In the course of centuries people have reflected much about the problem that we pointed out in the first article on this subject, that the Bible deals so often and so intently with the topic of violence. We provide here a summary of six models of interpretation.

Allegorical, Antithetical, Psychologizing Interpretation⤒🔗

1. The allegorical interpretation has experienced a large influence in the history of exegesis. Violent stories are rendered harmless via this method of spiritualization. For example, the land of Canaan being taken over by the Israelite armies is explained as a symbol of the new life that begins when a Christian is being baptized. Passages about violence are now projected into the realm of the struggle between good and evil, of the soul’s struggle to free itself from sin. In this way the sting is removed from these Bible texts; after all, ultimately it deals “only” with spiritual truths, with no literal blood being shed.
    
2. More well known is the antithetical interpretation, traditionally connected with the name of Marcion. He asserted that the Old Testament testifies of a violent creator god, while the New Testament reveals to us the loving Father of Jesus Christ. In fact the Old Testament is a pre-Christian or even an unchristian book. Others read the Bible more from the perspective of a contrast between law and gospel, where they explain that the Old Testament represents “law,” and the New Testament is characterized by “gospel,” The Old Testament with all its violent texts holds up a mirror of our sinfulness. The New Testament, however, proclaims to us how Christ saves us from our guilty, violent nature.
    
3. Up next, we often meet a psychologizing interpretation. The violence passages in the Old Testament need to be read in the framework of that specific time. In the world of that time warfare and divine legitimacy were inextricably connected. We need to have an open eye for the cruelty and immorality in the interactions between peoples for whom only their own survival had worth: it was a world full of violence. The inherent suggestion here is that this present time is a very different era, and that in our culture we should understand and simply skip these Old Testament texts of violence.

Metaphoric, Evolutionistic, Eclectic Interpretation←⤒🔗

4. In a similar reassuring and comforting way is the metaphoric (read: pictorial) interpretation, which states that all kinds of violent histories of the Old Testament are only theological constructs and that the massacres, whether described or prescribed, never actually took place in a real historical sense. The infamous commission in Deuteronomy 7 to destroy and to eliminate the indigenous peoples dates from a time when those peoples no longer even existed. The commission is in fact simply an ideological instruction addressed to the exiles returning from Babylon at the end of the sixth century BC, to preserve their own identity and not to intermingle with the local population.
    
5. The evolutionistic interpretation, although having originated in the nineteenth century, still has adherents today. Arising from primitive origins, Israel’s faith and ethics grow and morph into a higher state of maturity. The prophets, with their ethical monotheism, contributed significantly to this development. In the course of this spiritual evolution, older conceptions, including such ideas as (divine) violence, are filtered out slowly but surely.
    
6. Finally we note the eclectic (making choices) method of interpretation. The Old Testament knows of two ways, where the second one leads to the ultimate victory. The line of violent thoughts, images of God as warlord and avenger — it is all there. And yet at the same time another line is being pushed forward, a line of non-violence and the expectation of the kingdom of peace. The New Testament consolidates this line of thought.

An Unsatisfactory Perspective←⤒🔗

It is difficult for us to accept these forms of interpretation where Old and New Testament are played out against each other. The Old Testament speaks essentially the language of love, and denounces various forms of aggression and violence (see below). The New Testament displays no less than the Old the flaming anger of God, and as regards the aspects of judgment and retaliation, it contributes a horrifying perspective of eternity. We must also realize that in no way does the New Testament make efforts to distance itself from the Old, and that evangelists and apostles cite Old Testament imprecatory psalms or prophecies of judgment, without any criticism.

Equally questionable is the notion that the Old Testament developed a two-track strategy in regard to the theme of violence, where the track of non-violence is the ultimate winner. It is worth noting that especially the later prophetic and apocalyptic texts offer so much in-depth teaching on the topic of violence. Also, the “solution” that multiple texts do not present history, only theology, achieves only a shifting of the problem: the language of violence remains the same. The Bible is a book—so we must soberly conclude—that in its overall composition testifies about violence, and it keeps doing so until the last page of the New Testament.

Anti-violent Texts in the Old Testament←⤒🔗

Meanwhile, through all of these discussions thus far you might get a distorted picture of the Old Testament. In spite of any reputation as a book of violence, the Old Testament contains a very unique potential of anti-violence. We consider these five points:

1. The Old Testament unmasks violence←↰⤒🔗

As soon as violence appears on the pages of the Old Testament (the fratricide in Genesis 4), at the same time it also introduces for the first time the word “sin” (Genesis 4:7). In the awareness of the author, violence and sin go hand-in-hand. Genesis 4 presents a delicate unmasking of the root, the developments, and the consequences of evil. Whatever is going to be revealed in the Bible, right from the start it becomes clear (a) what lives in the human heart; and (b) what God has in mind.

The saying “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52) has a significant sounding board in the Old Testament. A telling example is shown in the history of King David, the apple of God’s eye. The evil he had committed through his violent actions (2 Samuel 11) returns on his own head, for all of his life: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house because you have despised me” (2 Samuel 12:10).

2. The Old Testament limits violence←↰⤒🔗

There is violence that destroys and is horrific, but there can also be necessary violence that sets limits to evil. God himself uses violence to stop violence. The flood is God’s answer to a depraved world, “for the earth is filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). There is a liberating message in the Old Testament that evil and violence cannot expand limitlessly but that there are borders.

This limit to violence can also be found in the law given at Sinai. The contested regulation of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24) includes in fact a measure of protection: only one eye for an eye, and no more. With this, the boundless urge for retaliation such as found with Lamech (Genesis 4:23) finds radical rejection.

3. The Old Testament discourages violence←↰⤒🔗

God himself refrains from violence even though “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21), and he places the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with all living creatures (Genesis 9:15, see Isaiah 54:9-17). To the chagrin of the prophet, it is no different for the great city of Nineveh, whose evil had come up before the LORD’s face (Jonah 1:2).

David does not take the law into his own hands but is satisfied with a corner of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:5) or with a spear and a jar of water (1 Samuel 26:12). The prophet Isaiah preaches, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength” (Isaiah 30:15) instead of a reliance on horses.

4. The Old Testament criticizes violence←↰⤒🔗

The book of Judges, filled to the brim with violence, shows us the recurring significant refrain: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). When a people or nation is used by God to punish Israel, it is called to accountability when the violence is out of proportion (Isaiah 10:7-19). It is striking how the kings of Judah and Israel are sharply criticized by the prophets for their use of violence. Nathan lambasts David, even though he is a preeminent king, founder of a royal dynasty (2 Samuel 12). This David, chosen by God, is not allowed to build God’s house because he has shed much blood (1 Chronicles 22:8). Nathan’s critique of a ruler is unprecedented in the world of the ancient Near East.

5. The Old Testament transcends violence←↰⤒🔗

Finally, there is a deeply anchored conviction in the Old Testament that humans do not succeed through violence. Elijah did not find God in the whirlwind, nor in the earthquake, and neither in the fire — but in the sound of a low whisper (1 Kings 19:11-12). “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit” is the the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel (Zechariah 4:6). In the prophecies about the future we see particularly a longing for a world of real peace: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).