Spring 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 1 · pp. 139–141
Book Review
Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023. 237 pages.
Matthew J. Lynch received his PhD from Emory University in 2012, and after seven years at the Westminster Theological Centre in the U.K., he joined the faculty of Regent College (Vancouver) in 2020. In this fourth major work on the Old Testament, Lynch addresses one of the most difficult issues students of the Bible must contend with.
The pervasive issue of divine violence in the Old Testament, displayed in both God’s involvement in warfare and his judgments against the nations and his own people, represents a significant challenge for many readers. What makes this issue even more perplexing for some is that God’s violence is not explicitly labeled as problematic anywhere in the Bible. If well-meaning Christian leaders and academics have, over the years, vociferously denounced the vengeful God of the Old Testament, once the rhetorical fireworks are spent, one discovers that such outrage finds nearly no echo in the biblical text.
Jesus never even hints at the need for moral distance between himself and God or between himself and the Old Testament. He fully and unconditionally embraces both. Some scholars’ propensity to carve out those passages that offend their pacifist sensibilities would seem to be misplaced and, ironically, unChristlike. Christ’s own attitude toward his Father and the Jewish Scriptures demands that (1) we give the Old Testament the benefit of the doubt; and (2) instead of going all Marcion on the older text, we seek to identify the pieces of the puzzle needed to understand why Jesus did not have a “problem” as such with the God of the Old Testament. Lynch urges us to slow down through the difficult texts and “read toward Jesus” while assuming trinitarian consistency among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (29–30).
His approach is unique in that he begins by examining the creation narrative, emphasizing God’s primordial nature as a God of peace. This foundational understanding provides a crucial lens through which to interpret the rest of the Old Testament. As biblical scholar Peter Craigie observed in his seminal book, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1978), it is the broader literary and theological context of the Old Testament that enables the reader to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is indeed a God of peace rather than the divine warmonger that some texts might otherwise suggest.
Lynch’s analysis of the conquest narrative displays a deep understanding of the historical and cultural context framing Joshua’s military campaign and God’s judgments against the Canaanites. His meticulous examination of p. 140 Israel’s war policies (Deut 7 and 20) and his assertion that the conquest can be seen as a continuation of the Exodus, a hypothesis supported by evidence of Egyptian control at the time, provide a nuanced understanding of the policies underpinning Joshua’s mandate.
The contrast between the radical language predicting a blitzkrieg-like offensive, used in Deuteronomy 9:3, and the more deliberate and gradual campaign, outlined in passages such as Deuteronomy 7:22, is very helpful for drawing attention to the distinction between military theory and tactical implementation. In analyzing a military campaign, it is essential to differentiate between the primary objectives of the operation, which, by definition, are couched in radical language (no nation goes to war without the intention of winning) and the actual conduct of war, which is always mitigated by various factors. Lynch’s distinction between what he calls the “Majority Report” and the “Minority Report” helps reconcile two seemingly conflicting perspectives on the conquest.
I found Lynch’s discussion of the flood less convincing. On the one hand, Lynch frames the central issue of the story as the destruction of creation by violence and God’s action as a restoration of creation. While the focus on creation fits well into the current human-made climate crisis narrative, I would argue that Lynch’s interpretation fails to reflect the central point of the biblical story. The reason for the flood—which is described as the instrument of divine judgment on humankind, not creation—derives from “the wickedness of the human race” (Gen 6:5 NIV, passim). The rationale for the divine judgment is repeated in 6:11: “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.” While the parallel with Genesis 1:2 is interesting to note (“Now the earth was formless . . .”), as there is indeed a negation of creation resulting from the flood, the focus of the text is not creation as such but humanity’s sin. Lynch’s laser-focused emphasis on human violence as destructive of creation seems an overstatement in view of other aspects of human wickedness.
My other critique may seem trivial to some but remains worth mentioning. In at least two instances, Lynch states that the historical accuracy of an event may not be that critical with respect to the “truth value” of the story (71–73; 154-56). According to Lynch, it is unlikely that the flood referred to a universal cataclysm. Lynch observes that “the writer of Genesis transposes a familiar flood story into a new key to tell us something important about God’s ultimate triumph over creation-destroying violence” (73). As Lynch further points out, “the story’s message and truthfulness doesn’t depend on us pinning down those details with certainty” (72). Similarly, in his analysis of Israel’s origins, Lynch argues that the “truth value” of p. 141 the biblical account of the conquest “doesn’t depend on tying up all the loose ends” (156, emph. orig.). While our inability to confirm the historical accuracy of a story’s every detail does not preclude getting to the truth value of that story, it does raise an important question as to whether it is possible to preserve the message of the story in cases where our interpretation significantly diverges from what appears to be the plain meaning of the text.
In conclusion, Flood and Fury makes a valuable contribution to the study of divine violence in the Old Testament. The book is well-written, meticulously researched, and accessible to seminary students and laypeople seeking to gain a better understanding of these complex theological issues. While a comprehensive critique is beyond the scope of this review, I would argue that this book’s most valuable contributions lie in Lynch’s emphasis on two key principles: (1) the creation account as providing the foundational lens through which to interpret the Old Testament’s portrayal of God’s character; and (2) the necessity of viewing divine violence in the light of the absolute unity that exists between Jesus and the Father.
For Jesus and the New Testament authors, there is no glaring “problem” to resolve with respect to the God of the Old Testament. This would suggest that our focus should not primarily be on reshaping God’s portrayal to fit a preconceived theological mold but on uncovering the theological “calculus” that underpins Jesus’ understanding of the God of the Old Testament.
