What do you think?
Rate this book
God Is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament
Infanticide. Holy war. Divine wrath. Violence in the Old Testament has long been a stumbling block for Christians and skeptics alike. Yet conventional efforts to understand this violence―whether by downplaying it as allegory or a relic of primitive cultures, or by dismissing the authority of Scripture altogether―tend to raise more questions than they answer. God Is a Man of War offers a fresh interpretation of Old Testament accounts of violence by exploring them through the twofold lens of Orthodox tradition and historical context. Father Stephen De Young examines what these difficult passages reveal about the nature of Christ and His creation, bearing witness to a world filled not only with pain and suffering―often of human making―but also with the love of God.
160 pages, Paperback
Published October 18, 2021
97 people are currently reading
635 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
September 26, 2024
A fascinating discussion and examination of the some of the most shocking, violent, and controversial passages in the Old Testament. I really think Fr. Stephen plows some new ground here.
In general, in my experience, explanations on these passages fall into 2 categories. One relates that these are literal as translated into the modern English (or other modern languages), and simply more or less shrugs and says, "Well, that was God's Will --- He is sovereign --- who are we to judge?" The other tries to claim that passages are not to be taken literally, and are included in the Bible to reflect an allegorical struggle against evil.
Fr. Stephen has none of that. In general, he examines these passages from a number of perspectives. He looks at the time and culture of the events related. He also examines passages where God gives a specific command, and others where the actors within it either went beyond God's command, and acted on their own devices. He also looks at these from the perspective of the Mosaic Law in the Pentateuch and from the perspective of the surrounding pagan cultures. He also, in some cases, examines the original language, usually Hebrew, and provides explanations of where how these words as translated into most English translations can result in a much different impression than what the original Hebrew term meant in its own time thousands of years ago.
The result is a better contextual and understandable explanation of the problem of these violent events within the Old Testament.
An excellent book. I recommend this book for all Christians desiring to examine this issue as well as for others also interested in it.
In general, in my experience, explanations on these passages fall into 2 categories. One relates that these are literal as translated into the modern English (or other modern languages), and simply more or less shrugs and says, "Well, that was God's Will --- He is sovereign --- who are we to judge?" The other tries to claim that passages are not to be taken literally, and are included in the Bible to reflect an allegorical struggle against evil.
Fr. Stephen has none of that. In general, he examines these passages from a number of perspectives. He looks at the time and culture of the events related. He also examines passages where God gives a specific command, and others where the actors within it either went beyond God's command, and acted on their own devices. He also looks at these from the perspective of the Mosaic Law in the Pentateuch and from the perspective of the surrounding pagan cultures. He also, in some cases, examines the original language, usually Hebrew, and provides explanations of where how these words as translated into most English translations can result in a much different impression than what the original Hebrew term meant in its own time thousands of years ago.
The result is a better contextual and understandable explanation of the problem of these violent events within the Old Testament.
An excellent book. I recommend this book for all Christians desiring to examine this issue as well as for others also interested in it.
January 26, 2022
Many, if not most, modern Christians are crypto-Marcionites. They resonate with the heresy that God, as revealed in the Old Testament, is different from God as revealed by Jesus Christ. Marcion (the second-century-A.D. originator of the heresy, an early form of Gnosticism) had to throw out the entire Old Testament and most of the New Testament to make this idea coherent. Moderns don’t bother with coherency; they simply erase or ignore much of what God does in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, because some of it is unpalatable to modern tastes. To correct this basic theological error, Father Stephen De Young, an Orthodox priest, is here to justify, or at least explain, the ways of God to man.
Father De Young is the priest of an Orthodox parish in Louisiana. He is best known for his work with Ancient Faith Ministries, an Orthodox publishing house that has very successfully branched out into podcasts. De Young’s focus is the Orthodox tradition, especially that connected to the early Church, to which end he has become a Scriptural expert (not so self-described, but nonetheless true). The title of this book (he is prolific) comes from Exodus 15:3, where the Israelites celebrate and praise God for delivering them from the Egyptians, drowning Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea. “Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is His name.” (De Young does his own translations. Some translations, including the Orthodox Study Bible, tone this verse down; the Navarre Bible, a Roman Catholic comprehensively annotated version, notes the tendency toward dulling the language and uses the same language as De Young.)
cause he was a nice guy who said some cool things that made people like him. “Hallmark Christ,” wearing a rollneck sweater and dispensing bromides, is not the real Christ, and a counterpart between that fake Christ and the Old Testament is a distraction.
Thus, we should reject out-of-hand that participation in redemption requires passivity in the face of evil. But even so, the Old Testament not infrequently, on the surface, does seem incompatible with the New Testament, in that it endorses violence that seems either excessive, or not directed at evil, or both. Turning the other cheek does not appear often. Other than allegorical readings, legitimate Christian thinkers (as opposed to fake Christians, such as those involved with the ludicrous “Jesus Seminar”) have argued, as a result of this seeming incompatibility, that the Old Testament is a human product, rather than divinely inspired, and thus it reflects superseded cultural norms; or alternatively that the violent events narrated never happened. Given that the Gospels assume the absolute historicity and crucial relevance of the Old Testament (after all, there was no New Testament when the Gospels were written), these arguments are essentially self-refuting for any believing Christian. Yet most of us still recoil at the violence depicted in the Old Testament as endorsed by God.
What is death, De Young asks? An evil, brought upon mankind by ourselves, not a punishment from God. The purpose of life now, therefore, is to regain future union with God. Temporal life is not an end in itself, nor is prolonging it. Immortality in a fallen world is a type of hell; “violations of justice built into God’s creation are resolved at death.” For victims who suffer, it brings their suffering to an end; to the evil who inflict suffering, it brings their ability to inflict evil to an end. Death was the result of sin, and sin should not be understood primarily juridically, but as a type of infection, originating more in Cain’s sin, rather than Adam’s rebellion. Sin corrodes; simply ignoring it is not an option, if justice is to be perfected. This is very clear throughout the Hebrew Bible, with its emphasis on purification, and was the standard position of the Fathers of the Church.
Having introduced his themes, and buttressed them with numerous Scripture passages, De Young focuses on the Book of Joshua, which contains the greatest number of “problematic” passages (although he does himself no favors, if he wants to be taken seriously, by claiming that American “Manifest Destiny” was “a vile application of Joshua”). De Young leads with a standard Orthodox belief little known in the West—that the gods worshipped by ancient peoples, other than the Israelites, were not fictional, but actual demons, who had been assigned prior to their fall by God to lead nations, but failed in their assignment. Thus, Exodus 12:12 describes the plagues of Egypt as judgment against the gods of Egypt; Pharaoh and his ministers were certainly responsible for their actions, but “by directing the plagues of Egypt against the gods of Egypt, however, Yahweh not only judges those spirits but also conveys truth to the Egyptian people.” Pharaoh was exposed as being unable to manifest justice for the people, by the defeat of his gods.
So, to take what is perhaps the most problematic Biblical passage of all, in Psalm 136/137, which appears to demand killing the children of the Edomites by smashing their heads against stones, De Young reads this in the context of the Edomites being seen as governed by the fallen archangel Samael, leading them to rejoice at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The children mentioned are “the progeny of the evil spirit who is here being condemned. They are the sins, evil thoughts, and temptations placed in the minds and hearts of humanity that lead humans to destruction.” The reader is tempted to respond that De Young here adopts allegory, which he earlier rejected. There is no contradiction, however. He rejects allegory as the sole meaning of specific historical events; this is not an event, but an admonition, so an allegorical reading seems much more appropriate, especially given the context De Young provides.
Along similar, but less gruesomely dramatic, lines, all the wars fought by the Israelites in their takeover of Canaan should be understood as, to the extent they were wars of extermination (which ones were was clearly delineated by God), as wars against specific groups of people who were demon-led and in effect demon-possessed, whose death (or absorption into a new tribe, adopting a new identity, a form of repentance and also a type of extermination) was required for justice. (De Young talks quite a bit in many places, outside this book, about giants and their relation to demons; it seems to be one of his favorite topics.) In fact, a standard early Christian, and present Orthodox, interpretation of the many demons with whom Christ later interacted is that they were the evil spirits disembodied as a result of Israel’s battles against the giant clans (this was also a Second Temple Jewish belief). Christ battled the same enemies as the Israelites; “the New Testament, therefore, does not speak of a different spiritual reality than does the Old.”
This strikes us as odd; we have been taught to view these wars as having no real divine component, merely wars between two tribes of human beings, vying for land, and extermination as disproportionate and therefore unjust, if not an uncommon event in the ancient world. But this is again a failure of broader vision. Today we still recognize, if we have any sense, that the crimes of some, such as child sex traffickers or abortionists, are fully heinous enough to warrant death as punishment. If we believe that the Jews received a direct revelation from God Himself, which we must as Christians, part of which was their duty to exterminate demons and their minions, which is at least a plausible reading, that Joshua “mowed down Amalek [a demonic giant] and his people with the edge of the sword” seems more like objective justice and less like bloodthirstiness. Joshua thereby restored “the correct order, and harmony of creation.”
[Review completes as first comment.]
Father De Young is the priest of an Orthodox parish in Louisiana. He is best known for his work with Ancient Faith Ministries, an Orthodox publishing house that has very successfully branched out into podcasts. De Young’s focus is the Orthodox tradition, especially that connected to the early Church, to which end he has become a Scriptural expert (not so self-described, but nonetheless true). The title of this book (he is prolific) comes from Exodus 15:3, where the Israelites celebrate and praise God for delivering them from the Egyptians, drowning Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea. “Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is His name.” (De Young does his own translations. Some translations, including the Orthodox Study Bible, tone this verse down; the Navarre Bible, a Roman Catholic comprehensively annotated version, notes the tendency toward dulling the language and uses the same language as De Young.)
cause he was a nice guy who said some cool things that made people like him. “Hallmark Christ,” wearing a rollneck sweater and dispensing bromides, is not the real Christ, and a counterpart between that fake Christ and the Old Testament is a distraction.
Thus, we should reject out-of-hand that participation in redemption requires passivity in the face of evil. But even so, the Old Testament not infrequently, on the surface, does seem incompatible with the New Testament, in that it endorses violence that seems either excessive, or not directed at evil, or both. Turning the other cheek does not appear often. Other than allegorical readings, legitimate Christian thinkers (as opposed to fake Christians, such as those involved with the ludicrous “Jesus Seminar”) have argued, as a result of this seeming incompatibility, that the Old Testament is a human product, rather than divinely inspired, and thus it reflects superseded cultural norms; or alternatively that the violent events narrated never happened. Given that the Gospels assume the absolute historicity and crucial relevance of the Old Testament (after all, there was no New Testament when the Gospels were written), these arguments are essentially self-refuting for any believing Christian. Yet most of us still recoil at the violence depicted in the Old Testament as endorsed by God.
What is death, De Young asks? An evil, brought upon mankind by ourselves, not a punishment from God. The purpose of life now, therefore, is to regain future union with God. Temporal life is not an end in itself, nor is prolonging it. Immortality in a fallen world is a type of hell; “violations of justice built into God’s creation are resolved at death.” For victims who suffer, it brings their suffering to an end; to the evil who inflict suffering, it brings their ability to inflict evil to an end. Death was the result of sin, and sin should not be understood primarily juridically, but as a type of infection, originating more in Cain’s sin, rather than Adam’s rebellion. Sin corrodes; simply ignoring it is not an option, if justice is to be perfected. This is very clear throughout the Hebrew Bible, with its emphasis on purification, and was the standard position of the Fathers of the Church.
Having introduced his themes, and buttressed them with numerous Scripture passages, De Young focuses on the Book of Joshua, which contains the greatest number of “problematic” passages (although he does himself no favors, if he wants to be taken seriously, by claiming that American “Manifest Destiny” was “a vile application of Joshua”). De Young leads with a standard Orthodox belief little known in the West—that the gods worshipped by ancient peoples, other than the Israelites, were not fictional, but actual demons, who had been assigned prior to their fall by God to lead nations, but failed in their assignment. Thus, Exodus 12:12 describes the plagues of Egypt as judgment against the gods of Egypt; Pharaoh and his ministers were certainly responsible for their actions, but “by directing the plagues of Egypt against the gods of Egypt, however, Yahweh not only judges those spirits but also conveys truth to the Egyptian people.” Pharaoh was exposed as being unable to manifest justice for the people, by the defeat of his gods.
So, to take what is perhaps the most problematic Biblical passage of all, in Psalm 136/137, which appears to demand killing the children of the Edomites by smashing their heads against stones, De Young reads this in the context of the Edomites being seen as governed by the fallen archangel Samael, leading them to rejoice at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The children mentioned are “the progeny of the evil spirit who is here being condemned. They are the sins, evil thoughts, and temptations placed in the minds and hearts of humanity that lead humans to destruction.” The reader is tempted to respond that De Young here adopts allegory, which he earlier rejected. There is no contradiction, however. He rejects allegory as the sole meaning of specific historical events; this is not an event, but an admonition, so an allegorical reading seems much more appropriate, especially given the context De Young provides.
Along similar, but less gruesomely dramatic, lines, all the wars fought by the Israelites in their takeover of Canaan should be understood as, to the extent they were wars of extermination (which ones were was clearly delineated by God), as wars against specific groups of people who were demon-led and in effect demon-possessed, whose death (or absorption into a new tribe, adopting a new identity, a form of repentance and also a type of extermination) was required for justice. (De Young talks quite a bit in many places, outside this book, about giants and their relation to demons; it seems to be one of his favorite topics.) In fact, a standard early Christian, and present Orthodox, interpretation of the many demons with whom Christ later interacted is that they were the evil spirits disembodied as a result of Israel’s battles against the giant clans (this was also a Second Temple Jewish belief). Christ battled the same enemies as the Israelites; “the New Testament, therefore, does not speak of a different spiritual reality than does the Old.”
This strikes us as odd; we have been taught to view these wars as having no real divine component, merely wars between two tribes of human beings, vying for land, and extermination as disproportionate and therefore unjust, if not an uncommon event in the ancient world. But this is again a failure of broader vision. Today we still recognize, if we have any sense, that the crimes of some, such as child sex traffickers or abortionists, are fully heinous enough to warrant death as punishment. If we believe that the Jews received a direct revelation from God Himself, which we must as Christians, part of which was their duty to exterminate demons and their minions, which is at least a plausible reading, that Joshua “mowed down Amalek [a demonic giant] and his people with the edge of the sword” seems more like objective justice and less like bloodthirstiness. Joshua thereby restored “the correct order, and harmony of creation.”
[Review completes as first comment.]
December 5, 2021
Fr Stephen sets out to critically, scripturally, and patristically help people think through Old Testament violence. It's a difficult topic that he wants to make sure doesn't get an easy, cheap answer, and I felt he effectively did this. You won't feel like you got a simple, overly easy answer, meant simply to get people to stop wrestling with the text. Instead, he gives a thoughtful collection of issues and perspectives that genuinely do ease the mind on this difficult topic. In addition, simply trying to flesh out this issue, Fr Stephen covers a lot of topics including the West's ideas of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, showing how what actually occurs in the Old Testament text is a lot more nuanced and shows a God who is far less legalistic and far more personal and ontological. After reading his book, OT laws that used to rub me the wrong way have turned out to be laws that protect the poor and innocent.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a simple yet deep dive into Old Testament violence, and also anyone who wants a deeper understand of OT law, sacrifice, ritual, and more.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a simple yet deep dive into Old Testament violence, and also anyone who wants a deeper understand of OT law, sacrifice, ritual, and more.
September 11, 2024
Most of this work did not set my teeth on edge. I liked how De Young acknowledges and writes about the spiritual worldview that permeates the Old Testament; I like that he does not buy into the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, but draws from good biblical scholarship on the nature and purpose of the sacrificial system in Leviticus. But my goodness, pretty much everything said that directly relates to justifying violence in the Old Testament was rank special pleading. It seems that psychological defense mechanisms allow De Young to be a biblical literalist, just like Marcion, but not to allow his brain to reach any of the logical conclusions that the notorious heretic reached. It is incredible how the brain can rationalize and justify anything, but it's not surprising either, Stalin and Mao had and still have their intellectual apologist. There is literally no injustice that cannot be framed as justice. De Young is absolutely married to a literal reading of the Bible, like Marcion, but as it is inconceivable to become a heretic, he cannot acknowledge any of the obvious moral implications of his literal reading. Marcion was consistent, De Young is not and cannot be, as his a priori faith commitment to a particular understanding of biblical authority compels him to affirm concepts that are antithetical.
One way that he suggests that Old Testament violence is perfectly harmonious with New Testament ethics is to say it too was spiritual warfare. Uh… Okay. But consider what Paul said in Ephesians “We fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and…” De Young really seems to see no issue demonizing an entire people and then butchering actual “flesh and blood” in the name of spiritual warfare. If there is a spiritual conflict in the Old Testament, there is nothing morally problematic about dashing actual babies' heads against the rocks! I kid you not, he suggests this and doesn’t notice the conflict with Ephesians (which he quotes) which states we don’t fight against Flesh and Blood. He says nothing about how Jesus fought spiritual forces, by laying his life down for flesh and blood, rather than killing them as would be expected if Jesus was anything like the God presented in the Old Testament whose first go-to solution for everything is mass slaughter.
After listening to his Lord of Spirits podcast on how not to read the bible, I was surprised at his insistence on taking everything in the OT to be perfectly historical and every description of what God says and does to be perfectly accurate, and his strong stance against allegory. He sounds so much like an evangelical. Anyhow, it would seem for De Young, when God is said to command Saul to slaughter every woman, child, and infant, because 400 years prior, they attacked Israel, that this is good and just because it was spiritual warfare, these Amalekites were “giants” after all, this was “holy war”. But imagine it (if taken literally), this “spiritual warfare” consisted of young Hebrew invaders, unprovoked, rushing into towns, and seeing toddlers and hacking them to pieces, ripping babies out of their mother's arms and bashing their brains out on rocks. Suppose we care not at all for these “giants,” these demonized Amalekite toddlers, still consider what this would do to the conscience of the soldiers murdering them? Think of the blood and gore, the children's body parts littering the ground that would fill their nightmares, and the screams that would linger in their minds. Think of how damaging this would be for their relations with their own family once they returned home. Think of how violence begets violence, the PTSD, and the deep evil this perpetuates for the children of God!
Also, for Israelites, it means they were taught it is morally sound to hold grudges for 100s of years, that if the people are “giants” they are NEVER to forgive, and to murder children for sins their parents committed 100s of years ago is “justice”. Now, for De Young, with the supreme revelation of Christ, we learn, therefore, that holding grudges and killing toddlers for sins their ancestors committed, is what it means to forgive and love your enemies, that this is what spiritual warfare is! There is absolutely NO conflict between these, to say there is, is to become a Marcionite! Jesus in fact agrees fully that violence is God’s preferred solution to all problems. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Jesus agrees that in the name of “justice,” any evil can be committed and justified. The way you value people is by murdering them in the name of God. Who is your neighbor? The Canaanite and the Amalekite are, how is one to treat your neighbor? Well, if you demonize them, then you can kill them and kill all their kin… show no mercy, do not pity. De Young is like death comes to us, so this isn’t problematic at all! Hell, it is appointed for all man to die, so if you kill them, it logically follows that you are doing God’s will. Moreover, also consider it good work, for you just saved them from a life of pain and sin, they were going to die anyways, now or later, so it might as well be now! Jesus said the KOG is for the little children and surely since Jesus is exactly like YHWH, he means it would be a good thing to send them into the KOG right now! Praise the lord for abortion, we are seriously doing Jesus’ work!
Anyhow, back to the Amalekite incident. The warrant for murdering toddlers was an offense that happened 400 years ago! Does demonizing the people really fix anything? De Young insists on taking this story as perfectly literal like he is an evangelical, and yet he thinks that believing this entire people group was contaminated by sin and demons, means the morally problematic element is therefore solved. Seriously? No doubt, the Ot writers might have seen it that way, maybe, as he suggests, even Origin did (believing all the babies were literally slaughtered as a Christlike act of spiritual warfare), but if this is so, then so much the worse for them! Anyone who, well, actually has an issue with the evil attributed to YHWH and the evil committed in the name of God, will not be satisfied with his "solution". This kind of answer only could satisfy someone who hasn’t actually confronted the problem and looked at it in the face. Or denies there is moral truth; that goodness has any actual meaning at all. That what is “good” is simply anything God does or commands, so if God tortures babies for fun, this is good, if God tells parents to rape their children, this is good—which is the approach the Calvinists take. De Young would seem to side with the Calvinists who would condemn anyone who had the nerve to say rape or torturing babies is wrong. if God is for it, I mean, who the hell are we to force OUR culturally conditioned morality on God!? Who the hell are we to say what is good and evil and to stand in judgment of the holy Spiritual and the interpretations of the church fathers?! No, we cannot make any judgments at all on this! Whatever God does is “good” and this does not matter what it is. We must simply submit.
Simply trying to harmonize the unequivocal evil (that is blasphemously attributed to God in 1 Samual 15) with the New Testament example of doing spiritual warfare, is so problematic, to say the least. By implication, De Young thus suggests that, though the colonial Americans were wrong in labeling the Indians “Amalakites” and then going in and murdering women and children, if they instead considered it spiritual warfare, and pointed out the Indians worshipped false gods, and their sin was a deadly contagion and labeled them “giants”, then, in this case, the genocide would be aligned with New Testament ethics and Christlike love of enemy. They could rightfully imagine Jesus commanding and joining them in this “spiritual warfare”!!!
Now, get this, none of the OT genocides were thorough! What are the implications of this? If the genocides were commanded because Canaanites were bred with demons, that means these demon people still walk the earth today! Oh my, what if by chance, Stephen De Young is a descendent of the Amalekites, that means he has giant blood in him, that means in the name of spiritual warfare, we would be doing God's work by killing Stephen and slaughtering his wife and children as well. We'd need to find out his grandparents and the rest of his relatives and start doing the Lord's work. My gosh, this is serious business folks--spiritual warfare. So yes, Stephen De Young's justification for genocide is they were mixed breeds, and let it sink in, the mixed breeds were not all butchered like God commanded in the OT! These were failed genocides, and that means they are among us today! The leaven has found its way throughout the loaf. Entire people groups could be corrupted with demon blood! They could be among you, they could be your brother or sister, we must find them and kill them, men, women, and children! Show no mercy! Oh, but this could be you too, I suppose in this case, spiritual warfare will be suicide. Please, finish Jesus' work!
De Young actually, briefly takes the route of suggesting Jesus is just as bad as the god of the OT, I mean just look at Revelation when he will engage in worldwide genocide, butchering men, women, and children wholesale, trampling them in the wine press of his wrath, so their blood and guts float up to the horses' bridle… I mean just imagine Jesus wading through rivers of gore! Uhh… no… De Young, you are NOT helping anything.
As I think there is such thing as good and evil, and that some things are actually evil, in the past, now, and in the future, and that as people were created in the image of God, we are capable of recognizing evil and this is true even if God is said to do or command the action, I must conclude that If Jesus and the tribal warrior deity of the OT, are like what De Young is compelled to suggest, then they are evil. If not this, then morality means NOTHING, love means NOTHING, justice MEANS NOTHING, they are empty vacuous concepts that can mean their opposite or anything at all. I think to defend pure evil is to engage in the most egregious form of special pleading, there is no difference here from those wanting to defend Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. If the Trinity is infinitely worse than the worst human dictators (which is what a literal reading of the OT suggests), then it is our moral duty to reject this god, a god who clearly is not good, just, or worthy of worship.
It really is an either/or. Either we must destroy the concept of goodness, justice, and love and claim most of what Jesus said on the topic can mean its anthesis (forgiving = holding grudges indefinitely, loving enemies = murdering them for the sin of their ancestors, spiritual warfare = warfare against people, etc…) or we must destroy a certain understanding of biblical authority by stating numerous biblical authors were wrong on God, or it is to be taken allegorically. De Young favors the first option, I, as this review made clear, must go with the latter.
Seriously, it is better to be a Marcionite than to be like a Calvinist who attributes evil to God and makes God exceedingly worse than the devil. If we are going to talk about heresies, the latter is the worse one. If there is a God and this God is good, we do God no favor by attributing every imaginable evil to him because we must hold to an assumption of biblical inspiration.
One way that he suggests that Old Testament violence is perfectly harmonious with New Testament ethics is to say it too was spiritual warfare. Uh… Okay. But consider what Paul said in Ephesians “We fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and…” De Young really seems to see no issue demonizing an entire people and then butchering actual “flesh and blood” in the name of spiritual warfare. If there is a spiritual conflict in the Old Testament, there is nothing morally problematic about dashing actual babies' heads against the rocks! I kid you not, he suggests this and doesn’t notice the conflict with Ephesians (which he quotes) which states we don’t fight against Flesh and Blood. He says nothing about how Jesus fought spiritual forces, by laying his life down for flesh and blood, rather than killing them as would be expected if Jesus was anything like the God presented in the Old Testament whose first go-to solution for everything is mass slaughter.
After listening to his Lord of Spirits podcast on how not to read the bible, I was surprised at his insistence on taking everything in the OT to be perfectly historical and every description of what God says and does to be perfectly accurate, and his strong stance against allegory. He sounds so much like an evangelical. Anyhow, it would seem for De Young, when God is said to command Saul to slaughter every woman, child, and infant, because 400 years prior, they attacked Israel, that this is good and just because it was spiritual warfare, these Amalekites were “giants” after all, this was “holy war”. But imagine it (if taken literally), this “spiritual warfare” consisted of young Hebrew invaders, unprovoked, rushing into towns, and seeing toddlers and hacking them to pieces, ripping babies out of their mother's arms and bashing their brains out on rocks. Suppose we care not at all for these “giants,” these demonized Amalekite toddlers, still consider what this would do to the conscience of the soldiers murdering them? Think of the blood and gore, the children's body parts littering the ground that would fill their nightmares, and the screams that would linger in their minds. Think of how damaging this would be for their relations with their own family once they returned home. Think of how violence begets violence, the PTSD, and the deep evil this perpetuates for the children of God!
Also, for Israelites, it means they were taught it is morally sound to hold grudges for 100s of years, that if the people are “giants” they are NEVER to forgive, and to murder children for sins their parents committed 100s of years ago is “justice”. Now, for De Young, with the supreme revelation of Christ, we learn, therefore, that holding grudges and killing toddlers for sins their ancestors committed, is what it means to forgive and love your enemies, that this is what spiritual warfare is! There is absolutely NO conflict between these, to say there is, is to become a Marcionite! Jesus in fact agrees fully that violence is God’s preferred solution to all problems. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Jesus agrees that in the name of “justice,” any evil can be committed and justified. The way you value people is by murdering them in the name of God. Who is your neighbor? The Canaanite and the Amalekite are, how is one to treat your neighbor? Well, if you demonize them, then you can kill them and kill all their kin… show no mercy, do not pity. De Young is like death comes to us, so this isn’t problematic at all! Hell, it is appointed for all man to die, so if you kill them, it logically follows that you are doing God’s will. Moreover, also consider it good work, for you just saved them from a life of pain and sin, they were going to die anyways, now or later, so it might as well be now! Jesus said the KOG is for the little children and surely since Jesus is exactly like YHWH, he means it would be a good thing to send them into the KOG right now! Praise the lord for abortion, we are seriously doing Jesus’ work!
Anyhow, back to the Amalekite incident. The warrant for murdering toddlers was an offense that happened 400 years ago! Does demonizing the people really fix anything? De Young insists on taking this story as perfectly literal like he is an evangelical, and yet he thinks that believing this entire people group was contaminated by sin and demons, means the morally problematic element is therefore solved. Seriously? No doubt, the Ot writers might have seen it that way, maybe, as he suggests, even Origin did (believing all the babies were literally slaughtered as a Christlike act of spiritual warfare), but if this is so, then so much the worse for them! Anyone who, well, actually has an issue with the evil attributed to YHWH and the evil committed in the name of God, will not be satisfied with his "solution". This kind of answer only could satisfy someone who hasn’t actually confronted the problem and looked at it in the face. Or denies there is moral truth; that goodness has any actual meaning at all. That what is “good” is simply anything God does or commands, so if God tortures babies for fun, this is good, if God tells parents to rape their children, this is good—which is the approach the Calvinists take. De Young would seem to side with the Calvinists who would condemn anyone who had the nerve to say rape or torturing babies is wrong. if God is for it, I mean, who the hell are we to force OUR culturally conditioned morality on God!? Who the hell are we to say what is good and evil and to stand in judgment of the holy Spiritual and the interpretations of the church fathers?! No, we cannot make any judgments at all on this! Whatever God does is “good” and this does not matter what it is. We must simply submit.
Simply trying to harmonize the unequivocal evil (that is blasphemously attributed to God in 1 Samual 15) with the New Testament example of doing spiritual warfare, is so problematic, to say the least. By implication, De Young thus suggests that, though the colonial Americans were wrong in labeling the Indians “Amalakites” and then going in and murdering women and children, if they instead considered it spiritual warfare, and pointed out the Indians worshipped false gods, and their sin was a deadly contagion and labeled them “giants”, then, in this case, the genocide would be aligned with New Testament ethics and Christlike love of enemy. They could rightfully imagine Jesus commanding and joining them in this “spiritual warfare”!!!
Now, get this, none of the OT genocides were thorough! What are the implications of this? If the genocides were commanded because Canaanites were bred with demons, that means these demon people still walk the earth today! Oh my, what if by chance, Stephen De Young is a descendent of the Amalekites, that means he has giant blood in him, that means in the name of spiritual warfare, we would be doing God's work by killing Stephen and slaughtering his wife and children as well. We'd need to find out his grandparents and the rest of his relatives and start doing the Lord's work. My gosh, this is serious business folks--spiritual warfare. So yes, Stephen De Young's justification for genocide is they were mixed breeds, and let it sink in, the mixed breeds were not all butchered like God commanded in the OT! These were failed genocides, and that means they are among us today! The leaven has found its way throughout the loaf. Entire people groups could be corrupted with demon blood! They could be among you, they could be your brother or sister, we must find them and kill them, men, women, and children! Show no mercy! Oh, but this could be you too, I suppose in this case, spiritual warfare will be suicide. Please, finish Jesus' work!
De Young actually, briefly takes the route of suggesting Jesus is just as bad as the god of the OT, I mean just look at Revelation when he will engage in worldwide genocide, butchering men, women, and children wholesale, trampling them in the wine press of his wrath, so their blood and guts float up to the horses' bridle… I mean just imagine Jesus wading through rivers of gore! Uhh… no… De Young, you are NOT helping anything.
As I think there is such thing as good and evil, and that some things are actually evil, in the past, now, and in the future, and that as people were created in the image of God, we are capable of recognizing evil and this is true even if God is said to do or command the action, I must conclude that If Jesus and the tribal warrior deity of the OT, are like what De Young is compelled to suggest, then they are evil. If not this, then morality means NOTHING, love means NOTHING, justice MEANS NOTHING, they are empty vacuous concepts that can mean their opposite or anything at all. I think to defend pure evil is to engage in the most egregious form of special pleading, there is no difference here from those wanting to defend Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. If the Trinity is infinitely worse than the worst human dictators (which is what a literal reading of the OT suggests), then it is our moral duty to reject this god, a god who clearly is not good, just, or worthy of worship.
It really is an either/or. Either we must destroy the concept of goodness, justice, and love and claim most of what Jesus said on the topic can mean its anthesis (forgiving = holding grudges indefinitely, loving enemies = murdering them for the sin of their ancestors, spiritual warfare = warfare against people, etc…) or we must destroy a certain understanding of biblical authority by stating numerous biblical authors were wrong on God, or it is to be taken allegorically. De Young favors the first option, I, as this review made clear, must go with the latter.
Seriously, it is better to be a Marcionite than to be like a Calvinist who attributes evil to God and makes God exceedingly worse than the devil. If we are going to talk about heresies, the latter is the worse one. If there is a God and this God is good, we do God no favor by attributing every imaginable evil to him because we must hold to an assumption of biblical inspiration.
October 28, 2021
EXCELENT take on the sometimes difficult to interpret parts of the Old Testament. For any fans of Fr. Stephen's "Whole Counsel of God" podcast, this work will give a familiar level of depth and accessibility in parsing out the scripture. In the future, I hope to strategically leave copies of this book behind at coffee shops with "COEXIST" and "Beware of Dogma" signs in the window.
May 2, 2023
Protestant literalism baptised as “Orthodox” .
December 3, 2021
God Is a Man of War by Fr. Stephen De Young has the potential to be a very influential book. In this book, the author addresses many of the parts of the Bible that seem problematic from a modern viewpoint. Things such as the story of God sending bears to kill “little children” (KJV translation) who mocked Elisha, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the numerous violent battles detailed in the Bible, etc. These stories have always left me confused and unsettled, but I have never come across a source that explained them properly until now. Fr. Stephen De Young adeptly addresses these biblical moments and explains the context in which they were written. More importantly, he explains how these stories fit into the broader narrative of the Bible and God’s plan for our salvation. There are so many things he addresses that have bothered me in my past readings of the Bible that I did not have the tools to unpack. I genuinely believe this book will help me on my spiritual journey as it has removed some of the questions that blocked me from a fuller understanding of the Bible.
I do not have the credentials to speak on the research that went into this book, but the text is both engaging and accessible for those outside of academic circles. I would like to see some academic reviews from people with appropriate credentials on Fr. Stephen De Young’s work be made readily available. It is evident that his work took a lot of study and careful thought. The topics he covers could bring a lot of needed understanding into Christians’ biblical study. This significance makes it all the more important that his researched work has been properly vetted. That being said, everything I have heard about his work has been praise, and I believe that I will be referring to this book many times in the future. I have already recommended this book to several close friends, and I would recommend that you read it as well!
I do not have the credentials to speak on the research that went into this book, but the text is both engaging and accessible for those outside of academic circles. I would like to see some academic reviews from people with appropriate credentials on Fr. Stephen De Young’s work be made readily available. It is evident that his work took a lot of study and careful thought. The topics he covers could bring a lot of needed understanding into Christians’ biblical study. This significance makes it all the more important that his researched work has been properly vetted. That being said, everything I have heard about his work has been praise, and I believe that I will be referring to this book many times in the future. I have already recommended this book to several close friends, and I would recommend that you read it as well!
January 17, 2022
As a minister on campus, in the church, and in the community I have come across various arguments against the Bible that hone in on the problem of violence in the Scriptures, and, frankly, I have not run across many books that are that useful for the average person. This is an exception. Father Stephen De Young, an Eastern Orthodox Priest, has done the Church a great service in writing a very readable, practical, and at the same time deep and scholarly book that tackles some of the hardest sections of the Bible in regards to violence. He grounds his defense in the text of Scripture itself, but he also uses ancient cultural background and history as illuminating factors to help us understand what is going on in some of the most troubling stories in the Bible.
My one caution is his problematic stance on original sin and the atonement. Suffice it to say Father De Young, as part of his argument in a few sections, thought it useful to mention the weaknesses of the standard Catholic and Protestant understandings of original sin, and the Protestant view of Jesus' atoning work on the cross and what it did for humanity. I don't think it helped his argument much.
That aside, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or former Christian who is atheist or agnostic, I think you will find this book helpful as you wrestle with difficult sections of Holy Scripture.
My one caution is his problematic stance on original sin and the atonement. Suffice it to say Father De Young, as part of his argument in a few sections, thought it useful to mention the weaknesses of the standard Catholic and Protestant understandings of original sin, and the Protestant view of Jesus' atoning work on the cross and what it did for humanity. I don't think it helped his argument much.
That aside, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or former Christian who is atheist or agnostic, I think you will find this book helpful as you wrestle with difficult sections of Holy Scripture.
June 10, 2024
This book does very well with explaining in detail the Hebrew Bible’s conception of sin and its polluting effects, not just on individuals and whole societies, but the whole created order. It also does well with demonstrating the continuity between the Testaments in their treatment of sin and divine opposition to sin. I disagree with the author’s discussion of Deut 22:28-29, which downplays the rape element. Overall, this discussion will give Protestants especially much to ponder and reason to reevaluate their understanding of the atonement if penal substitution has been their go-to theory of choice. Calvinism is explicitly countered or argued against at several points.
January 3, 2023
This was so, so incredibly helpful. I gave it four stars because I wish the author went into a bit more detail at time and answered some more questions. But he hits all of the really big ones around violence in the Bible in a way that is very easy to understand.
I highly recommend this to anyone who has struggled with the violence in the OT like I have.
I highly recommend this to anyone who has struggled with the violence in the OT like I have.
January 20, 2024
Really interesting, and certainly full of ideas that were rather new to me, though I've been exposed to some through the Lord of Spirits podcast. But in some ways it wasn't as thorough as I was hoping it would be.
June 18, 2025
Considered giving only four stars because it was too short, but I don’t think much more could be written when the scriptural episodes are so often sparse themselves. This is a good book for anyone wanting to better understand how humans are taken hold of by violence and enact it on others, which often makes Christians ask “why, God?”
The case studies occupy only a small portion of the book; most of it is more theoretical/theological, but the theological stuff stands on its own merit. I have the physical copy and will be lending it to anyone who’ll read it
The case studies occupy only a small portion of the book; most of it is more theoretical/theological, but the theological stuff stands on its own merit. I have the physical copy and will be lending it to anyone who’ll read it
December 9, 2021
Oh boy. Prepare for your mind to melt as you may, like me, have to unlearn 50% of what you learned in Sunday School. Fr. Stephen packs a LOT into this little book, the audio being only about 4 hours. There are few footnotes, so it’s pretty smooth listening.
There was a time in my life where I didn’t want to follow the God of the Old Testament. But the more I learn, the more I realize I had it all backward. God Himself isn’t violent; but He does react to our violence (at least, that’s how my simple mind understands it at this moment). And we’ve misunderstood and misinterpreted a lot along the way. This book shows us, from Scripture itself, where we have gone wrong.
The only real flaw with this book is that it’s too short! But, Father Stephen shares his wealth of knowledge in other books and other avenues, and my understanding of this book was made even better by consuming some of his other content. That’s not to say the book doesn’t stand on its own, but it will have you seeking more information!
There was a time in my life where I didn’t want to follow the God of the Old Testament. But the more I learn, the more I realize I had it all backward. God Himself isn’t violent; but He does react to our violence (at least, that’s how my simple mind understands it at this moment). And we’ve misunderstood and misinterpreted a lot along the way. This book shows us, from Scripture itself, where we have gone wrong.
The only real flaw with this book is that it’s too short! But, Father Stephen shares his wealth of knowledge in other books and other avenues, and my understanding of this book was made even better by consuming some of his other content. That’s not to say the book doesn’t stand on its own, but it will have you seeking more information!
February 13, 2023
Listened to this as an audiobook. Opened my eyes that the translation we have of the Bible is really lacking.
The 'children' mauled by the bear after they made fun of the old man's bald head? Father Stephen de Young translates 'children' as something like 'military youths.'
Also adds context for a lot of words that may have changed their meaning over the last few decades, what with the rapid advance of culture via the internet.
I'd like to look into getting a Bible that sort of provides context for what is going on, both for the culture in which the events are taking place and the translations.
The 'children' mauled by the bear after they made fun of the old man's bald head? Father Stephen de Young translates 'children' as something like 'military youths.'
Also adds context for a lot of words that may have changed their meaning over the last few decades, what with the rapid advance of culture via the internet.
I'd like to look into getting a Bible that sort of provides context for what is going on, both for the culture in which the events are taking place and the translations.
February 4, 2022
I like the fact that the book seeks to reconcile the violence in the OT with the counter-violence in the NT. But I feel like the conclusion is half-baked because it relies too heavily on the Christus Victor motif and seeks to somewhat do away with Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I think both are true simultaneously.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 23, 2022
No nonsense, no fluff or rose-colored glasses. De Young offers a view on why God and others in the Bible did horrible things, and he makes it make sense instead of ignoring it or explain it away. Great lil book.
February 8, 2022
A very good overview/response to the usual "problem" passages in the Old Testament where God uses violence to accomplish his will for the people of Israel.
If only the book was longer.
If only the book was longer.
June 25, 2022
Really excellent resource in helping to understand the troubling violence we often encounter in the Old Testament. Highly recommended.
October 31, 2022
An awesome book that tackles all the hard scriptures of the Bible we awkwardly pass over and put into the back of our minds. Murder, massacres and the whole bit. A great read for anyone.
August 6, 2024
Helpful book on understanding violence in Scrupture. It really highlights the importance of proper interpretation of the text which is found in the apostolic church alone.
November 29, 2021
I got to say I’m thoroughly impressed by Fr. Stephen De Young’s work. As a frequent reader of other books and Orthodox publications I thought to myself: “This is going to be another book looking at Old Testament and trying to find peace despite the violence present seeking to find scriptural congruency”. One where the author states “Yes there’s violence, but God is loving” and leaves the reader on a shallow cliff left to think about the subject on his or her own. Thankfully, I was thoroughly surprised that it was not that kind of book. Fr. Stephen De Young confronts the controversial subjects of the matter and explains how it gives the Bible real, historical meaning without taking away from the 'difficult passages for the modern eye'. He takes in account the entirety of Scripture and what we understand about God the Father and Christ in order to guide the reader to the correct lens one should take; not one of bloodshed and a wrathful God, but one of a carefully thought out plan of salvation, one in which animal sacrifice carried out such great meaning as a precursor of the ultimate sacrifice to come. I encourage anyone interested in understanding deeper the passages of the Old Testament, most especially the 'problematic ones' to pick up this book to see how the Church views sacrifice, ritual, sin, and war from an Orthodox perspective.
March 16, 2024
Like many atheists and nonbelievers, I was often perplexed by the seemingly contradictory message of the Old Testament and the New. Atheists will often take Christian morality as a given, then simultaneously claim a position of enlightened moral superiority and righteous indignation at the various portraits of violence in the Old Testament as a de facto affirmation of secular humanist "values". As though righteous indignation in and of itself justify hashtag ethics and political slogans.
As the meme famously goes:
If God good why bad thing happen?
It's a fair question and it is essentially a statement of incredulity that tacitly suggests the philosophical problem of evil.
Fr Stephen DeYoung has applied his prodigious Biblical scholarship to answering this very question and the broader implications of violence in the OT from the Orthodox perspective.
While this still may not sway the atheist or the nonbeliever, it provides critical context for the Orthodox Christian to understand the thorny and politically incorrect aspects of the Old Testament. Instead of trying to whitewash these aspects of Scripture, Fr Stephen puts them in their proper perspective and argues that there is no discontinuity between the revelation of the Old Testament and the New.
As the meme famously goes:
If God good why bad thing happen?
It's a fair question and it is essentially a statement of incredulity that tacitly suggests the philosophical problem of evil.
Fr Stephen DeYoung has applied his prodigious Biblical scholarship to answering this very question and the broader implications of violence in the OT from the Orthodox perspective.
While this still may not sway the atheist or the nonbeliever, it provides critical context for the Orthodox Christian to understand the thorny and politically incorrect aspects of the Old Testament. Instead of trying to whitewash these aspects of Scripture, Fr Stephen puts them in their proper perspective and argues that there is no discontinuity between the revelation of the Old Testament and the New.
May 16, 2022
This is a needful book in the modern era of christian thought.
For my entire life the problem of violence in the old testament was dealt with by the unsatisfactory hand waving that "the old testament is just an allegory" or explaining away the "enemies" as "sins." This likely well-intended attempt was, I believe, so as not to scare modern people away christian faith for fear that interactions with such violent stories might send them packing for a more sterilized and modern philosophy. The old testament is a tale of violence. Violence that permeates all of history (not just christian history.)
What I appreciate about Fr. Stephen de Young's book is that it doesn't hide or shy away from the reality of violence in the ancient world and instead explains the historical context missing from the surface reading OT stories for modern readers. Contexts that were obvious to the ancient audience are less accessible for the modern reader without something of a primer for that culture. This book is the tip of that contextual iceberg.
For my entire life the problem of violence in the old testament was dealt with by the unsatisfactory hand waving that "the old testament is just an allegory" or explaining away the "enemies" as "sins." This likely well-intended attempt was, I believe, so as not to scare modern people away christian faith for fear that interactions with such violent stories might send them packing for a more sterilized and modern philosophy. The old testament is a tale of violence. Violence that permeates all of history (not just christian history.)
What I appreciate about Fr. Stephen de Young's book is that it doesn't hide or shy away from the reality of violence in the ancient world and instead explains the historical context missing from the surface reading OT stories for modern readers. Contexts that were obvious to the ancient audience are less accessible for the modern reader without something of a primer for that culture. This book is the tip of that contextual iceberg.
December 12, 2021
Father Stephen De Young takes on some very challenging topics with "God is a Man of War" if that is not clear by the title. I thought that Father de Young would just site passages that critics point out as problematic and address that criticism, but I was pleasantly surprised that he did not do that completely (only in the final chapter). Instead he dives into the meanings of justice, death, and sin in Orthodox Theology and how it applies to the Old Testament. I found these chapters to be very informative and helpful without being too dense or hard to understand. His final chapter that deals with apologetics for troubling passages in the New Testament was quite insightful and informative and helped me gain a new understanding of the Old Testament. I would recommend this book to a Christian who may be struggling with their faith or has questions about some of the harder to digest parts of scripture.
December 15, 2021
In under 5 hours of listening time, Stephen De Young covers a topic that could fill a library. I was impressed with the richness of the content and I had to slow the playback to 90% so that I could better digest all the information he managed to pack into this book. The author is the narrator and is pleasing to listen to (not surprising as he also hosts several podcasts with good followings).
Throughout the book, De Young explains tough passages from the Old Testament, many of which have been used to seed doubt in believers and describes the way people in Christ's time would understand the Scriptures. As examples, he covers the idea of sin as infection or disease, the nature of death, and spiritual warfare. He also has an entire chapter towards the end of the book solely dedicated to addressing “problem passages” very concisely.
Overall, I would recommend this book even if you do not struggle with some of the harsher passages of the Old Testament scripture.
Throughout the book, De Young explains tough passages from the Old Testament, many of which have been used to seed doubt in believers and describes the way people in Christ's time would understand the Scriptures. As examples, he covers the idea of sin as infection or disease, the nature of death, and spiritual warfare. He also has an entire chapter towards the end of the book solely dedicated to addressing “problem passages” very concisely.
Overall, I would recommend this book even if you do not struggle with some of the harsher passages of the Old Testament scripture.
November 16, 2021
Father Stephen De Young is a very well read individual and you can see that play out in this book. His ability to pull from multiple different scripture verses, Church Fathers, Israelite Traditions, and the surrounding cultures of the Pagan nations is phenomenal. The beginning portion of the book is decent, especially for a first time reader/listener of his, but for me I felt it was a bit of a slow start. The real power and strength of this book lays in its second half, especially the chapter on Hard Passages. I was encapsulated in this portion, and it helped me understand a worldview far beyond my own scope. I highly suggest a reading of this book, but I suggest you start with his earlier stuff in order to follow the argument better.
December 21, 2022
Great book. I, like many others in “cultural Christian” countries, was falling into crypto-Marcionite territory. De Young not only offers convincing explanations, but doesn’t stray away from the root cause of many issues: poor and deliberate mistranslation by Masoratic base texts of the Bible. The idea that people who explicitly reject the divinity of Christ are the ones in charge of translating the Bible is ridiculous. The “merely coincidental” omissions of reference to Christ’s deity are to be expected, to say nothing of the grossly shoddy translation work of passages like 2 Kings 2:35 that de Young rightly tears apart. Stop reading the KJV and it’s derivatives. Simple as.
TLDR: On foenem If you ain’t reading a Septuagint version of the Bible, get up out my traphouse ‼️
TLDR: On foenem If you ain’t reading a Septuagint version of the Bible, get up out my traphouse ‼️
January 14, 2022
Got this book because I enjoy the podcast fr Stephen is on. He is a mega nerd who reads cuneiform for fun while still being able to communicate in a fairly straightforward way. So this was both an easy and informative read.
The biggest eye opener for me was the critique on penal substitution. Which is not something I've really thought about. So I think now I'm gonna have to read up on all the different atonement theologies.
Would highly recommend this book if you want a better understanding of the old testament.
The biggest eye opener for me was the critique on penal substitution. Which is not something I've really thought about. So I think now I'm gonna have to read up on all the different atonement theologies.
Would highly recommend this book if you want a better understanding of the old testament.
April 3, 2022
What an excellent book once again of Fr. Stephen de Young.
Thorough, brilliant, helpful to better understand the context in which were written the Scriptures and to whom they were adressed.
The question of violence is so difficult to understand in our era where our system of values inherited from the Church, the Christian values, respect each life (in opposition with Romans or greeks in the medieval period).
Is the God of OT differs from Jesus?
All that kind of questions find interesting and useful answers in that book.
Thorough, brilliant, helpful to better understand the context in which were written the Scriptures and to whom they were adressed.
The question of violence is so difficult to understand in our era where our system of values inherited from the Church, the Christian values, respect each life (in opposition with Romans or greeks in the medieval period).
Is the God of OT differs from Jesus?
All that kind of questions find interesting and useful answers in that book.
July 27, 2022
Fr Stephen has a way of uncomplicating very difficult subjects. This short book focuses on demystifying the Old Testament. Why is the Bible so violent? What does it mean when it says __________? If you have ever really wondered what the heck is happening with the Old Testament, this book is for you. By explaining certain events, and even certain words and translations, Fr Stephen gives us some context and helps us to see how the original hearers of the bronze age and later the Christians of antiquity understood their holy scriptures.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews