TRINITY THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION I

July – Nov 2016

THE ETHICAL PROBLEM OF THE HOLY WAR

AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO

DR MAGGIE LOW

NAVIN ONG
OCTOBER 1, 2016
 ONG

In this essay, we discuss the interpretive grid readers bring to the task of interpreting Holy

War, the problem of theodicy through the issue of ‘herem’, and finally suggest an approach

to the ethical concerns of Holy War which affirms, critiques and integrates the contribution

of the various approaches.

Jenson uses four biblical passages to forward his discussion on the problem of war and

applies a ‘canonical’ and ‘contextual’ approach in extracting and interacting with what each

passage highlights. His approach is probably characteristic of the common ways the issue is

traditionally addressed.

Firstly, Jenson highlights the importance of considering the interpretive grid or

hermeneutical lens readers bring to the task. He cites superficiality of properly

understanding the texts as a consequence of not appreciating its complexity1. He says we

tend to read it individualistically when we should read it corporately2. He insists that we

should not interpret accounts prescriptively but to also consider their ‘symbolic dimension’3.

Younger, who might argue against Jenson’s purely ‘canonical’ approach, would agree with

him that interpreters would need to appreciate the ‘figurative nature’ of biblical accounts,

especially noticing the use of literary devices such as hyperbole4, hyperbolic syntagms5 and

synecdoche6 or readers risk misunderstanding the text. However, Younger, who advocates a

more political-literary approach to reading the conquest accounts, would further insist that

readers take the larger political context as well as the literary genre and form (structure and

1
Philip Jenson, The Problem of War in the Old Testament, Grove Biblical Series 25 (Cambridge: Grove Books,
2002), 4.
2
(Jenson 2002, 8)
3
(Jenson 2002, 9)
4
K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History
Writing, JSOTSup 98 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 243.
5
(Younger 2009, 247)
6
(Younger 2009, 249)

2
 ONG

composition) of Joshua into serious account as well, because the book exhibits ‘a typical

ancient Near Eastern transmission code commonly employed in the history writing of

conquest accounts’.7

Nelson, who is chiefly concerned with the socio-cultural transmission function, is ready to

write-off all events as merely crafted to paint an ‘idealistic theoretical picture’ and not

factual history8. For him, the Holy War accounts and in fact, the entire Book of Joshua,

serves primarily to forge a national identity as well as a means to deal with ‘Israel’s weak

and vulnerable position’ among the Canaanite peoples.9

Barr on the other hand, would critique Jenson and others like him who reject natural

theology, for not having enough ‘resources to work with’10 and Younger and Nelson for

staying within the confines of the literary genre and socio-political context and agenda. For

Barr, proper interpretation requires ‘bringing to the text extra-textual factors…belonging to

natural theology’11, of which an example might be the history of religions12.

So while Jenson might allege that readers misunderstand the ethics of Holy War on the

grounds of the extra-biblical information they bring to the text, Younger would argue that

due consideration needs to be accorded to comparable Ancient Near Eastern political

context and literary sources, Nelson would insist that it’s all pure political rhetoric and

propaganda and Barr might argue that divine revelation derived from biblical theology

without the general revelation supplied by natural theology would skew proper

interpretation of such events.

7
(Younger 2009, 241)
8
Richard D. Nelson, The Historical Books (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 81.
9
(Nelson 1998, 82)
10
James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford, Clarendon, 1993), 200.
11
(Barr 1993, 207)
12
(Barr 1993, 204)

3
 ONG

Jenson typifies the traditional answers to the problematic matters of holy war and ‘herem’,

by taking the reasons straight out of the Bible.13 The usual explanations are that God had

promised Canaan to the Israelites as an inheritance, the Canaanites themselves had

surrendered their right to remain in the land through their debaucheries, and deposing,

displacing or annihilating the Canaanites would remove the risk of their adopting wicked

Canaanite rituals and practices, defiling them and destroying their special covenantal

relationship with YHWH (Deut 20:18).

Jenson qualifies and rationalises these arguments with a host of supporting justifications

ranging from mitigating factors like a ‘desperate military situation’14, small scale of the

battle15, to geographical factors and responses of the Canaanites16, to assertion that the ban

pragmatically solves the problem of idolatry17, altruistic motivation behind the ban18 to even

redefining key terms19, insisting that Holy War was never intended in the first place and the

ban is morally acceptable as a means of punishment20 to finally acknowledging that God is

too complex for us to understand21, and concluding with what he started with, that war is

‘complex, ambivalent, conditional and incomplete’,22 with no clear satisfactory resolution to

the ethical problems.

Furthermore, Jenson’s (possibly) arbitrary use of Scripture (Exodus 15, Deut. 20, 1 Sam 17

and Jeremiah 21) exacerbates the anachronism in his approach. How can four passages be

adequately representative of the entire Old Testament Canon? Even contextually, Jenson
13
(Jenson 2002, 12)
14
(Jenson 2002, 10)
15
(Jenson 2002, 20)
16
(Jenson 2002, 11)
17
(Jenson 2002, 14)
18
(Jenson 2002, 15)
19
(Jenson 2002, 12)
20
(Jenson 2002, 16)
21
(Jenson 2002, 18)
22
(Jenson 2002, 24)

4
 ONG

has not shown how his discussion of the topic of war sits within the larger concern of each

book or even the larger biblical frame. While it is commendable that Jenson takes seriously

the need for theological continuity between the Old Testament and the New, and tries to

hold together the love of God in the Old Testament and the love of God in Christ in the New

Testament, he makes too great a leap to Jesus and the New Testament where the pain of

moral and social injustices of genocide in the OT can now be completely forgotten or

spiritualised for didactic use23.

Younger’s political-literary approach is helpful in reminding us about the selectivity of the

texts24. It warns of the danger of a ‘wooden’ literal reading25. However, like Jenson,

Younger’s approach runs the risk of mythologizing everything, and in doing so, reduces the

force of ethical injunctions and commandments in the texts, turning them into what the

reader might perceive as the whims and fancy demands of a capricious god. With argument

hinging largely on a few figurative phrases ‘all Israel’, ‘no survivors’26, it largely ignores the

speeches, narratives, geographical descriptions that form a large part of the text. Various

theological themes and concerns in the texts are unaddressed along with the distinctives

and uniqueness of Deuteronomy and Joshua that not only serve as constitutional

documents they are literary works that function on multiple levels.

Nelson’s sceptical approach on the other hand, takes seriously the way meta-narratives,

symbols and ideas shape national and cultural identity and perception of Israelites but make

the disturbing and distasteful aspects of Israel’s Holy War history more ‘palatable’ by side-

23
(Jenson 2002, 26)
24
(Younger 2009, 246)
25
(Younger 2009, 247)
26
(Younger 2009, 248)

5
 ONG

stepping it altogether27. It does not seem to take into consider archaeological finding and

assumes that the Israelites are a gullible people who have no means of distinguishing fact

from fiction.

Barr’s approach is useful in a number of ways. It shows up the quick dismissal by some

biblical scholars of the gross injustice of genocide as an ‘act of sacrificial worship’.28 It

acknowledges that there are extra-biblical sources that support the ‘realistic character and

historical credibility of some of the biblical narratives and laws’29. It suggests that ‘herem’

was not a practice unique to Israel, but practiced by their neighbours as well.30 And it

exposes weak arguments such as a lower ethical standard in the past which made it

permissible to commit genocide31. However, there are also a number issues associated with

the natural theology approach to discussing Holy Wars. Barr concedes that natural theology

does not ‘settle the question’ of the ethics of the ban but insists that the question is not

swept under the rug, unlike biblical theology which avoids raising the question altogether32.

However, Barr does not distinguish whether it is inherent in the task of biblical theology

itself or whether it is the sidestepping of the moral issues by biblical scholars in their use of

Biblical Theology that is the real problem the question is not addressed. He also goes out of

his way to suggest that the institution of the ban might even have been an excuse for the

Israelites to commit genocide. 33

As shown, each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. The greatest problem is that

none are able to provide a satisfactory explanation for Holy War and ‘herem’. As I

27
(Nelson 1998, 81)
28
(Barr 1993, 208)
29
(Barr 1993, 210)
30
(Barr 1993, 211)
31
(Barr 1993, 218)
32
(Barr 1993, 212)
33
(Barr 1993, 217)

6
 ONG

understand it, the question of how YHWH could issue such a morally objectionable

command to Israelites to commit genocide is really an implicitly theological question about

the goodness and justice of God. This is why I propose a theological approach to this ethical

problem. However, there are a number of crucial elements in the theological approach I am

advancing.

Firstly, the theological lens must take Israelite monotheism seriously. YHWH is the Creator

God who is the Source and Giver of life. He is also the Source that defines morality. Ethics is

not a body of distinct ideas that govern behaviour. Ethics must at the core, be understood in

the context of relationality – in relationship with the One God of Creation in particular. The

fall of humanity stemmed from the actions of Man trying to divorce knowledge of good and

evil from God its ultimate Source and meaning, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of

good and evil. Hence, the Mosaic Covenant and the command to love and obey the Lord is a

return to the Source of life and truth.

Secondly, the theological lens must be forged with the eschatological hope of the

theophany of Israel’s God in sharp focus. The immanence of the Lord on ‘that Day’ is a

prophetic and apocalyptic theme that is large and robust enough to allow for anger, pain

and suffering at the shedding of innocent blood and for vengeance and vindication and

justice at all levels, addressing the problem of theodicy on all social levels - from individual

to communal, to national. With this Day of Judgement, is the firm belief in bodily

resurrection of every human being. There will be those who are raised and vindicated as

well as those who are raised to condemnation. If God truly is God, then even in death there

is no escape from His judgement. (See Isaiah 26:19, 21, Daniel 12:2)

7
 ONG

With a theological lens that is rooted in Israelite monotheism and the eschatological hope of

theophany, the problem of theodicy is addressed. This lens addresses Jenson’s concern for a

truly canonical and contextual interpretation of Holy War. It is large enough to hold any

demand for obedience from God and at the same time allow for a provisional/

concessionary ethic such as ‘herem’ without minimizing its effects.

It is able to sustain a larger political context – the kingdom of God, absorbing into it

Younger’s approach, allowing for the fullness of metaphorical, prophetic and apocalyptic

devices to express its imagery and message to the limits of their literary containers.

Nelson’s sceptical approach is negated. There is no more need to find ways to explain the

horrors of war.

Barr’s concern that Biblical theology has not been able to reconcile the Old and New

Testament is resolved. The themes of Israel’s Monotheism and hope for God’s immanence

carries from the Old Testament right into the New and they find their climax in Christ.

In conclusion, God has the right to take away life because He is the Giver of it and he can

also give it back anytime. How do we know this? We see it in the vindication of Jesus

through his resurrection and ascension. How do we know that God is fair and just and loving,

again, we see Christ raised from the dead.

Such prophetic hope allows us to recognise that unjust and untimely death by whatever

means, whether murder, or Holy War or even ‘herem’ is not the final word on the matter.

We don’t have to find a way of explaining it away. God will have the final word, and his final

Word is the gift of Himself in the flesh. (2049 words)

8
 ONG

Bibliography

Barr, James. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: Gifford Lectures for 1991. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993.

Jenson, Philip. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Grove Books Limited (Biblical
Series), 2002.

Nelson, D. Richard. "The Historical Books." Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1998.

Younger, K. Lawson. "Ancient conquest accounts: a study in ancient Near Eastern and biblical history
writing." Jornal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 98, 2009: 241-249.