Word & World

Volume 24, Number 1

Winter 2004

God and Violence

in the Old Testament
TERENCE E. FRETHEIM
he Old Testament has a reputation: it is a book filled with violence, including
the violence of God. The New Testament commonly avoids such a charge; but
it, too, is filled with violent words and deeds, and Jesus and the God of the New
Testament are complicit in this violence.1 Yes, the Bible does often promote nonvi-
olence; indeed, the basic eschatological reflections of the Old Testament are
marked by visions of peace and nonviolence, extending even to the animal world
(e.g., Isa 2:2–4; 65:17–25)—these texts constitute a fundamental witness that vio-
lence is an unwanted intruder in God’s world. At the same time, the Bible also—
and often—defends the use of violence, including capital punishment, war, and
self-defense. The New Testament especially, with its talk about hell, even envisions
an eternal violence, in which God is very much involved (e.g., Matt 13:36–50; Rev
1On the much neglected theme of violence in the New Testament, see, e.g., Michel Desjardins, Peace, Vio-

lence, and the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); George Aichele, “Jesus’ Violence,” in Violence,
Utopia, and the Kingdom of God: Fantasy and Ideology in the Bible, ed. George Aichele and Tina Pippin (New York:
Routledge, 1998) 72–91. Jesus’ violent language and predictions in, e.g., Luke 19:41–44 and Matthew 13:23 are illus-
trative. The violence of God is evident in texts such as Acts 5:1–11 and Rev 14. On the “anti-Judaism” of the New
Testament, certainly a form of violence with long-term and recent violent effects, see Gerd Lüdemann, The Unholy
in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible, trans. J. Bowden (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997) 76–127.
That this issue of Word & World has no article on violence in the New Testament might reflect a common opinion.

The Bible, in both Old Testament and New, speaks candidly about vio-
lence—both human violence and divine violence. We must take the reports of
God’s violence seriously, over against ourselves, while also exercising the appro-
priate critique already begun by people within the Bible itself. Finally, we will see
that, in everything, including violence, God seeks to accomplish loving purposes.

18 Copyright © 2004 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota. All rights reserved.
 God and Violence in the Old Testament

14:9–11).2 My task is to reflect on some theological directions for considering the

violence in Old Testament texts, especially divine violence.
The recent proliferation of literature regarding the Bible’s violence and, more
generally, the linkage between religion and violence is remarkable, sparked not
least by the end of the millennium, 9/11, and other terrorist activities in the name
of religion.3 At the same time, Stephen Stein rightly claims that “the systematic
study of the relationship between religion and violence is not very far advanced.”
Stein’s indictment of the church and other religious communities for this inatten-
tion is appropriate; he speaks of “the relative absence of self-reflection by the relig-
ious traditions on their role in generating, sponsoring, promoting, supporting, and
maintaining such violence.”4 That would include the role that the Bible has played
in the perpetration of violence across the globe over the centuries.
In thinking through the violence in the Bible, the need for a closer definition
of violence quickly comes into view; it must be a definition that can encompass
both divine and human violence. For many people, especially in these post-9/11
days, only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is
more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill
people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the wide-
spread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also
refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages,
or depersonalizes others.5
In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any ac-
tion, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive,
public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in what-
ever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most
pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden
from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in
many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the
blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention be-
cause they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, age-

2Remarkably, eternal violence is rare and late in the Old Testament (e.g., Dan 12:2).
3For a recent treatment, see John J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Vio-

lence,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003) 3–21, and the literature cited therein. More generally, see Stephen J.
Stein, “The Web of Religion and Violence,” Religious Studies Review 28 (2002) 103–108, for a review of seven recent
books on the topic. Much attention has been given to the work of René Girard on violence; see, e.g., Violence and the
Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). For a recent review of his work,
including essays from a biblical perspective: Violence Renounced: René Girard, Biblical Studies, and Peacemaking, ed.
Willard M. Swartley (Telford, PA: Pandora, 2000).
4Stein, “Web,” 108.
5Robert McAfee Brown (Religion and Violence, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987]) is correct in

claiming a broad definition: anything that “violates the personhood” of another (7). Unfortunately, it does not
take into account violence against the nonhuman. See also Leo D. Lefebure, Revelation, the Religions, and Vio-
lence (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000) 13–14. The issue of spiritual violence—the use of theological and churchly
matters to browbeat or threaten others—also needs attention; it has not commonly been addressed in the life of
the church.

19
Fretheim

ism).6 If the Bible had described the course of the twentieth century, it would be a
much more violent book than it is7—not least because there are so many more peo-
ple around to be violent!

HUMAN VIOLENCE
The Old Testament certainly knows of human violence that fits our defini-
tion. This is the case, most basically, because the world of which it speaks is
filled with violence, including institutionalized violence, and the Old Testa-
ment does not shrink from telling it like it is. Readers should be grateful that the
Bible does not try to paper over what life is really like for individuals, families,
and communities.
Violence—from robbery to rape to homicide to war—appears near the be-
ginning of the Bible and does not let up along the way. Gen 6:11–13, reporting the
violence of “all flesh” that led to the violence of the flood, tells the story of our
own—and every—time: “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and the earth
was filled with violence.” We should be thankful that God has promised never to
visit the earth in flood-like ways again (Gen 8:21)!
Besides the physical violence to which the Bible witnesses, especially to be
noted is the exercise of violence through the use of words, e.g., slander, false
charges, character assassination, and gossip. Such language has the capacity to
promote distrust, disrespect, and enmity, which often lead to physical violence
(e.g., Ps 140:3, 11; Prov 10:6, 11; 16:27–30; Jer 9:2–8; note the link between “peace”
and violent speech in Ps 34:13–14). Perhaps especially uncomfortable is the ex-
tent to which violence is associated with economic issues, not least the pursuit
of wealth; as Mic 6:12 puts it without qualification: “Your wealthy people are
full of violence.”
The most common Hebrew word for “violence” (sm*j*) is used almost exclu-
sively for human violence and is almost always condemned, implicitly or ex-
plicitly.8 God sharply rejects violent people: “The Lord...hates the lover of violence”
(Ps 11:5), commands that Israel “do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan,
and the widow” (Jer 22:3), demands that violators of the command “put away vio-
lence and oppression” (Ezek 45:9), and condemns those who do “violence to the
earth” (Hab 2:8, 17; see Zeph 1:9). The divinely appointed Davidic king’s “job de-

6People will differ on what constitutes violence, to some extent, especially moving across time and from one

culture or church to another (e.g., refusals to ordain women or gays/lesbians could be considered policies of vio-
lence, but some would disagree).
7See Rudolf Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions, 1994). He counts 170 mil-

lion civilians who fall into the title’s category.

8The verb and noun are used only 68 times in the Old Testament (and synonyms such as “oppression” are

not common either); this relatively infrequent usage in view of the amount of violence reported assumes that the
reader will be able to name the reality for what it is from concrete cases. Dictionary articles on violence can be mis-
leading if they focus only on certain words. But, it is not unimportant that sm*j*only rarely has God as a subject (Job’s
accusation, Job 19:7; Jeremiah’s lament, Jer 20:8; cf. Lam 2:6).

20
 God and Violence in the Old Testament

scription,” mirroring that of God, is to redeem people “from oppression and vio-
lence” (Ps 72:14). Knowing that God has these commitments, and expecting God
to be on their side, the psalmists cry out to God for deliverance from those who
are violent, from “the dark places of the land [that] are full of the haunts of vio-
lence” (Ps 74:20; see also Ps 25:19; 140:1, 4, 11). The righteous think they have a
just case to bring before God and they seek to motivate God to act on their behalf
by claiming that they have “avoided the ways of the violent” (Ps 17:4). And then,
when they have been delivered from violent people, they sing songs of thanksgiv-
ing (2 Sam 22:3, 49; Ps 18:48). The righteous are confident that God will see to a
future when “violence shall no more be heard in your land” (Isa 60:18). Such a
resolute divine opposition to human violence is important to remember in re-
flecting upon divine violence. In sum: if there were no human violence, there
would be no divine violence.

“if there were no human violence, there would be no

divine violence”

To this interhuman violence, we must add the violence of the human against
the nonhuman. It is recognized as early as Gen 9:2 that, in the wake of human sin,
animals live in fear and dread of human beings. More indirectly, interhuman vio-
lence has a devastating effect on the environment. For example, Hos 4:1–3 estab-
lishes a clear link: human swearing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery, and
bloodshed have highly adverse effects upon the land, animals, birds, and fish. On
the other hand, the violence of nonhuman creatures against human beings is no
small matter (e.g., Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28).

DIVINE VIOLENCE
If human violence were the only story about violence in the Bible, this could
be a briefer, if bloody, discussion. But that is not the case. The most basic theologi-
cal problem with the Bible’s violence is that it is often associated with the activity of
God; with remarkable frequency, God is the subject of violent verbs:9 From the
flood, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to the command to sacrifice Isaac, to the plagues,
to all the children killed on Passover night—and we are not yet through the book of
Exodus!10 What will we make of this divine violence?
Questions raised about God’s violence in the Bible are not simply of recent
vintage. The concern goes back at least as far as the second-century gnostic Mar-
cion, who set aside the Old Testament (and much of the New Testament). He
made this move at least in part because of the violence of God portrayed therein,

9Cheryl Kirk-Duggan (Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 1358) notes that

God is the subject of violence (some 1,000 times) much more than human beings (some 600 texts).
10For a treatment of God and violence in the prophets, see my forthcoming article in Interpretation (2004).

21
Fretheim

and he has had many followers through the centuries.11 The church rightly rejected
the approach of Marcion, but the disquiet about the Bible’s divine violence has
been intensifying in recent biblical work.12 Some studies even want to set aside the
references to divine violence, at least in terms of serious theological consideration,
if not actually to remove from the biblical text.13 At the same time, and in possible
reaction to such views, the church and its spokespersons have often gone to the
other extreme and sought to defend the Bible’s portrayal of the violence of God, of
whatever kind, at all costs.14
I seek to steer between these two extremes. On the one hand, I want to claim
that the Bible’s talk about divine violence must be taken seriously into account in
any accurate portrayal of the biblical God. Even more, divine anger and judgment,
which may entail violence, are absolutely crucial to our continued reflection about
God and God’s ways in the world. On the other hand, some of the ways in which
God’s violence is depicted in the Bible should not stand unchallenged. I take a
closer look at these two perspectives, though much work remains to be done.

THE THEOLOGICAL/ETHICAL IMPORTANCE OF DIVINE WRATH AND JUDGMENT

God’s uses of violence—and that phrasing is important15—are associated with

11One thinks of Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Harnack. Marcion promotes “a better god, who is neither of-

fended, nor does he get angry, nor does he take vengeance” (so Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem. 1.27). For a recent
statement along this line, see Kari Latvus, God, Anger, and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1998): “The God that deuteronomistic theologians created in their own image was the God of
strict dogmatism, intolerance and fundamentalism—and, of course, the God of anger....the God of the crucified and
powerless Jesus cannot be the same as the deuteronomistic God of anger” (91). Such a perspective is common
among clergy and laity, evident not least in the highly selective use of Old Testament texts in preaching and teaching,
prompted in significant part by lectionaries that tend to avoid judgment texts. The issue of divine impassibility is
prominent in the history of reflection on this theme, but this is not a common reason for the difficulty regarding di-
vine anger/violence today.
12Among more recent scholarly efforts that raise serious questions regarding the Bible’s violence and God’s

common association with it, refusing to excuse it or to interpret it away, see Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas”; Lüde-
mann, The Unholy; David Penchansky, What Rough Beast? Images of God in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westmin-
ster/John Knox, 1999); several essays in David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt, eds., Shall Not the Judge of All the
Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2000). Female scholars and others have been particularly pointed in their critique of those texts wherein God’s vio-
lence is associated with female imagery. See, e.g., Renita J. Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the
Hebrew Prophets (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); among many articles one might cite, that of Diane Jacobson offers a
clear and well-balanced approach (“Hosea 2: A Case Study on Biblical Authority,” Currents in Theology and Mission
23 [1996] 165–172). I have sought to work with this issue in several publications, especially “Is the Biblical Portrayal
of God Always Trustworthy?” in Terence E. Fretheim and Karlfried Froehlich, The Bible as Word of God in a Post-
modern Age (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 97–111 (reprinted: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002).
13For example, the introduction to the Hebrew prophets by Carol J. Dempsey (The Prophets: A Liberation-

Critical Reading [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000]) often calls into question (rejects?) the prophetic portrayal of God in
terms of violence. In speaking of Amos 2:1–3, for example, she says: “Again, God’s response to violence is violence!
And again, we ask, ‘Is this the way of God?’” (14).
14Indeed, an openness to critique the Bible’s theological perspectives of any sort, including its depiction of

God, has traditionally been considered out of bounds. See, e.g., the response of Froehlich to Fretheim in Bible As
Word of God, 127–132.
15Wrath and violence are not divine attributes, but responses to creaturely sin, indeed the sins of violence.

For discussion, see Terence E. Fretheim, “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament,” Hori-
zons in Biblical Theology 24 (2002) 14–17.

22
 God and Violence in the Old Testament

two basic purposes: judgment and salvation. Sometimes the same event may have
both effects; for example, Persia under Cyrus mediates salvation for the exiles in
Babylon and, at the same time, passes judgment on Babylon. Such divine activity
often entails God’s use of agents that are capable of violence, both human (e.g., Is-
raelites, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus) and nonhuman (e.g., clouds, darkness, waves,
etc. at the Red Sea).16 Much of the divine violence in the Old Testament is associ-
ated with these contexts, but there are important exceptions, not least the book of
Psalms, which is filled with violence.17

“generally speaking, the relationship between sin and the

judgment of violence is conceived in intrinsic rather than forensic
terms; consequences grow out of the deed itself ”

Judgment. Divine violence seems always to be related to human sin.18 Gener-

ally speaking, if there were no human violence, there would be no divine wrath or
judgment, which may take the form of violence, depending upon the agent used.
Abraham Heschel has stated well what is at stake in this matter: “[Our] sense of in-
justice is a poor analogy to God’s sense of injustice. The exploitation of the poor is
to us a misdemeanor; to God, it is a disaster. Our reaction is disapproval; God’s re-
action is something no language can convey. Is it a sign of cruelty that God’s anger
is aroused when the rights of the poor are violated, when widows and orphans are
oppressed?”19
Violent human actions lead to violent consequences. That there are such con-
sequences to human violence is named divine judgment. Just how God relates to
the movement from sin to consequence, however, is not easy to sort out.20 Gener-

16For a discussion of God’s use of agents, see Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys,

2002) 35–39; idem, “The Character of God in Jeremiah,” in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community
and Biblical Interpretation, ed. W. P. Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 211–230.
17There are over 100 references to enemies in Psalms. The lament psalms, especially the imprecatory la-

ments, are difficult to interpret in view of the way that the psalmists call upon God to visit their detractors with vio-
lence. For an excellent study of these psalms, see Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of
Divine Wrath, trans. Linda Maloney (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996).
18God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac seems not to be an exception, given the “test” in view of

Abraham’s prior sinful behaviors (e.g., Gen 20).

19Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962) 284–285. This volume remains one of

the most cogent treatments of divine wrath.

20For discussion, see Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 19–24. Helpful resources include Gerhard von Rad, Old

Testament Theology, trans. David Stalker, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), who speaks of a “synthetic view of
life” (265) in which “the retribution is not a new action which comes upon the person concerned from somewhere
else; it is rather the last ripple of the act itself which attaches to its agent almost as something material. Hebrew in fact
does not even have a word for punishment” (385); Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic
and Theological Analysis (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982); Klaus Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old
Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James Crenshaw (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 57–87; and more
recently, Gene Tucker, “Sin and ‘Judgment’ in the Prophets,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf
Knierim, ed. Henry Sun, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 373–388. How these judgment texts are to be related
is best seen in the work of H. H. Schmid, who places them under the umbrella of creation theology: “Creation, Right-

23
Fretheim

ally speaking, the relationship between sin and the judgment of violence is con-
ceived in intrinsic rather than forensic terms; consequences grow out of the deed
itself. That is, God mediates the consequences of sin that are already present in the
situation,21 rather than through the imposition of a penalty from without. Ezek
22:31 well illustrates the point. God declares, “I have consumed them with the fire
of my wrath,” and immediately states what that entails: “I have returned [/t^n`] their
conduct upon their heads.”22 Israel’s sin generates certain snowballing effects. At
the same time, God is active in the interplay of human sinful actions and their ef-
fects, and God uses “third parties” as agents for that judgment (e.g., the Assyrians).
Both divine and creaturely factors are interwoven to produce the judgmental re-
sult, which may include violence. Such consequences do not take place in some in-
evitable or mechanical way; the causal weave is complex and loose so that, for
example, the wicked may prosper (see Jer 12:1–4) and room is left for chance
(“time and chance happen to them all,” Eccl 9:11).23
Remarkable correspondences exist between God’s actions and those of Nebu-
chadnezzar.24 God will not “pity, spare, or have compassion” (Jer 13:14), because
that is what the Babylonians, the instruments of divine judgment, will not do (Jer
21:7; see 27:8). The violent words/deeds appear to be used for God because they are
used for the actions of those in and through whom God mediates judgment; the
latter will certainly act as kings and armies in that world are known to act. The por-
trayals of God’s wrath and violent action are conformed to the means that God uses.
God thereby accepts any fallout that may accrue to the divine reputation.25
The ethical implications of such an understanding of divine anger are consid-
erable. I have stated it this way: “Human anger at injustice will carry less weight and
seriousness if divine anger at injustice in the service of life is not given its proper
place. If our God is not angry, why should we be?”26
Salvation. Violence becomes the means by which God’s people are delivered
from violence. So, for example, violence against the Egyptians leads to Israel’s sal-
vation from Egypt’s violence (e.g., Exod 15:1–3). Or, God uses the violence of the
Persians under King Cyrus against the enslaving Babylonians as a means to bring

eousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology,” in Creation in the Old Tes-
tament, ed. Bernard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 102–117.
21Interpreters have used several different formulations: God midwifes, facilitates, sees to, puts in force, or

completes the connection between sin and consequence. Sometimes God as subject stands in a prominent position
(e.g., Jer 19:7–9); elsewhere, God’s stance is passive (e.g., Hos 4:1–3) or withdrawing (Isa 64:6–7), but deism is ruled
out of court.
22There are over fifty texts in the Old Testament that link divine wrath and violence with such formulations

(e.g., Ps 7:12–16; Isa 59:17–18; 64:5–9; Jer 6:11, 19; 7:18–20; 14:16; 17:10; 21:12–14; 44:7–8; 50:24–25; Lam 3:64–66).
23On the import of divine grief accompanying divine wrath, see Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 7–8.
24For a partial list, see Fretheim, Jeremiah, 36.
25That God is not the only effective agent in these events is made clear by the divine judgment on Babylon (Jer

25:12–14; 50–51; Isa 47:6–7; Zech 1:15). God takes a risk that God’s name will become associated with the violence,
indeed the excessive violence, of the Babylonians. See John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence
(Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998).
26Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 3.

24
 God and Violence in the Old Testament

salvation to the exiles (e.g., Isa 45:1–8). In the first case, God uses violence to save
Israel from the effects of other people’s sins. In the second, God uses violence in or-
der to save God’s people from the effects of their own sins, which got them into ex-
ile in the first place. Salvation is thus comprehensively conceived.27

“God’s use of violence, inevitable in a violent world, is

intended to subvert human violence in order to bring the
creation along to a point where violence is no more”

These two ways of speaking of God’s use of violence may be reduced to one.
That is, God’s use of violence, inevitable in a violent world, is intended to subvert
human violence in order to bring the creation along to a point where violence is no
more. Walter Brueggemann says it well: “It is likely that the violence assigned to
Yahweh is to be understood as counterviolence, which functions primarily as a
critical principle in order to undermine and destabilize other violence.” And so,
God’s violence is “not blind or unbridled violence,” but purposeful in the service of
a nonviolent end.28 In other words, God’s violence, whether in judgment or salva-
tion, is never an end in itself, but is always exercised in the service of God’s
more comprehensive salvific purposes for creation: the deliverance of slaves
from oppression (Exod 15:7; Ps 78:49–50), the righteous from their antagonists
(Ps 7:6–11), the poor and needy from their abusers (Exod 22:21–24; Isa 1:23–24;
Jer 21:12), and Israel from its enemies (Isa 30:27–33; 34:2; Hab 3:12–13). “This is
one of the meanings of the anger of God: the end of indifference” with respect to
those who have suffered human cruelty.29 In so stating the matter, the divine exer-
cise of wrath, which may include violence, is finally a word of good news (for those
oppressed) and bad news (for oppressors).

CALLING INTO QUESTION CERTAIN WAYS OF DEPICTING DIVINE VIOLENCE

As I have noted, the Bible understands that some forms of violence, both hu-
man and divine, are legitimate. Here I consider several forms of violence whose
theological legitimacy has been called into question.30 The above considerations
should make it clear that I do not hereby intend to make the God of the Bible more
palatable to contemporary taste. We are always in danger of doing this, of course,
especially regarding matters of judgment; we must certainly learn to read the Bible
over against ourselves, allowing the text to interrogate us, to be “in our face.” But is
everything in the Bible that offends us appropriately offensive (e.g., the Bible’s pa-
27For detail, see Terence E. Fretheim, “Salvation in the Bible vs. Salvation in the Church,” Word &World 13/4

(1993) 363–372.
28Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: For-

tress, 1997) 244.

29Heschel, Prophets, 284.
30See the literature cited in footnote 12 for further examples.

25
Fretheim

triarchy)? Is it not also dangerous simply to repeat uncritically those texts that
denigrate the place of women and portray God as one who orders the wholesale
slaughter of cities?31 And, if we are not critical of those texts wherein the God of the
Bible engages in such violent acts and violent speech, does not that, however subtly,
commend a way of life for those who follow this God?
It is important to note that an inner-biblical warrant exists for the people of
God to raise questions and challenges regarding God’s (anticipated) actions. Ex-
amples include the biblical laments (e.g., Ps 44); Abraham’s challenge in Gen
18:25, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” and that of Moses in
Exod 32:7–14. Do not such texts show the way for the important work we have to
do regarding this interpretive issue? Moreover, we will be helped if we talk about a
biblical center in terms of which all other texts are to be interpreted, evident most
clearly in the creedal formulations of both Old Testament and New (e.g., Exod
34:6–7).32 That center provides a kind of canon within the canon that means that
not everything in the Bible is to be placed on the same level of importance and may
provide a place on which we can stand to bring a critical word to bear regarding
some portrayals of God.
At the least, we must be honest in recognizing the problems the Bible raises
regarding divine violence.33 As I have stated elsewhere: “The patriarchal bias is per-
vasive, God is represented as an abuser and a killer of children, God is said to com-
mand the rape of women and wholesale destruction of cities, including children
and animals. To shrink from making such statements is dishonest.” Even more, the
church must recognize the long history of negative effects that many biblical texts
about God have had on our life together. “With all the emphasis these days on what
a text does to a reader, we should be absolutely clear: among the things that the Bi-
ble has done is to contribute to the oppression of women, the abuse of children, the
rape of the environment, and the glorification of war.”34
Attempts are often made to explain away the force of these texts or to soften
their impact.35 Take the violence of the conquest as an example; Deut 20:16–17
31For further reflections about these matters, see Fretheim, “Biblical Portrayal of God,” 100–111, where I de-

velop several criteria for determining the kinds of violence that should be rendered problematic. See also footnote 32
below.
32For the crucial issue of genre in determining such a center, see Terence Fretheim, “The God Who Acts: An

Old Testament Perspective,” Theology Today 54 (1997) 16–18; idem. “Some Reflections on Brueggemann’s God,” in
God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998)
36–37.
33This is stressed by Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas,” 20. Collins concludes his article with a helpful claim

that links a defense of the Bible’s violence to certitude, citing Hannah Arendt’s phrase regarding a “God-like cer-
tainty that stops all discussion”: “The Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been
taken to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation. Perhaps the most con-
structive thing a biblical critic can do toward lessening the contribution of the Bible to violence in the world, is to
show that that certitude is an illusion” (20–21). I have also expressed concern that “a myth of certainty about the Bi-
ble” is at the heart of this discussion (“Biblical Portrayal of God,” 99).
34Fretheim, “Biblical Portrayal of God,” 99–100.
35Such a move is driven by several points of view. An approach from the perspective of the “peace churches”

seeks to lift up the role of Yahweh as warrior as the decisive factor, diminishing the human role in warfare (see, e.g.,

26
 God and Violence in the Old Testament

puts the issue squarely before us. God commands, “But in the cities of these peo-
ples [Canaanites] that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall
save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them” (see 1 Sam
15:3). Israel carried out this command in various battles recorded in Joshua
6–11.36 These divine and human activities have often been spiritualized (“put on the
whole armor of God”), historically adjusted (turn the conquest into a land settle-
ment or a primitive view that Israel outgrew), idealized (taking a utopian stand
against idolatry), viewed as a metaphor for the religious life, or reduced to God’s
mysterious ways.37
No satisfactory “explanation” of this Israelite practice is possible, or, for that
matter, of the other uses of divine violence noted above. Yet, certain considerations
may help us understand such violence, if not to excuse in every respect the God
who is portrayed here (nor those who carried out the divine commands).

“God chooses to become involved in violence so that evil

will not have the last word. In everything, including
violence, God seeks to accomplish loving purposes.”

(1) God works in and through human beings, with their foibles and flaws, in
the achievement of God’s purposes, and God does not perfect them before decid-
ing to work with them. God works with what is available, including such institu-
tions in that ancient context involved in the waging of war and other governmental
trappings. Violence will be associated with God’s work in the world because, to a
greater or lesser degree, violence is characteristic of the persons and institutions
through whom that work is done. Thus, such work will always have mixed results
and will be less than what would have happened had God chosen to act alone.
Moreover, God does not necessarily confer a positive value on those means in and
through which God works (e.g., Isa 47).
(2) Human beings will never have a perfect perception of how they are to
serve as God’s instruments in the world. Israel’s perceptions were often expressed
in terms of the direct speech of God. Inasmuch as this is a phenomenon rare in the

Millard C. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel [Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1980]
169–174). The effect of such an approach is ironic in that the violence is then assigned largely to God. See a critique of
several theological approaches in Lori Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis (Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 65–70.
36Israel’s rationale for its ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites is expressed in two ways: one, so they would not

be led astray by their seductive religious practices (Deut 7:1–5, 16; 20:18); two, they were instruments of divine judg-
ment against Canaanite wickedness (Deut 9:4–5; see Gen 15:16).
37Appeal to mystery is too often used to stop the conversation, even though the texts themselves have a re-

markably “plain sense.” For a fuller survey of these efforts, see Collins, “Zeal of Phinehas,” 4–14; Lawson G. Stone,
“Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991)
25–36. See also the studies of Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 1996); L. Daniel Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (Louisville: Westmin-
ster/John Knox, 1991). For an earlier formulation, see my Deuteronomic History (Nashville: Abingdon, 1983) 61–75.

27
Fretheim

New Testament, should we understand that Israel may have put into direct divine
speech understandings they had gained through study and reflection rather than
through an actual hearing of God’s words? And they may not have fully or properly
understood.
(3) That God would stoop to become involved in such human cruelties as
violence is, finally, not a matter for despair, but of hope. God does not simply give
people up to experience violence. God chooses to become involved in violence so
that evil will not have the last word. In everything, including violence, God seeks to
accomplish loving purposes. Thereby God may prevent an even greater evil. By so
participating in our messy stories, God takes the road of suffering and death (e.g.,
Exod 3:7). Through such involvement, God absorbs the effects of sinful human ef-
forts and thus suffers violence (not least because a divine promise of land for Israel
lies behind the whole affair).
There remains a certain ambiguity of the Bible toward violence. God does not
intend the violence that disrupts the life of the world, rooted as it is in the sinful-
ness of humankind. Again and again, God takes the side of those afflicted by vio-
lence. God so engages the divine self on behalf of those entrapped in violence and
its effects that God enters deeply into the life of the world, most supremely in Jesus
Christ, and shows thereby the most basic stance of divine nonviolence in the face of
violence. But, in order to accomplish God’s work in the world, God may respond
in violent ways in and through various agents so that sin and evil do not go un-
checked in the life of the world.

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM is Elva B. Lovell Professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary, St.
Paul, Minnesota. His most recent book is a commentary on Jeremiah (Smyth and Helwys,
2002).

28