What do you think?
Rate this book
Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God
What do we do with a God who sanctions violence?
Old Testament violence proves one of the most troubling topics in the Bible. Too often, the explanations for the brutality in Scripture fail to adequately illustrate why God would sanction such horrors on humanity. These unanswered questions leave readers frustrated and confused, leading some to even walk away from their faith.
In Flood and Fury, Old Testament scholar Matthew Lynch approaches two of the most violent passages in the Old Testament – the Flood and the Canaanite conquest – and offers a way forward that doesn't require softening or ignoring the most troubling aspects of these stories. While acknowledging the persistent challenge of violence in Scripture, Flood and Fury contends that reading with the grain of the text yields surprising insights into the goodness and the mercy of God. Through his exploration of themes related to violence including misogyny, racism, and nationalism, Lynch shows that these violent stories illuminate significant theological insights that we might miss with a surface reading.
Flood and Fury challenges us to let go of the need to rescue the Old Testament from itself and listen afresh to its own critiques on violence.
Old Testament violence proves one of the most troubling topics in the Bible. Too often, the explanations for the brutality in Scripture fail to adequately illustrate why God would sanction such horrors on humanity. These unanswered questions leave readers frustrated and confused, leading some to even walk away from their faith.
In Flood and Fury, Old Testament scholar Matthew Lynch approaches two of the most violent passages in the Old Testament – the Flood and the Canaanite conquest – and offers a way forward that doesn't require softening or ignoring the most troubling aspects of these stories. While acknowledging the persistent challenge of violence in Scripture, Flood and Fury contends that reading with the grain of the text yields surprising insights into the goodness and the mercy of God. Through his exploration of themes related to violence including misogyny, racism, and nationalism, Lynch shows that these violent stories illuminate significant theological insights that we might miss with a surface reading.
Flood and Fury challenges us to let go of the need to rescue the Old Testament from itself and listen afresh to its own critiques on violence.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 28, 2023
56 people are currently reading
2205 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 86 reviews
February 23, 2023
From Marcion to the present, the Old Testament has been problematic for countless readers (and even believers!). The Gospels show a compassionate teacher healing the sick and lame and beckoning children into his midst and it often seems as if churches functionally prioritize the New Testament in their preaching. The Old Testament can seem wildly different from Jesus of Nazareth, especially in "texts of terror" that recount the abuse and exploitation of women and in narratives that tell of Yahweh's wrath and judgment and aggressive Israelite conquest. For many, the Old Testament is rife with "seriously dangerous religion."
I'm not a biblical studies scholar, but it's these very challenging and complex Hebrew Scriptures that make me want to lean into them more. Matthew J. Lynch's 'Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God' will, I believe, prove to be a go-to resource for those who want to honestly and rigorously wrestle with the violence we find in Israel's Scriptures, in particular the flood narrative of Genesis and the conquest of Canaan found in the Book of Joshua.
I commend Matt's overview of Genesis 1-11; here, he highlights God's desire for peace, for the "shalom in Creation's DNA," while also noting how that very peace is so quickly marred in Genesis 3-8. One example he focuses on is violence against women. In both the section on Genesis and in the section on conquest Matt addresses the existence of the mysterious Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, and other giants (there were more of these groups than I realized!) which I found particularly fascinating.
When we turn to the conquest of Canaan, Matt echoes Paul Copan's contention in his 2011 book 'Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God' that much of the language used in the conquest narratives are actually exaggeration and hyperbole; peoples that were said to be annihilated reappear mere chapters later (this argument about hyperbole is likely not Copan's originally but it is where I first encountered it). But unlike Copan's book, Matt isn't setting out to produce a work of apologetics; throughout, there is a humble posture as the author comes alongside the reader and admits that there are some truly disturbing passages in Scripture but that we must also be cautious to not prioritize the peripheral in place of the central - the mercy, grace, and love of God. Matt elaborates on two different ways of viewing the Israelite conquest of Canaan as either a "Minority Report" (more modest, in which Canaanites are gradually displaced) or as a "Majority Report" (where they are totally destroyed, p. 118). Matt also makes a compelling case of reading the Israelite conquest of Canaan as the second half of the Exodus (this was new to me and my biggest takeaway from the book); the slaves of Egypt escaped their oppressors and were joined by some "indigenous Canaanites" who waged war against local warlords who were vassals of Egypt and thus still represented Egyptian power (p. 175).
This is a winsome, pastoral, and sensitive work of scholarship that I highly recommend. Matt is conscious of how the Old Testament poses difficulties to modern readers and his book goes a long way towards trying to meet those objections and challenges even while admitting that we're likely to find ourselves still living with unresolved tension. I appreciated the anecdotes and examples he used to further explain his thought and the humour along the way that helped give some breathing room in what can be a heavy topic. Now I hope he'll make me a mug.
I'm not a biblical studies scholar, but it's these very challenging and complex Hebrew Scriptures that make me want to lean into them more. Matthew J. Lynch's 'Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God' will, I believe, prove to be a go-to resource for those who want to honestly and rigorously wrestle with the violence we find in Israel's Scriptures, in particular the flood narrative of Genesis and the conquest of Canaan found in the Book of Joshua.
I commend Matt's overview of Genesis 1-11; here, he highlights God's desire for peace, for the "shalom in Creation's DNA," while also noting how that very peace is so quickly marred in Genesis 3-8. One example he focuses on is violence against women. In both the section on Genesis and in the section on conquest Matt addresses the existence of the mysterious Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, and other giants (there were more of these groups than I realized!) which I found particularly fascinating.
When we turn to the conquest of Canaan, Matt echoes Paul Copan's contention in his 2011 book 'Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God' that much of the language used in the conquest narratives are actually exaggeration and hyperbole; peoples that were said to be annihilated reappear mere chapters later (this argument about hyperbole is likely not Copan's originally but it is where I first encountered it). But unlike Copan's book, Matt isn't setting out to produce a work of apologetics; throughout, there is a humble posture as the author comes alongside the reader and admits that there are some truly disturbing passages in Scripture but that we must also be cautious to not prioritize the peripheral in place of the central - the mercy, grace, and love of God. Matt elaborates on two different ways of viewing the Israelite conquest of Canaan as either a "Minority Report" (more modest, in which Canaanites are gradually displaced) or as a "Majority Report" (where they are totally destroyed, p. 118). Matt also makes a compelling case of reading the Israelite conquest of Canaan as the second half of the Exodus (this was new to me and my biggest takeaway from the book); the slaves of Egypt escaped their oppressors and were joined by some "indigenous Canaanites" who waged war against local warlords who were vassals of Egypt and thus still represented Egyptian power (p. 175).
This is a winsome, pastoral, and sensitive work of scholarship that I highly recommend. Matt is conscious of how the Old Testament poses difficulties to modern readers and his book goes a long way towards trying to meet those objections and challenges even while admitting that we're likely to find ourselves still living with unresolved tension. I appreciated the anecdotes and examples he used to further explain his thought and the humour along the way that helped give some breathing room in what can be a heavy topic. Now I hope he'll make me a mug.
March 10, 2023
A helpful and easy-to-read book on the problem of (divine) violence in the Old Testament, specifically in the stories of the Flood and the Conquest of Canaan. The bulk of Matt Lynch's book is a thorough (re-)examination of the Conquest as presented in Joshua; Lynch advocates for a close, slow reading of the biblical text, and he puts this on display in his reading of the Book of Joshua. Lynch discusses the historicity of the Conquest, the competing/complimentary portraits of what actually took place in the Conquest (what he refers to as the Majority Report [total destruction of the Canaanites] and the Minority Report [displacement of the Canaanites and an emphasis on not imitating Canaanite religious practices]), the covenants made between Israel and Canaanites during the Conquest (with Rahab, Rahab's family, and the Gibeonites), and much more. And he does so in a way that is very accessible and which avoids academic/technical jargon (as much as possible).
I appreciated Lynch's concluding chapter immensely. At the beginning of his conclusion, he puts it rather bluntly that "the problem of violence in the Old Testament can't be solved ... At least, it can't be solved in a way that will garner any kind of consensus or resolve the moral tensions that the flood and conquest events create" (214). It is a sobering conclusion to come to, but I think it is on the right track. Lynch rejects easy answers to hard questions (or what he calls the "wicked problem" of Old Testament violence), because such easy answers always carry "hidden costs" (15). Rather, Lynch desires for readers of the Bible to "wrestle" with the text, even the texts we find the most shocking, for in such wrestling, readers may very well find "unexpected blessings" (34). In a similar vein, Esau McCaulley, in his book Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope, proposes that Christians—especially Black Christians—"adopt the posture of Jacob and refuse to let go of the [biblical] text until it blesses us. Stated differently, we adopt a hermeneutic of trust in which we are patient with the text in the belief that when interpreted properly it will bring a blessing and not a curse" (20-21).
Ultimately, some readers of the text will be more willing and ready to adopt that posture than others; I know some individuals who are already too unnerved by the shocking stories in the Old Testament that such a posture seems impossible to take up. Still, I agree with Lynch that there is a way to approach the (irresolvable) problems of Old Testament violence "without burning down your house" (chap. 1).
Above all, Lynch calls readers back to a better portrait of God's character that is more in line with the Old Testament. God is not ultimately a God of wrath, a God of judgment, or even a God of anger; it is not God's anger that endures forever, but rather, God's "loyal love" and "covenant fidelity" (Psalm 136). I'll end with these important words from Lynch that I think we could all keep in mind, especially when dealing with the topic of Old Testament violence: "God's character is wildly imbalanced. The coexistence of wrath and mercy is not that of equals. If we take the language of mercy versus wrath in Exodus 34:6-7 in strictly mathematical terms (love to thousands of generations versus three to four generations of judgment), God's mercy outweighs by at least five hundred to one!" (16). Or, put another way, "God is omni-merciful" (212).
I appreciated Lynch's concluding chapter immensely. At the beginning of his conclusion, he puts it rather bluntly that "the problem of violence in the Old Testament can't be solved ... At least, it can't be solved in a way that will garner any kind of consensus or resolve the moral tensions that the flood and conquest events create" (214). It is a sobering conclusion to come to, but I think it is on the right track. Lynch rejects easy answers to hard questions (or what he calls the "wicked problem" of Old Testament violence), because such easy answers always carry "hidden costs" (15). Rather, Lynch desires for readers of the Bible to "wrestle" with the text, even the texts we find the most shocking, for in such wrestling, readers may very well find "unexpected blessings" (34). In a similar vein, Esau McCaulley, in his book Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope, proposes that Christians—especially Black Christians—"adopt the posture of Jacob and refuse to let go of the [biblical] text until it blesses us. Stated differently, we adopt a hermeneutic of trust in which we are patient with the text in the belief that when interpreted properly it will bring a blessing and not a curse" (20-21).
Ultimately, some readers of the text will be more willing and ready to adopt that posture than others; I know some individuals who are already too unnerved by the shocking stories in the Old Testament that such a posture seems impossible to take up. Still, I agree with Lynch that there is a way to approach the (irresolvable) problems of Old Testament violence "without burning down your house" (chap. 1).
Above all, Lynch calls readers back to a better portrait of God's character that is more in line with the Old Testament. God is not ultimately a God of wrath, a God of judgment, or even a God of anger; it is not God's anger that endures forever, but rather, God's "loyal love" and "covenant fidelity" (Psalm 136). I'll end with these important words from Lynch that I think we could all keep in mind, especially when dealing with the topic of Old Testament violence: "God's character is wildly imbalanced. The coexistence of wrath and mercy is not that of equals. If we take the language of mercy versus wrath in Exodus 34:6-7 in strictly mathematical terms (love to thousands of generations versus three to four generations of judgment), God's mercy outweighs by at least five hundred to one!" (16). Or, put another way, "God is omni-merciful" (212).
September 18, 2022
Matt Lynch is an able guide to these difficult Old Testament texts. He carefully unravels the caricatures of these texts to make way for a faithful alternative. Lynch weaves personal stories with close readings of biblical texts to offer fresh perspective. I heartily recommend his work!
March 27, 2025
I've read quite a few books that have tried to answer the question of violence in the Old Testament, God's "anger," narratives of conquest, etc. and this is my favorite one yet!!! Wow, Lynch does such a great job trying to answer this question. He intentionally and faithfully engages with Scriptural texts, and he has a pastoral tone throughout the book that brings comfort and relatability to the reader! I really really appreciate what he did here! If the violence that we encounter in the OT has always made you a little hesitant to open to certain OT passages, I pray you can pick up this book, grab a friend, and maybe find some answers!
December 24, 2023
I found this book tremendously helpful in dealing with some of the most difficult and disturbing Old Testament passages. Matthew J. Lynch brings a wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to these passages and to the Bible as a whole, approaching the text with both respect and boldness. I learned so much and will keep this perspective with me going forward. Thanks to IVP for the review copy.
November 22, 2022
[IVP gave me this eBook for free through NetGalley.]
I was thoroughly unimpressed with this book. It has its high points (particularly the chapter on God's character), but I honestly wouldn't recommend it to anybody wrestling with the subject.
The main issue, for me, was a combination of bumbling exegesis and a poor doctrine of Scripture. These problems were far worse in the section dealing with Genesis 1-11 than the section dealing with Joshua, but they're present throughout. I'll offer a couple of examples.
Bumbling exegesis: Lynch dedicates a chapter to the way Genesis 1-11 couples violence and misogyny, critiquing the latter by showing the way it's accompanied by the former. While I'm happy to agree that misogyny and violence feed into each other, I don't think Lynch makes a strong case that the author of Genesis had this issue on his mind. Among his weakest arguments is his insistence concerning the Hebrew idiom used to express Lamech's marriages in chapter 4 (as well as the sons of god in ch6). Lamech "took" (לקח) his wives, implying that the marriages were forced.
The problem is that this is the standard idiom for the initiation of a marriage throughout the entire Old Testament. If he wanted to argue that the idiom betrays a misogynistic, women-as-property outlook on the part of the biblical authors, that would be more tenable (though I would still disagree). But to claim that the author of Genesis chose this idiom as a subtle criticism of Lamech (and the sons of God in ch6) is simply ludicrous.
Poor doctrine of Scripture: Lynch's approach to the Flood is multifaceted. I only wish to highlight one point: He takes the account as fictional. He argues that the story is true (i.e., it carries genuine theological value), but not historical.
Now, I'm not against sensitivity to fine points of genre and figurative language. I hold a non-literal view of Genesis 1, and I inclune toward the view that the Flood was local rather than literally worldwide. All that to say, I'm not necessarily one who toes the traditional evangelical party lines on every issue. But I hold these positions because I belive they're flagged by details in the texts themselves.
Lynch's suggestion that the Flood account is ahistorical, however, makes me extremely uncomfortable for two reasons. First, I have listened to John Dominic Croissan use the same language to make the same argument about the gospels. The gospels are true, in that they carry real spiritual meaning, but hardly any event described in them actually happened. He likened the gospels to parables, and Lynch likens the Flood account to the same.
Second, and bound up closely to the first point, I do not believe there is any genre distinction that would flag the Flood narrative as parabolic rather than straightforward history. In terms of genre it isn't any different from the Abrahamic narratives, the book of Samuel, or the book of Ruth. The names of Noah and his sons appear in genealogies in straightforward historical accounts like Chronicles and Luke. Lynch's arguments against historicity all boil down to improbability, much like Croissan's arguments against the historicity of the Resurrection account. This line of reasoning is, in my estimation, incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration.
---
There are good points in the book, and I found each chapter thought-provoking in one way or another. But there is plenty more I could complain about concerning Lynch's doctrine, his approach to comparing the Scriptures with other ANE sources, his assumptions about historiography, and his detailed exegesis. I really can't recommend this book.
I was thoroughly unimpressed with this book. It has its high points (particularly the chapter on God's character), but I honestly wouldn't recommend it to anybody wrestling with the subject.
The main issue, for me, was a combination of bumbling exegesis and a poor doctrine of Scripture. These problems were far worse in the section dealing with Genesis 1-11 than the section dealing with Joshua, but they're present throughout. I'll offer a couple of examples.
Bumbling exegesis: Lynch dedicates a chapter to the way Genesis 1-11 couples violence and misogyny, critiquing the latter by showing the way it's accompanied by the former. While I'm happy to agree that misogyny and violence feed into each other, I don't think Lynch makes a strong case that the author of Genesis had this issue on his mind. Among his weakest arguments is his insistence concerning the Hebrew idiom used to express Lamech's marriages in chapter 4 (as well as the sons of god in ch6). Lamech "took" (לקח) his wives, implying that the marriages were forced.
The problem is that this is the standard idiom for the initiation of a marriage throughout the entire Old Testament. If he wanted to argue that the idiom betrays a misogynistic, women-as-property outlook on the part of the biblical authors, that would be more tenable (though I would still disagree). But to claim that the author of Genesis chose this idiom as a subtle criticism of Lamech (and the sons of God in ch6) is simply ludicrous.
Poor doctrine of Scripture: Lynch's approach to the Flood is multifaceted. I only wish to highlight one point: He takes the account as fictional. He argues that the story is true (i.e., it carries genuine theological value), but not historical.
Now, I'm not against sensitivity to fine points of genre and figurative language. I hold a non-literal view of Genesis 1, and I inclune toward the view that the Flood was local rather than literally worldwide. All that to say, I'm not necessarily one who toes the traditional evangelical party lines on every issue. But I hold these positions because I belive they're flagged by details in the texts themselves.
Lynch's suggestion that the Flood account is ahistorical, however, makes me extremely uncomfortable for two reasons. First, I have listened to John Dominic Croissan use the same language to make the same argument about the gospels. The gospels are true, in that they carry real spiritual meaning, but hardly any event described in them actually happened. He likened the gospels to parables, and Lynch likens the Flood account to the same.
Second, and bound up closely to the first point, I do not believe there is any genre distinction that would flag the Flood narrative as parabolic rather than straightforward history. In terms of genre it isn't any different from the Abrahamic narratives, the book of Samuel, or the book of Ruth. The names of Noah and his sons appear in genealogies in straightforward historical accounts like Chronicles and Luke. Lynch's arguments against historicity all boil down to improbability, much like Croissan's arguments against the historicity of the Resurrection account. This line of reasoning is, in my estimation, incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration.
---
There are good points in the book, and I found each chapter thought-provoking in one way or another. But there is plenty more I could complain about concerning Lynch's doctrine, his approach to comparing the Scriptures with other ANE sources, his assumptions about historiography, and his detailed exegesis. I really can't recommend this book.
January 21, 2025
Big takeaway: the violence is real, avoid easy answers. The violence is also complicated, avoid easy answers. Ancient near eastern context, literary style, internal hermeneutics of interpretation all play a big part, but they don't do away with the difficulty. All that said, the biblical story seems to encourage us to wrestle with God, particularly as concerns his judgement. Even though we may say he has the right to do whatever he wants, he consistently respects and responds to humans who intercede for his mercy.
Another fun note he pointed out: if you do the math in Exodus 34, God is not 50/50 love and wrath, he's about 500 times more loving than judging (even though the math isn't the point).
Another fun note he pointed out: if you do the math in Exodus 34, God is not 50/50 love and wrath, he's about 500 times more loving than judging (even though the math isn't the point).
December 29, 2024
More like 3.5 for me. I think there’s a lot of really solid “patterns for thinking” here (think math class teaching you how to think rather than specific solutions) but when the topics become more focused on specific issues it becomes a bit less compelling. Still useful and a great starting point. Also - the formatting was terrible so that bothered me.
November 13, 2022
"If there’s no opposition to God in these early creation accounts, and if these introductory stories are trying to teach us to see the world as it ought to be, then violence has no essential place in God’s creation. It doesn’t belong."
Flood and Fury by Matthew J. Lynch attempts to demonstrates the life-giving vein of Shalom that is present in the biblical story even in some of the notoriously problematic texts, like the stories of Joshua and conquest of Canaan. The narrative style is engaging and easy to read—even casual at times. For some, the informality may be off-putting, but I think that people who are struggling with these texts and are triggered by the violence found in them, may find the conversational style more accessible and compelling.
Ultimately, I hoped this book would show me that not only are there life-giving ways to read these violent texts, but that the biblical message of shalom is present and centre in even the most violent of the biblical texts. While I'm not entirely convinced, Lynch's work is a step in that direction and facilitates and guides an important conversation that is desperately needed and welcome. I recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with similar questions about scripture.
Flood and Fury by Matthew J. Lynch attempts to demonstrates the life-giving vein of Shalom that is present in the biblical story even in some of the notoriously problematic texts, like the stories of Joshua and conquest of Canaan. The narrative style is engaging and easy to read—even casual at times. For some, the informality may be off-putting, but I think that people who are struggling with these texts and are triggered by the violence found in them, may find the conversational style more accessible and compelling.
Ultimately, I hoped this book would show me that not only are there life-giving ways to read these violent texts, but that the biblical message of shalom is present and centre in even the most violent of the biblical texts. While I'm not entirely convinced, Lynch's work is a step in that direction and facilitates and guides an important conversation that is desperately needed and welcome. I recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with similar questions about scripture.
June 10, 2023
When reading the review of another book on a similar topic - the review said something interesting to the effect of "those who write books [about a difficult topic like violence or evil] are worthy of our sympathy as well as our praise". The implication being to look deeply into challenging topics can be taxing in various ways. The praise for succeeding (if they do) and the sympathy for the struggling.
And I think that Lynch probably deserves both, even if the book doesn't necessarily achieve its goal in a given reader. It is clear from outset that Lynch deeply cares about anyone genuinely and honestly thinking through these issues - and in that sense this book isn't an apologia - it:
"isn't designed to help you refute the skeptic, take down the New Atheists, or win over the unbeliever. Its aims are more focused, but hopefully, more durable."
Instead, Lynch's "hopefully more durable" aim wants to show readers that properly working through certain issues in the OT:
" [...] requires the delicate coordination of steering and letting go. [...] when it comes to addressing the ethical challenge of violence in the Old Testament, some people pull a hard right. They try to justify every violent text. 'God says it. That settles it.' Others pull a hard left. 'Violent texts in the Old Testament are just the wishful projections of a violent and barbaric people. We must resist its teachings at all costs or re-interpret them until they look nice and clean!'" and showing that "[...] these aren't our only options.".
With that in mind, the book is aimed at (1) those in the church who have persistent concerns about violent texts, (2) people who disciple those with such concerns, (3) and those who have friends on the fringes of the faith who can't get past the problem of violence.
So throughout the rest of the book, rather than providing a single exhaustive approach, Lynch surveys a number of interpretive options that mostly emerge from serious consideration of Scripture in it's context(s), applied to the topics of the Flood, and also of the Conquest (hence the title Flood and Fury). Without detailing all approaches, some main ones are a) allowing Genesis 1 & 2's canonical priority and peace-centred ideal to serve as a foundation for how things SHOULD be prior to any violent texts, b) have a trinitarian, cross-centred and foreward-looking hermeneutic, c) read carefully, and slowly to allow the text itself to raise and address issues without rushing to a conclusion, d) allow culturaly normative ways of speaking to challenge interpretation (i.e. is hyperbole or idiom at play?) and maybe most importantly e) allow space for genuine wrestling and mystery - not trading truth for certainty in this "wicked problem".
Some absolute highlights were his application of the normative ways of speaking, and the subversive dual narritives being told in the Conquest sections of the Bible. Lynch shows that there are both texts which imply a rapid wipe-out, aswell as gradual displacement in the same sections. Not to the point of contradiction, but to the point of complicating some conclusions that might be drawn. Another positive was highlighting a decreation motif that weaves it's way from the Fall to the Flood, and how some more activity than is maybe warranted is read into the texts at this point.
One major weakness, in my opinion, is after all this careful textual arguing and painting a more nuanced picture of the Flood story - Lynch basically says that it's entirely possible this entire story is purely metaphorical, and not meant to reflect any kind of historical event (I may be saying that too strongly, but from memory that seemed to be the case). Now look, I'm someone who thinks there are many valid ways this and many other texts could be taken (and myself don't necessarily take the most traditional one). There are valid interpretative options around genre, historical context and literary context that may help us avoid naively taking a too "wooden" reading - but I don't think a purely imaginary approach is one. Nor one that would at all be accepted by someone who might, as Lynch said earlier "pull a hard right. They try to justify every violent text. 'God says it. That settles it.'". Infact it may lose such a reader totally, which is unfortunate because I'm not sure it is necessary.
That leads to a second weakness I see. The varied approaches might make the book seem slightly chaotic at times, and might lead readers who aren't particularly slow to read and consider the texts, or genuinely think about these issues to feel a bit rocked PRECISELY because it isn't trying to offer one easy solution. This isn't helped by the two-or-three chapters which have been reproduced and reworked from previous writings, which sometimes did break flow a little I felt. This, however, I believe is more an audience than author issue, because I can absolutely see a reader for whom this book is a dearly valued friend and conversation partner.
Not a pro or con, but while readable, the book is certainly well-researched, thorough and somewhat technical at times.
Finally then, whilst reading initially, I almost gave this book a 3-star rating, not exactly knowing who I could/would recommend this book to. As it felt somewhat haphazard with the many approaches described in short-ish chapters. But infact in the final chapters, it all came together for me, as Lynch forms and teaches the reader to be a certain KIND of reader in and through this book. One which is dynamic and not purely static, one which is authentic, and not willing to give up on the sometimes challenging text of Scripture, one who does not:
"[...] take a static rope to the problem of violence in the Bible. They take what looks like the most durable material and weave themselves a rope of protection against anything that might throw them off the wall. This might take the form of trying to rid the flood or conquest stories of all violent traces. Or it might involve trying to erase any 'problem of violence' in the first place. But they weave the rope so tight that it breaks with a sudden load. That broken rope can leave our faith wrecked on the rocks below.
What we need instead is a dynamic rope." (p. 198)
And what Lynch has been trying to do is weave a dynamic rope which is more resilient at dealing which these issues - one weaved from many different approaches that improve it's flexibility at the elastic limit.
And finally, there's a true compassion for those whom this isn't just a purely intellectual question, where Lynch reminds readers that not hyperfocusing on a particular issue is important:
"But staring directly at the problem of violence too long can leave you with blurred vision, or even blinded. I've seen it happen to people. Sometimes we must step back, look elsewhere, and then return to our original question to see if it looks different." (p. 199)
Honest.
And I think that Lynch probably deserves both, even if the book doesn't necessarily achieve its goal in a given reader. It is clear from outset that Lynch deeply cares about anyone genuinely and honestly thinking through these issues - and in that sense this book isn't an apologia - it:
"isn't designed to help you refute the skeptic, take down the New Atheists, or win over the unbeliever. Its aims are more focused, but hopefully, more durable."
Instead, Lynch's "hopefully more durable" aim wants to show readers that properly working through certain issues in the OT:
" [...] requires the delicate coordination of steering and letting go. [...] when it comes to addressing the ethical challenge of violence in the Old Testament, some people pull a hard right. They try to justify every violent text. 'God says it. That settles it.' Others pull a hard left. 'Violent texts in the Old Testament are just the wishful projections of a violent and barbaric people. We must resist its teachings at all costs or re-interpret them until they look nice and clean!'" and showing that "[...] these aren't our only options.".
With that in mind, the book is aimed at (1) those in the church who have persistent concerns about violent texts, (2) people who disciple those with such concerns, (3) and those who have friends on the fringes of the faith who can't get past the problem of violence.
So throughout the rest of the book, rather than providing a single exhaustive approach, Lynch surveys a number of interpretive options that mostly emerge from serious consideration of Scripture in it's context(s), applied to the topics of the Flood, and also of the Conquest (hence the title Flood and Fury). Without detailing all approaches, some main ones are a) allowing Genesis 1 & 2's canonical priority and peace-centred ideal to serve as a foundation for how things SHOULD be prior to any violent texts, b) have a trinitarian, cross-centred and foreward-looking hermeneutic, c) read carefully, and slowly to allow the text itself to raise and address issues without rushing to a conclusion, d) allow culturaly normative ways of speaking to challenge interpretation (i.e. is hyperbole or idiom at play?) and maybe most importantly e) allow space for genuine wrestling and mystery - not trading truth for certainty in this "wicked problem".
Some absolute highlights were his application of the normative ways of speaking, and the subversive dual narritives being told in the Conquest sections of the Bible. Lynch shows that there are both texts which imply a rapid wipe-out, aswell as gradual displacement in the same sections. Not to the point of contradiction, but to the point of complicating some conclusions that might be drawn. Another positive was highlighting a decreation motif that weaves it's way from the Fall to the Flood, and how some more activity than is maybe warranted is read into the texts at this point.
One major weakness, in my opinion, is after all this careful textual arguing and painting a more nuanced picture of the Flood story - Lynch basically says that it's entirely possible this entire story is purely metaphorical, and not meant to reflect any kind of historical event (I may be saying that too strongly, but from memory that seemed to be the case). Now look, I'm someone who thinks there are many valid ways this and many other texts could be taken (and myself don't necessarily take the most traditional one). There are valid interpretative options around genre, historical context and literary context that may help us avoid naively taking a too "wooden" reading - but I don't think a purely imaginary approach is one. Nor one that would at all be accepted by someone who might, as Lynch said earlier "pull a hard right. They try to justify every violent text. 'God says it. That settles it.'". Infact it may lose such a reader totally, which is unfortunate because I'm not sure it is necessary.
That leads to a second weakness I see. The varied approaches might make the book seem slightly chaotic at times, and might lead readers who aren't particularly slow to read and consider the texts, or genuinely think about these issues to feel a bit rocked PRECISELY because it isn't trying to offer one easy solution. This isn't helped by the two-or-three chapters which have been reproduced and reworked from previous writings, which sometimes did break flow a little I felt. This, however, I believe is more an audience than author issue, because I can absolutely see a reader for whom this book is a dearly valued friend and conversation partner.
Not a pro or con, but while readable, the book is certainly well-researched, thorough and somewhat technical at times.
Finally then, whilst reading initially, I almost gave this book a 3-star rating, not exactly knowing who I could/would recommend this book to. As it felt somewhat haphazard with the many approaches described in short-ish chapters. But infact in the final chapters, it all came together for me, as Lynch forms and teaches the reader to be a certain KIND of reader in and through this book. One which is dynamic and not purely static, one which is authentic, and not willing to give up on the sometimes challenging text of Scripture, one who does not:
"[...] take a static rope to the problem of violence in the Bible. They take what looks like the most durable material and weave themselves a rope of protection against anything that might throw them off the wall. This might take the form of trying to rid the flood or conquest stories of all violent traces. Or it might involve trying to erase any 'problem of violence' in the first place. But they weave the rope so tight that it breaks with a sudden load. That broken rope can leave our faith wrecked on the rocks below.
What we need instead is a dynamic rope." (p. 198)
And what Lynch has been trying to do is weave a dynamic rope which is more resilient at dealing which these issues - one weaved from many different approaches that improve it's flexibility at the elastic limit.
And finally, there's a true compassion for those whom this isn't just a purely intellectual question, where Lynch reminds readers that not hyperfocusing on a particular issue is important:
"But staring directly at the problem of violence too long can leave you with blurred vision, or even blinded. I've seen it happen to people. Sometimes we must step back, look elsewhere, and then return to our original question to see if it looks different." (p. 199)
Honest.
April 8, 2023
Perhaps the most helpful book on the ethics of Old Testament violence on offer, from an incredibly thoughtful and careful OT scholar. I will try to upload a more detailed review once I have the mental bandwidth; but for now, I’ll just say that I highly recommend it!
September 28, 2024
I heard John Mark Comer quote a Jewish professor speaking about the difficulties of reading the Old Testament in a sermon one time saying: “You Christians see the Bible as a message to be proclaimed. We Jews see it as a problem to be solved.”
Sometimes I wish we were that honest about how disturbing Old Testament violence can be. It un-nerves us. Depending on the tradition you were raised in even admitting that the Old Testament goes against your sensitivities and doesn’t make sense to you especially in light of New Testament teachings is taboo.
You’re committed to understanding and believing the Old Testament because Jesus clearly loved his Old Testament (He was the incarnate OT God after all…) but you don’t know what to do with it sometimes.
Me neither. This book felt like it’s helped me take baby steps in a direction of understanding OT violence. Not everything is helpful in this book. In some ways his chapter on the historicity of the Joshua conquest felt like it raised more questions than it answered, and some of his conclusions felt like leaps that he simply dropped in your lap as fact. But overall, this is a really awesome book. Some people won’t like it but there’s way too much meat on these bones to ignore.
Sometimes I wish we were that honest about how disturbing Old Testament violence can be. It un-nerves us. Depending on the tradition you were raised in even admitting that the Old Testament goes against your sensitivities and doesn’t make sense to you especially in light of New Testament teachings is taboo.
You’re committed to understanding and believing the Old Testament because Jesus clearly loved his Old Testament (He was the incarnate OT God after all…) but you don’t know what to do with it sometimes.
Me neither. This book felt like it’s helped me take baby steps in a direction of understanding OT violence. Not everything is helpful in this book. In some ways his chapter on the historicity of the Joshua conquest felt like it raised more questions than it answered, and some of his conclusions felt like leaps that he simply dropped in your lap as fact. But overall, this is a really awesome book. Some people won’t like it but there’s way too much meat on these bones to ignore.
September 19, 2024
Lynch offers thoughtful perspectives on the Old Testament’s most difficult sections (the Flood and the Conquest of Canaan), and he does so with a refreshing humility. Rather than doing mental gymnastics and claiming to “solve” the problem of violence in the Old Testament (in fact, he calls it unsolvable), he instead focuses on providing tools for wrestling with it on our own. Not to discount his thinking, though; he really does offer what I consider to be legitimate explanations for some of the more jarring parts of scripture using historical, theological, and scriptural evidence.
I was going to give it 4 stars, but added a 5th because of the last section of the book which is full of wise and helpful perspectives on how to approach scripture in general (in a way that isn’t overly intellectual or unapproachable). I’m particularly thankful for this as both someone who 1. does youth ministry and 2. is really pretty dumb, all things considered
I was going to give it 4 stars, but added a 5th because of the last section of the book which is full of wise and helpful perspectives on how to approach scripture in general (in a way that isn’t overly intellectual or unapproachable). I’m particularly thankful for this as both someone who 1. does youth ministry and 2. is really pretty dumb, all things considered
June 28, 2025
This was one of the more fascinating theological books I’ve read, primarily because prior to reading it, I assumed that the author and myself would hold more similar theological viewpoints than we did. While we would certainly diverge on the issues of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, modern politics, and the veracity of a historical flood, I challenged myself not to throw out the baby with the bath water, and ended up gleaning so much from this read.
I would highly encourage this if you are plagued by the seemingly incongruent themes of biblical violence (justice) and mercy. However, if you find yourself in the conservative evangelical camp, read with caution, and through the lens of Scripture, as always. :)
I would highly encourage this if you are plagued by the seemingly incongruent themes of biblical violence (justice) and mercy. However, if you find yourself in the conservative evangelical camp, read with caution, and through the lens of Scripture, as always. :)
November 28, 2024
Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God
I enjoyed this book!
I don't often get books on the Old Testament, and so I was really pleased to get this book.
Lynch has a great way of writing, to better understand violence.
He encourages readers to read the text carefully and in context, considering the larger biblical content, and emphasizes the importance of reading these passages with the knowledge of God's shalom (peace) and covenant-keeping love.
The book provides an advanced view with the challenging aspects of Old Testament violence while maintaining faith.
A real interesting book!
Definitely check it out
3.9/5
I enjoyed this book!
I don't often get books on the Old Testament, and so I was really pleased to get this book.
Lynch has a great way of writing, to better understand violence.
He encourages readers to read the text carefully and in context, considering the larger biblical content, and emphasizes the importance of reading these passages with the knowledge of God's shalom (peace) and covenant-keeping love.
The book provides an advanced view with the challenging aspects of Old Testament violence while maintaining faith.
A real interesting book!
Definitely check it out
3.9/5
November 10, 2024
I loved this book. It re-complexified violence in scripture in the best way. And now I have more questions for God, wonder at the literary genius of the biblical authors, and a stronger ability to find God in the scary, violent texts of scripture. The Bible is cool.
February 8, 2023
Effective, convincing, accessible, compassionate, pastoral- a wonderful resource for those looking into this topic.
March 6, 2023
Since "Portraying Violence in the Hebrew Bible" was released in 2022, I have been waiting for Matthew Lynch to write this book that addresses the ethically and morally concerning texts regarding the flood and conquest. These texts have led some to claim the God of the Bible is a vindictive, genocidal bully. Is that a reasonable conclusion or is there something else going on? Lynch's stated objective is to help the reader connect to the Bible, and a world, that is full of violence, "but also full of beauty and life." Lynch also aims to assist the reader encounter the mercy and compassion of God in the broader narrative context of these troubling texts.
There is much to like and recommend in this book. Lynch's position is honouring both the character of God and the truthfulness of Scripture. The book has four parts that I would paraphrase as follows:
1. Framing the problem
2. Creation and Flood
3. Conquest
4. The Old Testament and the Character of God.
There are no cliche, shallow answers offered anywhere in this book. Having read many books addressing the so-called "texts of terror" in recent years, I find Matt Lynch's position persuasive, faithful and sensible. I particularly enjoyed the way the author framed the problem and the challenges of resolving the problem in a way that did not "burn the house of faith down". The chapter on addressing giants was also very good.
This book is essential reading for anyone trying to get their heads and hearts around flood and conquest narratives in the Hebrew Scriptures. I would add that this book is also essential reading for anyone studying or teaching the Old Testament. The book is extensively footnoted and yet entirely accessible. I also enjoyed the author's personal stories that helped connect and ground this work in the realities of human experience. I will be recommending this book enthusiastically.
There is much to like and recommend in this book. Lynch's position is honouring both the character of God and the truthfulness of Scripture. The book has four parts that I would paraphrase as follows:
1. Framing the problem
2. Creation and Flood
3. Conquest
4. The Old Testament and the Character of God.
There are no cliche, shallow answers offered anywhere in this book. Having read many books addressing the so-called "texts of terror" in recent years, I find Matt Lynch's position persuasive, faithful and sensible. I particularly enjoyed the way the author framed the problem and the challenges of resolving the problem in a way that did not "burn the house of faith down". The chapter on addressing giants was also very good.
This book is essential reading for anyone trying to get their heads and hearts around flood and conquest narratives in the Hebrew Scriptures. I would add that this book is also essential reading for anyone studying or teaching the Old Testament. The book is extensively footnoted and yet entirely accessible. I also enjoyed the author's personal stories that helped connect and ground this work in the realities of human experience. I will be recommending this book enthusiastically.
December 21, 2025
This is one I’ll need to revisit and won’t hesitate to recommend.
February 7, 2023
Flood and Fury by Matthew Lynch falls under the category of books where I am most definitely not in the target audience for the book so I kind of need to give two reviews at once. First, how will this book work for those it was intended for and second, how does this book work for me.
Flood and Fury takes a look at the stories of the Flood in the Days of Noah and the Conquest of Israel during the Days of Joshua. This book was book was an examination of those sections of the Bible for people in the church who would consider themselves progressive and willing to cut out portions of the Bible that they deem to not be historical accurate or that would demean their view of God as they think He is presented elsewhere in Scripture.
I am not one of those people. I think the Flood of Noah’s day and the Conquest of Joshua are in our Bible because they occurred in the manner presented in the Bible and as ways to teach us about God’s character and His dealings with man.
I think there were moments were Lynch had some genuine insight that I truly appreciated and other places where I was like – Matthew you are basically denying that these stories happened at all. And I was not a fan, but let’s discuss some of the good and the bad of Flood and Fury by Matthew Lynch
Let’s start by saying, if you know someone who is ready to take a razor blade to their Bible I cut out stories like the Flood and Jericho – this might be a good book to draw them back in. Lynch does a good job to show that these are the violent images of destruction and mindless killing of innocents as we often see it described by others.
There is much to learn about God’s peace and plan in these stories. If you think God is immorally violent. Lynch will help you to see why you need to give these stories a deeper examination.
I really like his advice that when we come to a passage of Scripture that grosses us out a little or makes a question God’s reasoning, the best thing is to slow down and meditate on why this story is in the Bible instead of flying past it in a hurry and just wishing that it wasn’t there. God’s peace shines bright on the backdrop of our sin and darkness.
His discussion on harem or the ban where Israel was called to kill every person was helpful. I do think he is most likely close to be accurate that in the passage where it speaks of eliminating entire peoples in Joshua, the author is referring to the armies of the Canaanites and not going into towns and wiping out every person.
He has a lot of evidence in the Bible itself on how some places it would just make no sense if Israel was going from town to town and wiping out every living breathing person.
His discussion on creation was also very helpful. It was a great way to start the book. He drove home the point that when we contrast the creation account in Genesis with the other creation accounts in the ANE, the other accounts are very violent when Genesis is an account of peace. It is very good, not very violent.
He paints a picture of how God’s goal for the world is Shalom or peace. Not violence and conquest.
All of these points together could help bring someone back from the cliff who is saying, I need to unhitch the Old testament from the New testament and just get rid of all that violence and terror.
No, this is important. It teaches us about God, history, and how God interacts in history. You can’t fully know God without the Old Testament and his section on Exodus 34 was great. Always love when people to turn to that important passage.
Now the not so good and some times ugly.
First, Lynch denies the worldwide flood. And spends some time to dismiss it. No thanks.
Second, he kind of denies the conquest in Joshua as well. He isn’t as explicit. But the way he undercuts a lot of the narrative, I was not a big fan.
Third, his chapter on violence against women. That chapter was awful. I think it was trying to gain points with those who want to tear down the patriarchy but his work was built on one little point in the Hebrew that just isn’t accurate in anyway.
Lynch made the argument that take in Genesis – when a man takes a woman – that the word take is violence against women. It is rape. He will bring this up again at the end of the book. Take doesn’t equal rape in the OT.
It can, but it just means to either be married or have sex. It could be a violent taking but the context would need to indicate. None of the incidents in Genesis 1-11 make clear that it is a violent taking against women.
And just to make sure everyone watching this is clear in Genesis – when Isaac married Rebekah, he took her. When Abraham married after Sarah died, he took Keturah. When Esau was married he took wives. When Leah spoke of Rachel sleeping with Jacob, she said Rachel took Jacob. Obviously Rachel wasn’t raping him.
Judah took his wife among the Canaanites. And finally Moses’ father took his mother.
There is no evidence the Sons of God were raping the daughters of men or forcing them into marriage or even that the wives of Lamech didn’t both want to marry him and they were happy to marry the baddest guy on the block.
My point is to say, one it was poor scholarship that obviously really got under my skin and second, violence is wrong in Genesis whether it is against men or women. We don’t need a special chapter on male violence against women and the basis for the chapter isn’t really there.
So there were places in this book where I felt like Lynch was driving me a little bit crazy and I wasn’t a fan. Other places where I really did enjoy his insight. Overall, I am glad to have read it for the good parts. The peace of God in Creation was the best. The twisting of take into rape was the worst. Ups and Downs.
So I recommend it for those who are comfortable reading things they disagree with if they are from my theological view, and if you are someone who is thinking of cutting out the Old Testament as a whole, give Lynch a chance first, I just wish he would take some sections of the Bible by faith and not discount them.
You can watch the video of this review on my YouTube channel. Search Rev Reads on YouTube to find it.
Flood and Fury takes a look at the stories of the Flood in the Days of Noah and the Conquest of Israel during the Days of Joshua. This book was book was an examination of those sections of the Bible for people in the church who would consider themselves progressive and willing to cut out portions of the Bible that they deem to not be historical accurate or that would demean their view of God as they think He is presented elsewhere in Scripture.
I am not one of those people. I think the Flood of Noah’s day and the Conquest of Joshua are in our Bible because they occurred in the manner presented in the Bible and as ways to teach us about God’s character and His dealings with man.
I think there were moments were Lynch had some genuine insight that I truly appreciated and other places where I was like – Matthew you are basically denying that these stories happened at all. And I was not a fan, but let’s discuss some of the good and the bad of Flood and Fury by Matthew Lynch
Let’s start by saying, if you know someone who is ready to take a razor blade to their Bible I cut out stories like the Flood and Jericho – this might be a good book to draw them back in. Lynch does a good job to show that these are the violent images of destruction and mindless killing of innocents as we often see it described by others.
There is much to learn about God’s peace and plan in these stories. If you think God is immorally violent. Lynch will help you to see why you need to give these stories a deeper examination.
I really like his advice that when we come to a passage of Scripture that grosses us out a little or makes a question God’s reasoning, the best thing is to slow down and meditate on why this story is in the Bible instead of flying past it in a hurry and just wishing that it wasn’t there. God’s peace shines bright on the backdrop of our sin and darkness.
His discussion on harem or the ban where Israel was called to kill every person was helpful. I do think he is most likely close to be accurate that in the passage where it speaks of eliminating entire peoples in Joshua, the author is referring to the armies of the Canaanites and not going into towns and wiping out every person.
He has a lot of evidence in the Bible itself on how some places it would just make no sense if Israel was going from town to town and wiping out every living breathing person.
His discussion on creation was also very helpful. It was a great way to start the book. He drove home the point that when we contrast the creation account in Genesis with the other creation accounts in the ANE, the other accounts are very violent when Genesis is an account of peace. It is very good, not very violent.
He paints a picture of how God’s goal for the world is Shalom or peace. Not violence and conquest.
All of these points together could help bring someone back from the cliff who is saying, I need to unhitch the Old testament from the New testament and just get rid of all that violence and terror.
No, this is important. It teaches us about God, history, and how God interacts in history. You can’t fully know God without the Old Testament and his section on Exodus 34 was great. Always love when people to turn to that important passage.
Now the not so good and some times ugly.
First, Lynch denies the worldwide flood. And spends some time to dismiss it. No thanks.
Second, he kind of denies the conquest in Joshua as well. He isn’t as explicit. But the way he undercuts a lot of the narrative, I was not a big fan.
Third, his chapter on violence against women. That chapter was awful. I think it was trying to gain points with those who want to tear down the patriarchy but his work was built on one little point in the Hebrew that just isn’t accurate in anyway.
Lynch made the argument that take in Genesis – when a man takes a woman – that the word take is violence against women. It is rape. He will bring this up again at the end of the book. Take doesn’t equal rape in the OT.
It can, but it just means to either be married or have sex. It could be a violent taking but the context would need to indicate. None of the incidents in Genesis 1-11 make clear that it is a violent taking against women.
And just to make sure everyone watching this is clear in Genesis – when Isaac married Rebekah, he took her. When Abraham married after Sarah died, he took Keturah. When Esau was married he took wives. When Leah spoke of Rachel sleeping with Jacob, she said Rachel took Jacob. Obviously Rachel wasn’t raping him.
Judah took his wife among the Canaanites. And finally Moses’ father took his mother.
There is no evidence the Sons of God were raping the daughters of men or forcing them into marriage or even that the wives of Lamech didn’t both want to marry him and they were happy to marry the baddest guy on the block.
My point is to say, one it was poor scholarship that obviously really got under my skin and second, violence is wrong in Genesis whether it is against men or women. We don’t need a special chapter on male violence against women and the basis for the chapter isn’t really there.
So there were places in this book where I felt like Lynch was driving me a little bit crazy and I wasn’t a fan. Other places where I really did enjoy his insight. Overall, I am glad to have read it for the good parts. The peace of God in Creation was the best. The twisting of take into rape was the worst. Ups and Downs.
So I recommend it for those who are comfortable reading things they disagree with if they are from my theological view, and if you are someone who is thinking of cutting out the Old Testament as a whole, give Lynch a chance first, I just wish he would take some sections of the Bible by faith and not discount them.
You can watch the video of this review on my YouTube channel. Search Rev Reads on YouTube to find it.
December 17, 2025
Frustrating - that is the best word to describe this book.
Admittedly, when you set out to write a book that deals with the problem of evil, you have set down a course that has vexed philosophers for ages; it would be the height of arrogance to think you are going to plow new ground. Lynch admits, "Trying to tame a problem like violence in Scripture is like trying to resolve homelessness with an essential oil" (215).
Lynch writes honestly and clearly about the difficulty of resolving the goodness of God with the presence of violent texts in the Bible. He gets full marks for endeavoring to provide some sort of resolution to the tension that exists. Furthermore, he deserves credit for holding on to a notion of God that would affirm His goodness and authority.
Unfortunately, Lynch boxes himself in from the get go. In chapter two he lays out eight options on how believers might resolve the problem. The die is cast when he outright rejects option three - "divine command theory." In doing so, he severs himself from Augustinian tradition and Reformed heritage. Why would he make such a major step? "Divine Command Theory can sever the connection between God's justice and human perceptions of justice. That makes it difficult to follow the prophetic call to act justly like God" (23). So, for Lynch, saying that what God does is righteous impales the believer upon the standard of God's righteousness when the believer is called to act as God does. The problems with this faulty understanding are myriad. And all of the problems stem back to a lesser view of God.
While the scope of the book doesn't take him down the path, his argumentation reminded me a great deal of authors who were proponents of an open view of God writing a short decade ago. For example, when he deals with the flood narrative, Lynch defines God's activity in passive, almost deistic, terms. "If God is involved, it is only to facilitate the consequences of creation's violence. He allows violence to destroy itself while preserving the seeds of a new creation in the ark" (75).
What follows in the rest of the book is Lynch's furious and wildly unsuccessful attempt to create new categories, or to understand anew how we assign the Bible's accounts of violence to the proper category. In fact, this is the most insightful of Lynch's work. He introduces the reader to his theory of Joshua containing both a "Majority report" and a "Minority report." Each report has a purpose in Joshua, and reading the book with both perspectives in mind gives the reader a hermeneutic to better understand many areas of tension within the book. Lynch is primarily concerned with the violence in the book and how these various perspectives help the reader to navigate that problem. This hermeneutic, however, also helps the reader understand treaties and land claims. I found this to be helpful and will employ this language as I teach in the future.
Factually, Lynch just gets a few things wrong. For example, he writes, "Joshua never commands herem (total destruction) against Israelites for that idolatry" (136). Somebody better tell Achan. Lynch asserts that Joshua never "mentions a single Canaanite altar or idol." This argument is absurd. It's like saying, "The book never mentions a restaurant, so they must not have ever eaten." The totality of Scripture points to the fact that the nations are chasing after their own gods. Israel alone was covenanted with the Lord. And through them, he was extending salvation to the nations. But, it is never in question that the nations were polytheistic idol worshippers. Finally, I was repeatedly perturbed with Lynch's choice to declare that the Red Sea is the Reedy Sea. One can only assume that he finds fault with the Exodus narrative, or at least its commonly held transmission. Most people who hold to this view do so, not for textual reasons, but because they deny the miraculous portions of Scripture - beginning in Genesis and extending to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know if that is true of Lynch (I pray it isn't), but I see no need to rewrite the text.
That said, this is a well-written book that tries to give an answer to a real issue - only he decides from the outside that he will abandon the best answers ever given to the problem. In the end, he boxes himself in by the rejection of historically orthodox position held by Augustine, Calvin, and countless other faithful saints. Like I said - frustrating.
Admittedly, when you set out to write a book that deals with the problem of evil, you have set down a course that has vexed philosophers for ages; it would be the height of arrogance to think you are going to plow new ground. Lynch admits, "Trying to tame a problem like violence in Scripture is like trying to resolve homelessness with an essential oil" (215).
Lynch writes honestly and clearly about the difficulty of resolving the goodness of God with the presence of violent texts in the Bible. He gets full marks for endeavoring to provide some sort of resolution to the tension that exists. Furthermore, he deserves credit for holding on to a notion of God that would affirm His goodness and authority.
Unfortunately, Lynch boxes himself in from the get go. In chapter two he lays out eight options on how believers might resolve the problem. The die is cast when he outright rejects option three - "divine command theory." In doing so, he severs himself from Augustinian tradition and Reformed heritage. Why would he make such a major step? "Divine Command Theory can sever the connection between God's justice and human perceptions of justice. That makes it difficult to follow the prophetic call to act justly like God" (23). So, for Lynch, saying that what God does is righteous impales the believer upon the standard of God's righteousness when the believer is called to act as God does. The problems with this faulty understanding are myriad. And all of the problems stem back to a lesser view of God.
While the scope of the book doesn't take him down the path, his argumentation reminded me a great deal of authors who were proponents of an open view of God writing a short decade ago. For example, when he deals with the flood narrative, Lynch defines God's activity in passive, almost deistic, terms. "If God is involved, it is only to facilitate the consequences of creation's violence. He allows violence to destroy itself while preserving the seeds of a new creation in the ark" (75).
What follows in the rest of the book is Lynch's furious and wildly unsuccessful attempt to create new categories, or to understand anew how we assign the Bible's accounts of violence to the proper category. In fact, this is the most insightful of Lynch's work. He introduces the reader to his theory of Joshua containing both a "Majority report" and a "Minority report." Each report has a purpose in Joshua, and reading the book with both perspectives in mind gives the reader a hermeneutic to better understand many areas of tension within the book. Lynch is primarily concerned with the violence in the book and how these various perspectives help the reader to navigate that problem. This hermeneutic, however, also helps the reader understand treaties and land claims. I found this to be helpful and will employ this language as I teach in the future.
Factually, Lynch just gets a few things wrong. For example, he writes, "Joshua never commands herem (total destruction) against Israelites for that idolatry" (136). Somebody better tell Achan. Lynch asserts that Joshua never "mentions a single Canaanite altar or idol." This argument is absurd. It's like saying, "The book never mentions a restaurant, so they must not have ever eaten." The totality of Scripture points to the fact that the nations are chasing after their own gods. Israel alone was covenanted with the Lord. And through them, he was extending salvation to the nations. But, it is never in question that the nations were polytheistic idol worshippers. Finally, I was repeatedly perturbed with Lynch's choice to declare that the Red Sea is the Reedy Sea. One can only assume that he finds fault with the Exodus narrative, or at least its commonly held transmission. Most people who hold to this view do so, not for textual reasons, but because they deny the miraculous portions of Scripture - beginning in Genesis and extending to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know if that is true of Lynch (I pray it isn't), but I see no need to rewrite the text.
That said, this is a well-written book that tries to give an answer to a real issue - only he decides from the outside that he will abandon the best answers ever given to the problem. In the end, he boxes himself in by the rejection of historically orthodox position held by Augustine, Calvin, and countless other faithful saints. Like I said - frustrating.
April 25, 2023
Lynch unpacks a big question here: how can a good God, one rich in mercy, ordain (or even cause) acts of significant violence? He focuses on two biblical case studies: the Flood and the Conquest in Joshua - both of which have genocidal implications, at least when viewed through a modern lens. Lynch starts broad and examines Roger Olsen’s fairly exhaustive overview of how scholars typically approach these texts. He then examined each event and their corresponding texts and attempts to reframe them by offering a combination of embedding the stories within their historical contexts and recognizing the ambiguity inherent therein.
Lynch does a good job not pigeonholing himself into a single approach. He borrows from multiple interpretative threads and creates a richer argument as a result. He strikes a good balance between taking the ethical concerns of the issue seriously, and letting the text speak for itself (and accepting it). I’ll go ahead and offer a spoiler alert: Lynch admits that he can’t completely resolve the tension in the text. But in terms of creating a humane approach to these texts, Lynch succeeds.
Lynch seems to specialize in the Conquest narrative, and it shows. It’s the longer and more complex portion of the book. Lynch deals with the material masterfully, and is able to apply the benefits of recent research. I particularly found his highlighting of the Egyptian connection to be helpful in interpreting the larger purpose of the narrative.
The weakness in the book is the Flood portion. At times, Lynch’s interpretation seems idiosyncratic. I have no qualms with the larger thrust of his argument, but found several individual claims to be wonky. A couple of times, a quick Google search found that Lynch stood in a camp of his own. This part is also messy. He doesn’t get close to dealing with the Flood texts in as much depth as the Conquest narrative. There’s a lack of focus, to say the least. For example, one chapter in this part deals with violence against women in the early Genesis narratives. It was a fascinating and convincing piece of scholarship, but it’s connection to the Flood was tenuous at best. I believe it’s meant to show the extent of a fallen world in the lead-up to the Flood, but that is not clearly stated. At the end of the day, it feels like Lynch simply didn’t have enough to say about the Flood, so he padded out the section.
Regardless of the weaknesses of this book, Lynch remains a gifted communicator and insightful interpreter throughout. If the subject of this books piques your interest, do yourself a favor and pick it up.
Lynch does a good job not pigeonholing himself into a single approach. He borrows from multiple interpretative threads and creates a richer argument as a result. He strikes a good balance between taking the ethical concerns of the issue seriously, and letting the text speak for itself (and accepting it). I’ll go ahead and offer a spoiler alert: Lynch admits that he can’t completely resolve the tension in the text. But in terms of creating a humane approach to these texts, Lynch succeeds.
Lynch seems to specialize in the Conquest narrative, and it shows. It’s the longer and more complex portion of the book. Lynch deals with the material masterfully, and is able to apply the benefits of recent research. I particularly found his highlighting of the Egyptian connection to be helpful in interpreting the larger purpose of the narrative.
The weakness in the book is the Flood portion. At times, Lynch’s interpretation seems idiosyncratic. I have no qualms with the larger thrust of his argument, but found several individual claims to be wonky. A couple of times, a quick Google search found that Lynch stood in a camp of his own. This part is also messy. He doesn’t get close to dealing with the Flood texts in as much depth as the Conquest narrative. There’s a lack of focus, to say the least. For example, one chapter in this part deals with violence against women in the early Genesis narratives. It was a fascinating and convincing piece of scholarship, but it’s connection to the Flood was tenuous at best. I believe it’s meant to show the extent of a fallen world in the lead-up to the Flood, but that is not clearly stated. At the end of the day, it feels like Lynch simply didn’t have enough to say about the Flood, so he padded out the section.
Regardless of the weaknesses of this book, Lynch remains a gifted communicator and insightful interpreter throughout. If the subject of this books piques your interest, do yourself a favor and pick it up.
January 17, 2025
I LOVED this, especially as my first resource to go alongside my study in Joshua. In my opinion, Lynch could have just focused on the conquest (the Flood deserves its own book imo) since that was the bigger part of the book anyway. I loved his use of archaeological sources, his engagement with the literary aspects of the book, and his emphasis on the intended audience. This felt a lot fresher than other arguments I've encountered on the subject. His sources were a gold mine (we love footnotes not endnotes). I also always note and appreciate humility when I spot it (there can be a lot of hubris in biblical scholarship) so he gets points for that from me.
May 19, 2025
This book was a treat. Super accessible point into thinking about violence in the OT, yet Lynch keeps the discussion rooted in Gods faithfulness and uses thoughtful research while bringing in a lot of other academic voices to the table. I loved the multi-lens approach he takes while looking at the problem of violence and Lynch gives great tools for how to approach these parts of scripture that seem barbaric and his walk through the conquest narrative was particularly thought provoking. Definitely would recommend for anyone struggling with the violence in the OT but be warned, not many conclusions are found here, only more questions!
July 22, 2023
A pastor said in his sermon once (and I paraphrase), "The Bible adequately teaches us everything it sets out to teach." The divine scriptures are life-changing, and the more we press into the study of scripture, the more it changes us.
That's the heart of this book as well. Lynch doesn't give straightforward answers, but rather instructs us on the complexities of scripture. In these pages, as they guide us through passages of scripture and historical understanding of said passages, we can better know God. What a worthwhile pursuit.
That's the heart of this book as well. Lynch doesn't give straightforward answers, but rather instructs us on the complexities of scripture. In these pages, as they guide us through passages of scripture and historical understanding of said passages, we can better know God. What a worthwhile pursuit.
March 6, 2024
More properly 3.5
Largely knocked down from a four by its sense of style. Tonally, it's a bit too upbeat for a book about Old Testament violence ought to be.
Still, it provides some nice insights about what the purpose violent texts in the Old Testament would have served for their audience of post-exilic Israelites trying to puzzle out how to live a faithful life dedicated to Yahweh. He does this while making sure he steers well clear of trying to resolve anything too easily with simple solutions.
Largely knocked down from a four by its sense of style. Tonally, it's a bit too upbeat for a book about Old Testament violence ought to be.
Still, it provides some nice insights about what the purpose violent texts in the Old Testament would have served for their audience of post-exilic Israelites trying to puzzle out how to live a faithful life dedicated to Yahweh. He does this while making sure he steers well clear of trying to resolve anything too easily with simple solutions.
September 2, 2024
Lynch offers a helpful approach to the violence in the Old Testament by providing tools for “navigating” these texts rather than trying to “solve” them. While there are several times where he seems to opt for the easy way out of some very challenging passages, the final chapter titled “Irresolvable” offers a compelling summary of the importance of viewing violence within the larger picture of God that the Old Testament presents.
If you’re a Christian who is uncertain about how to navigate the violence found in the Bible this is a good resource.
If you’re a Christian who is uncertain about how to navigate the violence found in the Bible this is a good resource.
May 31, 2023
This book was an excellent read. Matthew Lynch approaches the problem of violence in Scripture humbly and empathetically, while also offering a view that avoids simplistic solutions and honors the Bible’s complexity. Lynch is also lighthearted and conversational, which made the read that much more easy and enjoyable. If you have doubts about the character of God or specific stories in the Bible, give this book a shot. Lynch does not try to solve the problem of violence in scripture, but instead offers a way to reframe these questions so that they lead towards trust rather than suspicion.
August 13, 2024
Well researched and well written, academic and accessible. This book is a great introduction for anyone who seeking to better understand violence in the Old Testament (especially in the book of Joshua).
January 25, 2025
“We can ask the hard questions and still remain faithful.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews