler, and The Politics of Jesus by Yoder. I am in fundamental agreement with the aim of this book. I think the way of Jesus is a way of nonviolence. For that reason, at times, I resonated strongly with this book.

However, these are my main concerns.

First, this book reads like a first year grad student's research paper. Fleischer has clearly read up on the topic, but that comes out in his extensive use of quotes from other people. Rather than expressing his own original thoughts in conversation with those authors, he basically reorganizes all their thoughts. Even if he just expressed the same ideas in his own words it would have been better, but sometimes there were paragraphs where he would quote 5 different sources in a row, without adding his own thoughts. Honestly, I'd just recommend people go read the sources Fleischer quoted, rather than his compilation of quotes from them.

Second, one of his main lines of argument is that God accommodated himself to the culture of the ancient Near East when communicating with Israel, and that he progressively revealed his character and will over the course of his relationship with his people, culminating in Jesus. So far, so good. But, he crosses a significant line when he says that God's Law is therefore "imperfect" because of that. (I feel uncomfortable contradicting Psalm 19 on that one.) But, even more concerning is the overall portrayal of ancient people as morally primitive and inferior, compared to contemporary people (even if we are post-Jesus). I know Paul uses the metaphor of childhood and tutoring to describe the use of the Law before Christ, but I'm not sure that means God could only reveal his will in a morally corrupt form that had to be corrected later by Jesus. I think that the completion of God's revelation in Christ is not a contradiction of his previous revelation in the covenant with Israel. I think Fleischer would have been served better by the metaphor of a play, rather than a classroom. I think the revelation of God's Law was perfect and right for that earlier act of the play, and now that the play has progressed (through the actions of the main protagonist, Jesus) certain new ways of living makes more sense in light of the unfolding story. This explains the changes in certain things God permitted, sanctioned, or commanded in the OT and NT. It wasn't that people were too morally immature to understand the full picture. In other words, I think chapter 5 of this book has some truth to it, but it needs a massive re-write.

Third, what is most concerning is everything after chapter 10. Basically, at that point, it feels like Fleischer had already written all the previous chapters, then read Boyd's Crucifixion of the Warrior God and decided to write two more chapters to incorporate those new ideas. I won’t explainer how he gets to this conclusion, but Fleischer (following Boyd) suggests that God allowed himself to be misrepresented by the author's of Scripture. He says, "Everything indicates that [God] allowed the OT writers to be influenced by the social context that surrounded them and, in doing so, permitted them to (1) believe things about him that weren't true and (2) portray him in ways that weren't accurate." Sorry, Matthew, I can't follow you there. I am fine with progressive revelation and cultural contextualization, but when we say that God's prior revelation contradicts his final revelation in Jesus, I have to draw the line.

Part of the problem is that Fleischer is following a line of common, but, in my opinion, faulty reasoning in his attempt to argue for nonviolence. He moves from arguing that violence belongs to God alone (and therefore, humans are not permitted to use violence, except at his explicit direction) to arguing that God himself is non-violent. I agree with the first line of reasoning, but not the second. I understand the appeal of a non-violent God, but I simply can't make it square with Scripture's portrayal of God either in the OT or NT. I think a more fruitful argument for nonviolence is to start where Paul starts:

"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19).

Violence belongs to God. That is why it doesn’t belong to us. In very limited places (such as the conquest of Canaan), God commands his people to use violence. In the era of the church, Jesus has taken the sword out of our hands. But that doesn't mean it is not in his hands, though. I won't develop that line of thought now.

I think as soon as you attempt to argue for nonviolent ethics on the basis of a nonviolent God, you will find yourself either drastically misreading passages or finding a way to say Scripture is misrepresenting God. I think that is what Fleischer has done here.

If you want to learn about the nonviolent way of Jesus, I'd recommend Preston Sprinkle's Fight as a better place to start.

If you want to learn more about violence in the Old Testament, I'd recommend Joshua Ryan Butler's Skeletons in God's Closet.

[Josh Schubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fleischer lays out the case that God was a civilizing influence on the barbaric Israelites.

He argues that God progressively improved the peoples morality through his instruction and revelation, ultimately leading to the teachings of Jesus.

While he makes some great points I would caution about believing that we have morality figured out today. For example in the US we have barbarism coupled (thankfully) with the peaceful transfer of power.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title is so ambitious, how could I say no to Mr. Fleischer's offer to read his book in exchange for a review? After reading it, I have to say I wish it was available to me four years ago after I read Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster? (2011)

Fleischer refers to Copan's book and follows some of his arguments. In both cases, some of these arguments leave frustrated and unsatisfying. Copan's response to the calls by God to commit war crimes is to note contemporary ancient near eastern (ANE) hyperbole. He also points out the Bible's own writers have enemy lists which include tribes which earlier histories claim of total annihilation of without any attempt at cover-up. In other words, Copan says, the command was inflated, the fulfillment was inflated, and the result was minimal, but none of this was problematic to ANE readers, so why should it be to modern readers? As a conservative evangelical, I found Copan's thesis hopeful, but also threatening to my commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible, before I came to realize not everything biblical is Christian.

Fleischer takes a different tack, but before I present it, I think it helpful to contrast him with another writer on the same topic, John Dominic Crossan and his recent book, How to read the Bible and still be a Christian: Struggling with Divine Violence from Genesis through Revelation. (2015) No longer an evangelical with a commitment to inerrancy, I could read the no-longer-threatening Crossan and learn from him. He proposes in this book the cyclical nature of conservatism and progressivism among the contributors to the Bible. He has no issue seeing the work of editors and redactors and pseudonymous authors proposing divinely inspired theology, Jesus being the pinnacle, and other authors reeling those ideas back in. For example, he notes Paul's letters claiming both the enslaved and the free are one in Christ, but later disputed Pauline letters give instructions on how slaves should obey their masters. In the case of Joshua's invasion, we find God promising to drive out the nations by natural means, but when they get to the promised land, slaughter is commanded.

For Copan, the humanity of the Bible only interferes with its colloquialisms, e.g. when God said kill all the men, women and children, he meant win a battle. For Crossan, the Bible is thoroughly human with true glimpses of the divine but a lot of claims of divine authority for banal ends. Fleischer is somewhere in between.

Fleischer speaks the evangelical Bible speak. He uses the Bible well. He uses the Bible to interpret the Bible. He quotes prolifically from a wide range of preachers, Bible teachers (like Copan), and Bible scholars. He wants us to find and use the common ground of Jesus loved by both the Biblical inerrantist and the Biblical skeptic. The book is written for both of us. Ultimately, we are Christians, not bibliatians. So we need to see the perfection of Jesus as our guide. How did he read the Bible? How did he use the Bible? But Fleischer builds his case from Genesis, before he gets to Jesus. The skeptic may find the initial going hard, but the payoff is worth it. The inerrantist will fully enjoy the the bulk of the book then be challenged towards the end. An author who can challenge both sides of an audience has done a really good job, and Matthew Curtis Fleischer is that author.

I have provided this review without any promises for a good review in exchange for a copy of this book and I recommend it.

[Marty Solomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many great thinkers and scholars that have written about the violence we find in the Hebrew Scriptures (and how it compares to the theology of the New Testament). Thinkers like Boyd and Yoder have made unbelievable strides in helping us understand these things today; these authors (and others!) are quoted throughout the work here done by Fleischer. However, as a teacher of college students, this book is now a great recommend for my students because of its accessibility. The book is thorough without dragging on, academic but readable, and very well-designed in its flow of content. I haven't seen these thoughts so well-packaged.

I have often called the story of conquest in the Tanakh "the most difficult story in the Bible for me" when teaching my students. I will then proceed to lay out my many thoughts regarding that story and how I have come to understand that violence. Fleischer has put those arguments into a well-designed resource that has become a must-read for that portion of my study.

As a Jewish teacher/reader who follows Jesus, one of my favorite chapters was chapter 3, where he talks about properly understanding Jesus's "fulfillment" of Torah; rather than 'accomplishing' the OT law, or having his fulfillment make the Law obsolete, Jesus instead shows us what the Law is meant for when it's taken to its ultimate end. Having said that, I felt frustrated by chapter 9, which seemed to abandon this logic and frequently disregard the Torah as irrelevant to Jesus being our moral standard. I felt this logic was unnecessary to the point of the chapter, inconsistent with chapter 3, and frustrating as a Torah-observant Jesus follower.

Outside of this one exception, the entire book was brilliantly designed synopsis of the issue and I will be recommending it to all of my students who struggle with the idea of violence in the Bible. It is a great introductory read that would give you a fantastic overview of the issue before diving into deeper waters and other authors.

[Matthew Richey · Rating 2 out of 5]

First, I want to affirm the author for seeking to tackle difficult issues and to do so in a way that deals honestly with the text and synthesizes the violence described and seemingly sanctioned in the Old Testament with the seeming repudiation of violence by Jesus in his preaching, teaching, and mission. This is a difficult issue and a tall task and the author did not shy away from it.

Secondly, I'd like to say that, in terms of where we end up on applying these Old Testament texts, I would end up largely (not completely) being in the same camp. I agree with many of his conclusions and you could find me saying many of the same things he says throughout his book. My review does not come from someone who vehemently disagrees with his conclusions; I share many of the same concerns that he does. I also appreciate a point he makes early on that the Old Testament must be read in the context of the Ancient Near East and that we should be comparing what the Bible says to other Ancient Near Eastern documents. So far, so good. To not do this would be a case of gross anachronism. I appreciate anyone who at least tries to avoid this (many try, few, sadly, succeed).

However (you probably could tell that this was coming)...

I do think that this is a well-argued book nor do I agree with some of the assumptions that undergird his argument. Fleisher basically begins his case from the case for incremental revelation (he prefers incremental to progressive - I think I agree). The problem is not the concept, but the way that he exercises the concept. The assumption seems to be that - voilà - we happen to live in the age in which we have figured it out. Those poor ignorant people actually thought violence was good but we know better today. Why didn't God reveal His hatred of violence earlier? He was accommodating these poor ignorant people because they wouldn't have understood that God was powerful if He didn't use violence. In the ancient near east violence meant power so God had to use superior violence to show his superior power. Wow, really? God is so powerful that He has to accommodate himself to people and do things he actually hates so that people will know who he really is (but this actually is who he really isn't). Why did God command things like, "Kill all of the Amalekites?" Well, this is against His real character, but it was necessary to teach the Israelites obedience (?!). The Israelites, Fleisher reminds us, would have viewed God through "rudimentary ethical glasses." Wow. Again, people back then were so primitive. He argues that they wouldn't have been able to have the same ethical questions we have today. In some sense, yes people do ask different questions, but is it really reasonable to argue, as he actually does, that people back then wouldn't have wondered whether killing was wrong? That they wouldn't have seen it as a moral issue? Apparently, this never occurred to anyone until Jesus. By using violence, Fleisher argues, God was employing the tactics of a good teacher and meeting Israel where they were at. They were a violent people living in a violent time so God, who secretly hates violence and is completely nonviolent by nature, uses violence because it'll help people learn, what? Who He is? But wait, again, he is using what he isn't to show who he is. This doesn't make sense.

After this line of argument, he shifts tactics for the last part of the book. Actually, God wasn't violent. He is only portrayed that way by the Old Testament writers who believed God was violent. As a reader, this is confusing because it's a complete shift from what the entire book has been arguing up to this point. Now he says that the Old Testament, though inspired by God, was inspired to say things about God that weren't true. Thankfully, we enlightened 21st-century westerners know better than the ignorant people of the day. We know that the authors were wrong and we know what God really meant. The arrogance (not of the author, but of the progressive assumptions underlying his argument) is almost too much to bear.

Ultimately, this book feels like Fleisher has begun with his belief that God is nonviolent and is throwing all possible arguments at the wall to see if any of them stick. I would also contend that he does not really accomplish what he set out to do. He makes a case, not for the Old Testament's opposition to violence, but for why the New Testament should supersede the Old and why we know better today than they did. In so doing, he ignores the difficult issue of what to do with Hell. Hell is, at least, almost an exclusively New Testament doctrine. If God is nonviolent and we know this because of the New Testament, why does he destroy His enemies? I think you have to at least try and address this issue if you're going to make the argument Fleisher makes.

I don't usually post reviews this harsh and I feel bad posting this one, but I agreed to post an honest review in exchange for a complimentary copy and I feel like I was obligated by my agreement to do so. Again, I want to affirm that, although I think he ultimately mostly failed, the author did try and tackle a difficult issue and tried to do so honestly. I think that the issue requires a lot more nuance that he was able to give it for the purpose of the book.

**Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Barbara Reale · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was fascinated by this book and I believe that anyone interested into delving into the concept of pacifism would be well served by this author. Written in a manner that is easily understandable, I highly recommend Matthew Fleischer's easy to grasp way of connecting with his readers.

[Gregory Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Matthew Curtis Fleischer has a passion for God and God’s will. He is a lover of God and truth. It became evident to me as I read each chapter of his book, The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence.

On the back cover of the book, it is stated, “The violence in the Old Testament is one of the biggest obstacles facing Christianity today.” I sense that assisting to remove this obstacle is the motivation of the author in writing a book that so adequately and thoroughly lays out the case that the Old Testament (OT) does not advocate violence. Instead, the OT is anti-violence.

Fleischer starts the book in Chapter one with a series of questions that I’m sure most of us have thought and probably have even been asked:

"Can we reconcile the violence of the Old Testament with the nonviolence of the New Testament (NT)? Can we honestly and rationally square God’s violent OT actions and commands with Jesus’ nonviolent actions and commands?"

"Who are we to imitate and obey? Are we to ruthlessly and mercilessly slaughter our enemies like the OT God or are we to self-sacrificially love our enemies like Jesus? What is the moral standard today—the OT, the NT, or a bit of both?"

"What is God really like? Is he more like the angry, jealous jihadist God revealed in the OT or the patient, merciful, nonviolent God revealed in Jesus?"

Fleischer answers those questions in the chapters that follow, not as a theologian seeking to prove his beliefs, but as an attorney that lays out his case to a jury. He is good at it; Fleischer is an attorney. Fleischer utilizes extensive research and the Bible to present the case. As the reader, you are that jury and by the end of the book, you have the evidence before you to answer all of the questions presented in the first chapter.

What will you do? I recommend that you read The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, consider the case presented, and assist in removing one of the biggest obstacles facing Christianity in our day.

I don’t read many books twice, but I plan to read this one again.

Disclosure: Matthew Fleischer was kind enough to send me a free copy of his book for the purpose of reviewing it. Thank you, Matthew!

This review was originally posted on my blog, GregoryAJohnson.com.

[Bob Rich · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this is a completely new area of study for me, I find the author drawing on a long and fruitful scholarly tradition exploring the role of violence in the Bible.

The first approach is to take account of the cultures of the time, comparing Israelites’ moral code with those of other nations. This makes sense. Here is one example (p 40) regarding the justification for war. “The basic logic goes like this: To exist as a theocratic nation, Israel needed land. To gain and control land, Israel needed to use violence. Today, however, God calls us to exist as a church, not a theocratic nation. Therefore, because we don’t need to acquire or control land, we don’t need to use (and no longer have an excuse for using) violence... what was once productive is now counterproductive.”

An extended, powerful analysis of nationalism should be read by all politicians, particularly those who misuse the Bible as a justification for repression and conflict. Jesus explicitly challenged and rejected nationalism. We are all “neighbours,” you know, the people we are supposed to love: “Any type of Christian nationalism today is ethical backsliding. It reverses what Jesus accomplished by reintroducing ethnic and political membership criteria... by turning neighbors back into enemies” (p 36).

Another, related line of reasoning is that lessons are progressive. A toddler is forbidden from playing with matches. Later, the child is taught how to use them safely, and then they become a tool. Laws one is given must be appropriate to one’s stage of development, and this goes for moral considerations such as war and violence. “They wouldn’t have even thought of the moral questions we ask today, because they wouldn’t have made sense to them” (p 77).

I won’t give a synopsis of this interesting and challenging book. If you want to understand the reason for the injunctions against violence from Jesus (and the Buddha and other figures at that level of development), you can’t do better than to read it.

[Karlissa J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is definitely not an afternoon read! I spent over a month reading it, and felt I was going through it faster than the content deserved.

Fleischer doesn't just hand us one, bumper-sticker answer concerning the disturbing violence in the Old Testament. Instead, he explores in-depth several layered reasons for this violence. He starts off by establishing the basics: that the Bible is to be read as a continuing narrative, not a collection of disjointed verses.

I won't elaborate on the entire book, but I will say one more thing worth mentioning: chapters 10 and 11 were, for me, hard to stomach at first. I felt rather negatively about them when I began reading. A piece of advice to those who feel the way I did: read through to the ends of the chapters. He actually gives some food for thought that, I've found, makes me more attentive in my Bible reading to what is said about God and whether or not God Himself is making the statement, or the author is making it about Him. As Fleischer points out at the conclusion, you don't need to agree with these two chapters for his argument to stand.

Overall, a very insightful read that's less about defending Christianity and more about what it means to be a representative of Jesus, Jesus' centrality to the Biblical narrative, and God's overall goal for humankind.

[Michael Tulk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't know it was possible to critique the Old Testament but Mr.Fleischer has done easily enough to resolve my woeful ignorance of the subject in hand. It's , I feel sure, aimed at the man (generic) in the street with plenty of evidence to persuade on a matter that, in my experience, has never even been broached successfully. This book has swept into the marketplace not so much as a breath of fresh air as a hurricane.

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I was kindly gifted a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I was writing my responses to the chapters as I went through the book, and as will be clear if you read this review, I reacted rather strongly to parts. So I do want to mention at the outset, I discovered Fleischer rather flips everything on its head in the last two chapters. Most of the book seemed to me an argument for and defense of God's use of violence in the O.T from an evangelical perspective, but then, in the last two chapters he presents a position that I ultimately agree with, which is Jesus' act of sacrificial love is the perfect expression of what the Father is like, meaning we need to question the violent portrayals of YHWH, and not allow them as defining what God is like. This re-frames a lot. But I don't want to re-write the entire review written before I thoroughly read ending. Ironically, my negative reaction to most of the book, was largely because I hold the position the author himself presents in the end. From looking at other reviews, I see it was the reverse, they liked all that went before, but reacted to his last two chapters.

But yeah, in the first chapter, without preamble, he jumped into a honest summary of some of the horrific violence which is attributed to God in the old testament. I think possibly in setting up the challenge, he did perhaps too good of a job at showing just how cringe worthy problem is, for he then tried presented an evangelical apologetic approach in the following chapters, which I just don't think works. So yeah, as we saw in this chapter, we have the unavoidable fact of gratuitous violence which God is said to have commanded and engaged in, much of which seems very troublesome to modern sensibilities (to put it mildly). So now what are we to do with this fact? Ultimately, it comes down to ones pre-commitments and what one presupposes about the bible. If one assumes at the outset that everything biblical authors claimed God said, God actually said, and that everything the text claimed he did, he actually did, then one is forced by this preunderstanding to use ones creativity and imagination to try and defend, to make sense of, to justify and make it all the violence a little more palatable and in some way necessary within that context. These defenses only seem okay to those who hold such a pre-committment. But if one no longer has such pre-commitments (in my case they became impossible), then one looks at the same facts and sees them for what they are--straight up evil, for which there is no justifying, no explaining it away and any attempts to do so are incredibly repulsive. In the book “Dancing Bears” which is about people who were once part of the the USSR who longed for the good old days under tyranny, the author spoke with a lady who just loved Stalin and was a communist through an through. Must of us look at the facts of what Stalin did and see it for what it is, but she insisted this was capitalist smear and propaganda against the late beloved leader, and she pointed out all good things Stalin did, how he made Russia great and if pressed about the more distasteful things, well they were necessary, Stalin was someone who did what he had to do for the good of Russia. But yeah, the way God is portrayed in the O.T makes Stalin look like Mother Teresa in comparison, but because of pre-commitments to a certain understanding of inspiration, like the lady who had to defend Stalin and see him as morally good and just, So many Christians committed to nonviolence and love of their enemy must defend the antithesis of all that is good, just and right. I did this most of my life, but I just can't do it anymore. These chapters presenting this approach helped make this even more exceedingly clear to me.

So yeah, in the next chapter, again very quick to the point, he starts to make his case of an incremental improvement, and to demonstrate what a moral advance the Mosaic code was for the time when it is compared to the legislation of their neighbors. He draws from Paul Copan's “Is God a Moral Monster”. The hope is we can see God stepping in this ancient and barbaric age, helping Israel to take a moral step forward, and this is done by showing how backwards the surrounding nations were. But alas, I've since read Thom Stark's book in response to Copan “Is God a Moral Compromiser?” and he pointed out a troubling amount of times Copan seemed to be acting the dishonest apologist--cherry picking the evidence, making unjustified generalizations, taking other scholars completely out of context to further a point and coming to some outlandish interpretations from extremely improbable translation of Hebrew words, which is all done in order to try and protect God. Because Copan clearly doesn't like the God portrayed in the O.T anymore than I do, but has to try and defend him. One of the things Stark demolished was the common apologetic claim of how the Mosaic law was such an advance compared to the nations around them. His argued his point by supplying numerous areas in the Torah which (from a modern moral perspective) are FAR more retrograde, devaluing of woman and slaves, and harsh and violent and just straight up backwards compared to their contemporaries. Stark's main point is it is a mix bag, the Torah was better in some regards, but absolutely not in others, while their neighbors in comparison to what is found in the Torah were sometimes worse and sometimes exceedingly better. Two examples I recall, I should go back to the book so I don't misrepresent them, but yeah, in the Law of Hammurabi, if a son is disobedient and rebellious, the father is to take the matter before the court, an investigation is to occur to verify if it is true. If it is, then the father is to forgive his son. After being forgiven, if the son continues in his rebellious ways, the father is to take the matter up again, another investigation is to occur, and if it is confirmed, then the father is permitted to disown his son. Compare this to the Torah, if a father decides his son is rebellious, he is to go announce this and they are to stone the boy to death. In Torah, a man could divorce his wife, and the only reason the case law is even mentioned is the irrational terror of what an abomination it would be if a man who divorced his wife married her again. But yeah, no protection for the woman, he sends her away empty handed. The Law of Hammurabi on the other, goes much further to protect the woman, if the main divorces her, if I recall right he must provide for her and give her property. But yeah, all this to say, I no longer can simply see the Mosaic code as a step forward compared to others. I can agree that in some ways, they made some advances, but this was just like the nations around them moved forward morally.
But yeah, I just can no longer embrace much direct revelation, so many of Mosaic laws are remarkably similar to their neighbors, some of them as so much worse than their neighbors, it is all just all to human, I don't want to dishonor God by attributing it to him. If God is anything like Jesus, and He actually was dictating a moral code, he could done soo sooo soo much better. Consider the ethical teachings of Siddhārtha within an ancient violent culture, why couldn't YHWH do a comparable job to that of Buddha. Jesus gave his ethic at a violent time, in the face of the multitudes of prophecies that predicted him a violence Davidic warrior and yet he could say what he did, sure it obvious went over like a load of bricks. but yeah, There were surely some ways in which YWHW could have sounded a tiny bit like Jesus, instead of obsessing on things like cutting off a woman's hand if she grabs another mans balls while trying to protect her husband from an attacker.
One last thing, since my apologetical lenses have been shattered, it now appears there is very little valuing of woman as human beings, but instead simply as property. The concern is the protection of the father's property, not protecting the woman because he is intricately valuable. The review is already to long to defend this point.
I do need to mention however, there are some good seeds here and there, and what the author mentions that is found in the book "Fight" by Preston Sprinkle is worthy of consideration, the interesting examples within the O.T that seem to indicate that the Israelites were suppose to remain completely vulnerable and defenseless, in order to prove their trust in God to fight their wars for them, and how it was seen as a negative thing when they rejected this in favor of a king to lead them out into battle. As an example would be if America, in order to prove their trust in God to protect and fight their battles, cut all military spending, did away with all nukes and fighter planes, tanks and missiles. Many Americans would think it utterly insane to do so, but there it is in the Hebrew bible, orders for Israel to do what would be analogous.

The author then jumps to the New Testament, and mentioned that when Matthew's Jesus said “I didn't come to abolish the law” that Jesus was transcending the law while not negating what went before it. This understanding works well with “It was said don't commit adultery, I say don't lust” and others like it, expanding love of neighbor beyond Leviticus' ken, to everyone, including enemies. This is good as far as it goes, it just doesn't work with Jesus saying "don't make oaths" when Moses explicitly commanded them to do so. In transcending the law to the importance of keeping ones word, Jesus is negating what Moses proscribed. And with the “Eye for an eye” It wasn't just a command to limit violence, it demanded violence, you could NOT SHOW MERCY, it required retribution be taken; eye for eye, tooth for tooth (unless of course if one was a slave, different rules applied for those with lesser value in the Mosaic code). So now when Jesus said not to seek retribution, this was a negation, the abolition of a positive command. Finally, I guess one has to ask what on earth is the Law, is all the barbaric commands part of the law? You know things like “If you learn someone in another city in Israel is telling people to worship other gods, you are to see if this true, and if it is you are to go and kill everyone in the city” and the “stone the adulterer” we know how Jesus did on this one if we accept John's account, and all the laws against those with imperfections, my gosh, there is just so much unequivocal nastiness in the the Mosaic law, some of which is morally evil. That yeah, as with so much else in Matthew, I am inclined to hope Jesus never said this, for if he did he was incredibly inconsistent with it, and proves himself to be the least in the kingdom of God due to what he is then to say and do.

The author returns to the Old Testament, and taking what seems to be a young earth, “literal” interpretation of Genesis points out among other things, that the creation account doesn't have the cosmic battle that is found in the Babylonian creation myth. But I think Genesis may assume it, it just starts off after the cosmic war. The earth was formless and void, (the words suggest chaos and “the deep” with all of its ancient associations), we also see psalms talking about the God defeating the mythological monsters when creating the world. Moving on, it is a legit to point out God's interaction with Cain who brought violence in the world, and I think with the flood story, Israel did improved myth by having God destroy the world because of violence, which is better than their neighbors saying the flood came because the gods were tired of the noise humans made. But still, the problem is the Hebrews proclaimed God respond to violence with greater violence, God's first response is like, oh my people are violent, let me go show how bad violence is by killing every innocent baby, boy and girl. I mean what better why to show violence is wrong? I mean... imagine I have a son that hits his sister, and I need to teach everyone just how wrong it is to hit, so I beat my sons brains out with a shovel in front of his siblings, this will definitely teach everyone violence is wrong. Yes indeed.

Okay, the chapter that knocked the books rating down for me, and put me in a sour mood was the defense of the holy wars. He mentions the central point of the holy war stories were to teach Israel to trust God. But take Samual's repugnant claim that God wanted Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites, even if the moral of the story is about obedience and trust, it really doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Who cares to point of the story, when we notice the warrant for murdering every infant, child, woman, and man, was some offense that happened 400 years ago, yes 400 effing years ago! My gosh, Justifying genocide for an offense 400 years old is diabological wicked, yes unequivocally, absolute and pure unadulterated evil. Gee... Hitler had a recent offense, he believed the Jews cost the Germans victory in WWI and lead to their utter humiliation, he also bought into delusional conspiracy theories that the Jews were trying to take over the entire world and make everyone their slave (the O.T claims didn't help with this paranoia) . Within his little twisted world, either he acted first to save the world from the Jews, or the Jews would succeed with their evil plan. So all of this justified genocide in his mind. But in the biblical narrative, some offense that happened 400 years ago justified genocide! Ugg... can you see how this is not even worse? Trying to get around it by saying the moral of the story was about Saul's need to instantly obey, not to question, is just, no, just absolutely not going there. Imagine some father wants to teach his son obedience, so he tells his son Billy “Billy, your sister has been a bad girl, I want you to take this knife here and stab her to death, and then cut her into pieces” and then when Billy disobeys, imagine the father becoming enraged, disowning him and sending people to torment him for the remainder of his life. Sure the story was about obedience, Billy failed the test, but the details in how the father tied teach his son obedience matter, even if we move back to some ancient culture where it was perfectly acceptable in that culture for brothers to stab their sisters to death. If Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, can you honestly imagine Jesus who said “Let the little children come to me, for such is the kingdom of God...” telling Saul, hey I want to see if you are obedient to my every command, so go murder 1000s of innocent children, because their ancestors 400 years ago did something that made me mad. Trying to justify something this evil is as bad as someone trying to defend Hitler's genocide of the Jews, it is repulsive, so utterly repulsive, it is mind-blowing how someone in favor of nonviolence can so easily excuse and minimize just how wicked this is. We do God no honor by attributing such evil to God, instead we must see this diabolic filth as projection of evil human beings onto God, anything else is dishonoring to God, precisely because He is the same today, yesterday and forever. If pure evil isn't compatible with love and justice Now, then it wasn't then, it is that simple, to hell with the doctrine of inerrancy if it forces us to make God exceedingly worse than the worst human beings that have ever lived.

I won't even go into his defense of the Canonite genocide. my gosh, no, just no, absolutely no...

Ahh, this is getting so long. I will finish with some final reflections on how I think an Old Testament Case for nonviolence could be made. First it is legit to point out how amiss the copious violence in the Old Testament, there does seem to be some longing for a different kind of world, some glimpses of a more beautiful God, and though very inconsistent in the matter, seeds were sown perhaps that could grow. The prophets as times long for a world without war, and cry condemnation upon the violence, David cannot build the temple due to his bloody hands, etc... These are the diamonds in the dung hill and we can rejoice in them. What to do with the rest though? G K Chesterton, writing about the scandalous novel of the time “Henry Fielding a fondling” praised the book despite its scandalous content because it was honest about the consequences of dissolute living, it demonstrates the perils of such living. So yes, the only way the old testament makes its case for nonviolence, is by just pointing out how god-awfully violent, the consequences, and evil that flow from this, it reveals to us how horrible violence is and why we should straight up reject the portrayal of God it displays. We can be honest about the horrible the consequences and the carnage that has continued to the present day by these unholy and repulsive portraits of the tribal warrior god, whose is unstable, has an extremely short temper, is unreliable, doesn't fulfill promises, who is inconsistent and cruel. Whose first go-to-solution for just about everything is violence, who supposedly tried to teach his people to trust him and learn obedience by means of commanding them to hate, devalue others, to murder the innocent, and to commit genocide. Just think of the damage on the character of Israelis; the nightmares, flash backs, the numbing of conscience that would come as they cut pregnant woman open with swords and dashed their children's brains out. Imagine the effect this has on their concept of God, being taught this is how they worship YHWH, that by engaging such gory acts they were offering a holy and pleasing sacrifice to YHWH. See it for what it is, be morally repulsed and reject the evil for what it is. Just think how there is likely no greater case against genocide in recent history than Hitler, we saw just how ugly and evil it is, and it has resulted in generations strongly opposed to it.
We can also point out the multitudes of failed prophecies, the multitudes of predictions that God would destroy all the nations Judah hated during that 400 years after exile, God didn't fulfill the violent wishes of the prophets upon Judah's enemies. Also, Jesus didn't fulfill practically any messianic prophecies, almost all of which envisioned a violent Messiah who would destroy all of their enemies. What is interesting is the early church, embittered against the Jews who cast them out of the synagogues, they engaged in end-times delusional speculation (similar to what we find in Daniel), putting in Jesus' mouths promises that he'd swiftly bring the world-wide genocide upon that generation, but again God didn't comply, the Son of Man didn't return to trample the almost all humanity in the wine press of his wrath. Thank goodness predictions of Jesus' immediate return to inflict eschatological violence, to bring the kingdom of God in by force, were failed predictions, otherwise, I'd would not be here writing this review right now.

[Jasmine Walston · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really got me thinking. I'm not sure how much of it I agree with yet, as the chapter questioning whether or not the Old Testament is completely accurate troubled me. Still, I recommend reading it, especially with a group for good discussion.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a well laid out book arguing that the Old Testament narrative is nonviolent in nature. Fleischer's main thrust in his argument is that the OT uses incremental ethical revelation that begins with a completely lawless people and generally introduces laws and principles that limits their violent ways. This ultimately has its fulfillment in Jesus; however, the arc of the OT is from more violence to less violence.
There are times when Fleischer overstates his points. Specifically, I was troubled by his chapter on incremental character revelation, in which he seems to state that the Holy Spirit allowed false depictions of God to be written into Scripture. That seems to be dangerously close to saying that parts of Scripture are false.
All in all, this is a good book on the subject, and I would recommend it to all Christians to read.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 3 out of 5]

**Disclaimer: I was given an ebook copy of this in exchange for an honest review.**

I had a bit of a complicated reaction to this book. But let me say upfront that I'm largely in agreement with Fleischer's conclusions regarding the narrative thrust of scripture as a whole, and especially how the supreme, nonviolent revelation of God's character in Christ demands careful rereading of the Old Testament texts. So let me briefly survey a three of my main critiques, as well as what I think Fleischer does offer to the important conversation about nonviolence.

First, Fleischer relies very heavily on previously-established arguments (particularly Greg Boyd, Paul Copan, and John Howard Yoder). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are sections of the book that do feel like long, strung-together quotes of other writers. The heavy use of Yoder without any recognition of the recent, troubling revelations of Yoder's character is a little problematic, especially since this book was just published. Second, his argument that God was creating a more-just society in ancient Israel (as compared to the rest of the Near East) relies on some anachronistic moral reasoning that can distort the function of the Torah in its own time. Late-modern values around individual rights, human flourishing and even economics comprise the lens he uses to evaluate the progressive nature of the OT laws (this is where he particularly leans on Copan's arguments). Some dialogue with OT and ancient Near East scholars about the actual function of legislation in that time (especially John Walton's recent work) would have improved this layer of the argument. Third, the book is a little disorganized, or perhaps should not have been titled "The Old Testament Case..." In actuality, Fleischer spends a lot of time in the New Testament, and chapters frequently jump back and forth. The book is more accurately a case for a narrative approach to interpreting scripture as a whole, as well as a case for a progressive-pedagogical interpretation of God's actions in history, whereas the title and concept make it sound like he will make an argument for non-violence strictly from within the Old Testament texts. The reader should know that's not really what happens.

Finally, I do think Fleischer offers something helpful to this conversation. I quite enjoyed his chapters on God's "incremental revelation" of both ethics and God's own character (I do prefer his term "incremental" over "progressive"). He not only attempts to make the case that God intentionally used this "incremental" approach towards working with humans to accomplish his purposes, but also discusses *why* God did this, particularly as a large-scale pedagogical effort to bring humans to fuller understanding of what God's character and actions in the world should look like. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions about God using violence to establish the notion of God's power, justice and consequences, but it at least made me consider an aspect of the argument I hadn't thought carefully through before.

In sum, it's a decent book with a few stronger chapters exploring the notion of an incremental-revelation-hermeneutic. But there isn't much here that can't be found elsewhere. In Fleischer's conclusion, he commends Boyd's massive "Crucifixion of the Warrior God" to the reader, and I must agree with him. Boyd's work is better-edited, more thorough and academic, and as Fleischer largely repeats Boyd's conclusions, I would recommend the reader go straight to that source first. Afterwards, consider giving Fleischer's read a look.

[Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a strong and compelling starting point for the "texts of terror" that trouble anyone who reads the Old Testament with a critical mind. I've never read a book were I so heartily celebrated the message and the clarity of the messenger. For most of the book, I was in the front row, shouting a big "amen".

The middle of the book is more of an apologetic than I needed it to be. The beginning chapters provide a strong New Testament basis for how to interpret the Old Testament in a faithfully Christian way (that is, in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus). But later, I found myself in the jury–thoroughly convinced of God's innocence–while the defence attorney continued to mount the argument. Explaining how Yahweh might have committed justifiable acts of violence to somehow end violence is not helpful if you are already convinced God is nonviolent (and therefore was misrepresented in the OT). Perhaps a sequel to this book will explore alternative readings of these violent and troublesome texts.

[LeAnne · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book has the feel of a dissertation turned into a monograph. The advantage of that is that the bibliography and footnotes are full of resources to pursue further. For me, it was an introduction to Anabaptist theology of non-violence, something I was familiar with in a general way, but not specifics. I found myself underlining a great deal and making notes in my Bible as to how certain verses can be interpreted.

The opening chapter lays out the case an unbeliever might make against God as violent, abusive, vindictive and full of petty jealousy. The author pulls no punches, perhaps going overboard in my opinion, comparing God to Hitler in his treatment of the disabled, although God only prohibited them from entering the temple, while Hitler murdered them.

The argument is that God was revealing himself incrementally. It was necessary for him to demonstrate that he was not only the most powerful of the gods, but the only God in ways that could be understood in the cultures of the Ancient Middle East (AME) before the non-violent morality of Jesus could be understood. He needed to establish the importance of obedience and gain the people’s trust, before they could be expected to follow him out of the violent context of sinful human culture. “A certain amount of violence” was necessary to establish Israel as a “set-apart” nation so that God’s plan of redemption that would do away with violence would not be compromised by idolatry. “So yes, God used violence to ensure Israel’s set-apartness. But he did it to move his followers to a place where they could be set apart by their nonviolence and thereby help him save the world from violence.” But doesn’t that mean God is not capable of bringing about his will without violence—that he is less than all-powerful? It also sounds a lot like “the end justifies the means.” I think of the “good” that Galadriel or Gandalf might have done in LOTR with the ring, but didn’t because they knew the power would degenerate into something else entirely. The God of the Bible is not less than Tolkien’s elves and wizards.

Although the morality of the Old Testament seems barbaric to us (post-Jesus), at the time it was revolutionary in its mercy. “An eye for an eye,” for example, was a limitation, not a requirement; you are not entitled to murder someone in vengeance for his accidentally poking out your eye. Fleischer interprets warfare in Ancient Israel as a lesson in trusting God rather than the military. The prophets repeatedly warn against trusting in horses and international alliances. Think how many times God’s strategy for winning the battle demonstrated that it was he who gave the victory, not military might (Red Sea, Jericho, Sennacarib, etc.).

The conquest of Canaan is especially problematic. Fleischer argues that the land legally belonged to Israel: God (the original owner) had promised it to them and Abraham had actually purchased part of it. But buying a field with a cave at Hebron hardly gives right to the whole land, and after 400 years of absence…Well, maybe we should pay more attention to Native American claims to North America. The argument that in their evil behavior (adultery, idolatry, sorcery, witchcraft, ritual prostitution, incest of all types, bestiality and child sacrifice) they had forfeited any rights holds more water for me. Here the theory of a civilian assimilation works better than military invasion, but I found it hard to swallow the contention that divinely authorized wars were primarily but not exclusively defensive actions (loc 534).

In chapters 10 and 11 the author takes a turn. The writing style becomes extremely dense and repetitious. Twenty-one (21!) sentences beginning “just as” in a row—I started flipping pages after about five—followed by ten (10!) sentences beginning “if God [he]”—I skipped ahead after three. The gist of it is that the author believes the OT accounts may not be accurate in their understanding of God. “Because God is entirely nonviolent, we must…conclude that the violent OT portraits of him were wrong. Of course, this doesn’t mean they were entirely wrong, just wrong to the extent they attributed violence to God.” He goes on to explain how the OT must be interpreted in the light of the teachings of Jesus. I agree, but that does not mean that the OT is untrue. My understanding of the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture does not allow me to dismiss the OT as ancient philosophy on a level with that of the surrounding peoples. Incremental revelation is still true revelation, or we are left picking and choosing what we (in our present cultural context, just as vulnerable to misunderstanding of God’s character as they were in the AME) want to believe.

I was disappointed that in his discussion of Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” in Matthew 5:39, Fleischer fails to consider what to do if the aggression is against my neighbor rather than myself. There is an argument to be made for trusting God and intervening non-violently, putting at risk both yourself and the original victim, but Fleischer doesn’t touch it. He also doesn’t deal with the violent imagery of the post-Jesus book of Revelation.

Fleischer knows very well that many readers will reject his contention that the OT authors are in error. He deliberately constructed his arguments in chapters two to nine to stand alone, and they merit rereading and more study. However, I was very disappointed that in the end he dealt with violence in the OT by saying the authors were wrong.

[I received a free copy of this book from the author in exchange for my honest opinion.]

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The maximalist case for God as a God of nonviolence despite common perceptions of God as violent in the Old Testament.

The author does not shy away from the challenge: he attempts to show from the Old Testament that God is fundamentally a God of non-violence. He explores all of the narratives about God to show His general nature of love, care, and provision for His people, and all people. All of the apologetic arguments are brought out over the course of the book: violence authorized by God is limited and constrained; it often is accomplished through peoples and nations in ways that do not involve God's direct action; eventually the author will even cast aspersions on the revelation in the OT, possibly suggesting that Israel as a violent people attributed violence to God in their limited understanding, but is actually not true.

Much is made of incremental revelation leading up to Christ, and ultimately to use Jesus as the ultimate expression of the nature of God. Since Jesus is entirely nonviolent in His life, it is reasoned, God must be entirely nonviolent.

The work could have used a good editor; the continual use of abbreviations can be disorienting, and the style of writing very conversational. Much is made of quotes, particularly from a host of authors from a nonviolence posture. But the author does do a great job of providing the maximalist position, making the best possible argument from the posture that nonviolence is an essential quality of God.

I affirm a pacifist posture in Christ; I would agree that God in the Old Testament is not the bloodthirsty tyrant which many moderns imagine. But I must conclude that the author, in showing the extremity of the argument for nonviolence, shows the limitations of such argumentation. In the end, it cannot fully respect the revelation of God in the Old Testament as is.

It is one thing to show that God is loving, loyal to covenant, etc., in the Old Testament; yet, in the inspired text, there is a book referred to called the Book of the Wars of YHWH. Moses and Miriam in song extol YHWH as a "man of war." Even if it is going a bit far to call the Canaan campaign ethnic cleansing or genocide, it wasn't a peaceful move-in, either.

The author is entirely too dismissive of protestations against a full nonviolent posture of Jesus. The whip of cords and the sword on the disciples shows that He at least tolerated a show of force, even if He did not engage in the substance thereof. And there is one major thing missing in the narrative: yes, Jesus is entirely nonviolent in His life and death...but it is because He entrusted Himself to God who judges justly (cf. 1 Peter 2:18-25). Jesus Himself spoke of a coming Day of YHWH which would involve violence against Israel, and it came to pass at the hands of the Romans 40 years later. Jesus spoke of judgment of condemnation: I suppose one could argue that the torments of hell are somehow non-violent, but it really does beg a question. In Revelation Jesus is seen slaying His enemies with the sword of His mouth; before that, the whole cycles of judgment feature ways of portraying the condemnation of Rome, and it certainly involved a lot of violence. It's not for nothing that Paul tells Christians in Romans 12 not to take vengeance, but to give space for the wrath of God. And none of this speaks to how Jude says that "the Lord" led a people out of Egypt, directly associating the violent end of the sojourn in Egypt with Jesus as well as the Father. The God of the Old Testament is indeed fully manifest in Jesus: not just Jesus in what He did in His life and death, but also in His Lordship and judgment in His imminent return. And so there is space given for God to enact justice, and the enactment of justice may well involve violence; this is not antithetical to Jesus, even though, and it must be emphasized, it is not given for Christians to enact. It will only be faithfully enacted by God in Christ.

Thus this is a great work to show the extreme of an argument, and how the extremity cannot be sustained. I would agree with the author that what passes for Christianity today is far too militaristic and far too much in bed with the nation-states of the world. But we can easily make an idol out of nonviolence, and demand for God to now be made in the image of non-violence, and that is just as much not the true God who has made Himself known as is the bloodthirsty god of the imagination of many. To assert God as completely nonviolent is too easy; it's far harder to confess the substantive reality of what has been revealed in the Old Testament regarding God, and finding ways to live in the tension between our own faithful practice of nonviolence in Christ, and entrusting judgment and vengeance to God who judges justly.

[Yonasan Aryeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclaimer: this book is intended for Christian audiences. The book looks at the violence of the Christian Old Testament and tries to argue for a fulfillment in Jesus, giving a future status of nonviolence. To accomplish this, the author first highlights the score of violent episodes found in Torah. The author faces a challenge that he fails to overcome when looking at historical texts: not just considering context, but also removing presuppositions during interpretation. During the time of Torah, Jesus had not yet been born. The author, however, uses Jesus later in the text in connection to Torah. This is to be expected with the Christian doctrine of believing that Jesus is a god, but when actually looking critically at a text, such beliefs are not integral components but rather extraneous information. To use Jesus when examining Torah to try to tie him into the event is to write one’s beliefs into history and thus prooftext the material being read.

In the beginning chapters, the author offhandedly refers to the violence of Torah as mere jealousy of HaShem, which discounts and dismisses the decision of the Creator to end life. Additionally, he comments that the violence seems arbitrary, petty, and vindictive. This is important to highlight for the reader to note that this text is not a historical analysis, but, when combined with the aforementioned Jesus issue, a theological treatise on violence found in the Christian Bible. If being considered on those grounds, then the text does summarize Christian theology well and addresses a significant issue: if Jesus stands against violence, then why is the Old Testament full of it?
The problem, even in a theological context, is that this book does not consider the Jewish context of Jewish texts while evaluating them. Judaism today is not an advocate of violence. In fact, there are laws that forbid loss of life, so it would seem that the Torah contradicts itself. So, then, how does one consider “an eye for an eye” when other laws forbid cruel punishment? The traditional Jewish approach is to look to Talmud and rabbinic interpretation. The rabbis highlight these variances and point out that in order to reconcile, there must be a “deeper application.” This is where Judaism cites the different levels of compensation for loss as the alternative. This is necessary to recognize when interpreting Jewish texts, otherwise an incomplete and often incorrect understanding results.
The author recognizes many disconnects and asks honest questions that need to be considered. Additionally, he gives more than sufficient citations for his work, in endnote form, for readers to follow up on if they wish to learn more on source content. In order to balance his violence disconnect, he relies on a form of dispensationalism to explain the “evolution” or “incremental theological changes” that led from the Christian understanding of Judaism to contemporary Christianity. This makes sense in some regards, but then lends the question: Judaism today is nonviolent, so what evolution accounts for this, since Jesus is obviously not in the Jewish picture?

Overall, the author asks excellent questions and seeks to evaluate them to the best he can with his Christian resources. His work is excellent for Christian audiences, but it definitely lacks Jewish source material to give a correct understanding. As a result, his conclusion is limited to a Christian audience as well. Nonetheless, the author writes with a literary spark of interest, carrying the reader through the work. When dealing with theological works such as this, it is easy to lose the reader in boredom (I try to review books based on reader engagement, not necessarily my own interest). In this work, I found myself interested from the beginning to keep reading. I believe readers will find a similar engagement, but as I mentioned at the start of this review, this work is intended for Christian audiences, which is the greatest, and only, limiting factor in widespread readership of this work.

Disclosure: I have received a reviewer copy and/or payment in exchange for an honest review of the product mentioned in this post. This product is reviewed based on content and quality in consideration of the intended audience. Review or recommendation of this product does not solicit endorsement from Reviews by J or the reviewer.

[Tiffany · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author takes a unique approach to the examination of violence in the Old Testament. The concept of character (ethical) formation at the societal level through incremental revelation is an interesting one ponder whether or not one views it as sufficient. The concept of incremental revelation is best illustrated in the book through the general parenting analogies. For example (not in the book), you tell a two year-old not to play with ire and set boundaries to make it hard for them to do. As they get older you teach them how to use fire appropriately. As they get even older (more mature), you teach them how to start fires and the purpose for doing so. The author's hypothesis is that God developed our moral sensibilities in the same way. The author further argues that the need to do so was because of humanities' fascination with violence. Humanity introduced violence into God's perfect creation and God has been moving man to non-violence ever since. The author does a good job of contrasting God's law with human practices and standards prevalent in the Ancient Near East so that the reader could see the sharp difference and the leap that Israel was being asked to take even if we consider it "uncivilized" today.

As a theory, the incremental revelation is intriguing. There are some issues with the book that I'd be remiss in not pointing out though:

1) At times it feels as if strongly held opinions and believes are read into scripture. For example, there is a strong anti-militarism and anti-nationalism view embedded into the book to the point of making any form of militarism or nationalism a sin against God. Yet Scripture regularly mentions the nation, and God has clearly established Israel as a nation-state, and has allowed conquest under specific conditions. While this is explained as a part of the incremental revelation and not a model to follow, that doesn't support the strong anti-militarism and anti-nationalism bend. There are also times when opinions are presented as given -- as the only logical reading and understanding of Scripture.

2) The premise of the book implies that God owes man an explanation for how He chose to govern His world. And while it's a noble effort to discuss a sensitive topic that has proven to be a stumbling block to many, nowhere does the book make an outright statement that -- as creator -- God has the right to do whatever He wants and we don't have to understand it. I'm okay with the arguments made to help people understand why God may have done it that way but I don't believe it's accurate to say that there's no other way that God could have done it. It would be more true to say that it's the way God deemed best to accomplish purposes that are still unfolding.

Overall, the book is worth reading if for no other reason than to clarify what you believe to be true about God. What you believe to be true will come shining through in your reactions to the different chapters. What you relate to most and what most troubles you are both revealing and are worth exploring more to understand why.

[Heather Barta · Rating 1 out of 5]

As I have mentioned, people ask me theological questions all of the time. While I have lots of answers and even more questions in our conversations, I am always looking for books to recommend on issues. I chose this book because I thought that it might be a great resource. Not only is it too dense for most lay people asking questions, I would not recommend reading it as a reliable theological source. While I always anticipate fighting with books about details on which I disagree, this book has too many concerns for me to endorse. If it’s a group conversation and this is a conversation starter, it might be an acceptable book to use as one perspective on this issue.

My first concern came with God being referred to exclusively as “he”. The second concern comes as Fleischer refers to the scriptures as the “Old Testament,” since most theologians are referring to these books as the Hebrew Scriptures. And the third concern is that the author posits that the only reason that the OT could be valid is to have the revolution of Jesus in the New Testament. This is a huge problem that borders on anti-Semitism.

Most of Chapter 2 has some good points. It walks through how God’s law was different than laws of the surrounding communities. These are all historical or theological points with which I agree (and well documented in other sources). At the end of chapter 2, he puts forth the first mention of “preparing the way for Jesus.” With an entire religion based on these scriptures, most of whom believe in non-violence, to say that the violence of the OT is only to bring us to the NT and Jesus is a very scary precipice to me. Including “the OT describes the problem and the NT describes the solution” (227).

I appreciate the thought that the “Bible doesn’t condone everything it describes. Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean God approves of it” (225). This is an interesting perspective and I’ll be paying attention to context and literature type a bit more. And I also agree that “our current marching orders are completely nonviolent” (231). However, all religions teach that violent people who proclaim violence as part of their religion are the outliers.

I appreciate the effort and time that Fleischer spent researching to come to his own theological statement about non-violence. There are other sources that I would recommend before this one to people to learn a bit more about how God desires peace and nonviolence in our world.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book was *much* better than Jesus Loves Canaanites, that doesn't necessarily mean it was good. For the best treatment on those hard cases in the Old Testament like the conquest of Canaan and the killing of the Amalekites, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God still holds top spot. When it was on point, this book felt like a dumbed down version of that one. Let's call it Crucifixion Lite. In fairness, I think Fleischer himself recognizes this fact. He quotes Boyd's book frequently and strongly recommends it multiple times.
Overall, I thought this book was decent with some good ideas... until I got to the last chapter. There, Fleischer throws out the very concept of biblical inspiration while weakly trying to claim he isn't refuting biblical inspiration. He tries to say that the authors were well intentioned men who were misguided and incorrect in their understanding of God's character. Beyond this, God allowed this because it was more important to God that they embraced monotheism than that they understood His character to be good, just, holy, and loving. I almost DNF'd the book at beyond 90%. Instead, I did my best to hold back my gag reflex and practiced nonviolent restraint while restraining myself from throwing my reading device (AKA my phone) out the window.

Here are some good quotes I pulled from before this book went right off the rails:

We must analyze God’s OT actions and commands from the perspective of the ancient Israelites, not from our modern, post-Jesus perspective. We must interpret them the same way his intended recipients interpreted them. We must strive to learn the same lessons they learned. We must apply God’s OT answers to the questions they were designed to address in their unique historical and cultural context, instead of trying to force them into our modern moral framework. That’s how to properly determine what ethical lessons they have to teach us today.

You cannot get from “the OT Israelites used violence for historically specific purposes under God’s personal direction” to “Christians today can use U.S. military violence for wholly different purposes in the absence of God’s personal direction” without committing an egregious act of contextual violence, murdering proper biblical interpretation, and nuking basic Christian theology.

I’m not saying things like philosophy, metaphysics, and experience have no role to play. I’m saying such things can only inform, never trump, Jesus’ revelation. They can illuminate but not override. I’m not saying there’s no general truth to be found outside of Jesus. I’m saying we must measure all truth claims against Jesus to determine if they are, in fact, true... to interpret God’s character through any lens other than Jesus is to misinterpret it.

[Kilroy Troutman · Rating 1 out of 5]

The previous review by Erin says it better than I will. I don't know Erin in any way, but she nails all that is wrong with this book. She was too generous in giving this book 2 stars. I would give it ZERO if I could. All I got from it is that some educated white man was able to write a book and get a bunch of his friends to write positive reviews for him. What an ego!

Matthew Curtis Fleischer just recycles all the old and tired arguments claiming that the clear violence ORDERED by Yahweh in the Old Testment is not really who the divine is. Hogwash! Yahweh ORDERED genocide. Yahweh ORDERED war. Yahweh ORDERED violence. One Bible example destroys all of Fleischer's arguments. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Fliescher makes the chosen people look like a bunch of Neanderthals who were too stupid to understand what was happening. Insulting, degrading, and bordering on antisemetic.

All Fleischer does is sweep the clear evidence away and make attorney-style arguments to "get his client off" while ignoring the truth. Yuck! Circular reasoning and excuse making for violence. And all the quoting of "professors" which support his conclusions, but are taken out of context, or are old and dated works, or are made by a violent rapist like Yoder.

A much better book is "Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide" which actually looks at different ways to understand the violence that YAHWEH ORDERED!

[Jeremy Garber · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fleischer, a self-published scholar, provides a well-read and evidence-based case for Christian nonviolence, written for evangelical readers. The core of Fleischer’s book focuses on the idea of “incremental revelation,” that God reveals the divine plans for humanity as they mature throughout history. Thus the ethical rulings of the Hebrew Bible are suited for the people of that time, who were not ready for Christ’s radical teachings of nonviolence; humans required Christ’s presence on earth to hear that revelation. But, Fleischer argues, the seeds of God’s nonviolence are present throughout the story of Scripture. Even if the Hebrew Bible tells about the divine violence of God, we are called to imitate the ways of Jesus, who reveals God's intention for human behavior.

The scope of Fleischer’s textual evidence occasionally gets in the way of his argument – too much overquoting and not enough of his own exposition can make the reader blink and lose their train of thought. His chapter on justifying the conquest of Canaan seems in tension with chapter 10, which suggests that some of the stories in the Bible are the product of the people of the time rather than historical records (why can’t the conquest of Canaan be one of those stories too?). Fleischer’s defense of Satan as a literal person who wages war against God, along with a somewhat strained and unnecessary defense of literal divine inspiration, highlights his assumption of an evangelical audience. But any book that emphasizes the essential nonviolent character of Christian belief and faith is a welcome addition to an evangelical world which too often valorizes bloodshed and punitive justice in opposition to the will of God.

[Santosh Ninan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been a Christian for my entire adult life. During that time I have struggled with various aspects of faith. Most of these struggles ended with some kind of resolution that I could live with. One struggle that has plagued me, which I did not find resolution was the violence that is found in the Old Testament.

More specifically - the violence that God COMMANDS Israel to commit against other nations. This, of course, culminates in the genocide of Canaan. In "The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence", Matthew Curtis Fleischer does an admirable job of walking us through this struggle.

It is obvious Fleischer has done a large amount of research and study in writing this volume. He makes good use of contemporary thinkers who have contributed to this discussion. And most importantly he dives head-on into the most troubling passages and slowly walks us through them.

The basis of his argument lies in what he calls "incremental revelation". What this means is that God reveals himself incrementally through history. So, the Ancient Near East was violent so God needed to speak in the language of violence in order to communicate with them.

It is here Fleischer gets a little dicey. He states at one point that God had to sacrifice some of his purity to save us. I don't believe that is defensible. Because it would then mean that God was changing aspects of his character. Even on the Cross, Christ never lost one iota of holiness as he took on the sins of the world.

There could also have been another chapter exploring how the Cross absorbs human violence and provides a paradigm for non-violence. But, this was a book focused on the Old Testament, so the exclusion can be forgiven.

Overall -this is a helpful contribution to a challenging issue for most Christians.

[Hilary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fleischer’s book wrestles with a common concern raised by many in reading the Old Testament – the extreme violence God appears to commit against various individuals and groups. Incidents such as the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the conquest of Canaan all depict God as either directly committing acts of violence against his creatures or ordering others to commit violence on his behalf. These biblical accounts are often unsettling to readers and may lead them to question God’s character. Fleischer attempts to address these questions head-on by making the case that the Bible ultimately depicts an ethic of nonviolence through incremental ethical revelation coming to ultimate fulfillment in Christ. The author places the Old Testament’s violent incidents in the cultural and literary context of the period in which they were written. He then demonstrates how these depictions evolve over time and revelation toward a portrait of God as nonviolent in Christ. The author’s case is convincing, though more of an amalgamation of various arguments than original ideas. Still, this work is a useful, concise introduction to the concept of incremental ethical revelation, and the sources he cites provide avenues for further exploration. This book may not resolve everyone’s questions about this challenging topic, but it provides a solid start for greater understanding and further study.

Disclosure: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. My review is an honest, unbiased review reflecting my own opinion of the work. I was not required to write a positive review of this work.

#OldTestamentCaseForNonviolence

[Tim Cruickshank · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was interesting to read, so useful in that sense. Fleischer has researched fairly widely, so it's a valuable interaction with many key thinkers on the topic. But ultimately I'm not buying his argument.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the concept and facts, but the author seem like he was repeating the same thing over and over. He could have cut out over half of the repeats and it would have been a good book. Got me thinking.