Abstract
In this clearly argued book, David Neville, an associate professor at Charles Stuart University in Canberra, Australia, faces head on “a discrepancy at the heart of the New Testament”—Jesus' peaceful incarnation (“the nonviolent historic mission of Jesus”) in tension with his violent and vengeful return (“Jesus as violent avenger”). In Neville's view, the latter calls into serious question the former, both “its efficaciousness and its exemplariness” (pp. 1–2). Addressing this “theological and moral conundrum” that is “disorienting no less than perplexing,” especially “for Christians who recognize that a commitment to peace is at the heart of the heart of Christian discipleship,” Neville offers both an exegetically-historically astute and a theologically-morally articulate argument.
The focus of the study, then, is on the end-expectation of New Testament narratives (Gospels, Acts, Revelation) specifically in regard to their contribution to shaping moral vision, commitments, and convictions. For Neville, this inquiry is analogous to the equally significant matter of ascertaining the ethical implications of various atonement theories.
What concerns the author are the moral and theological problems posed by the pervasive “retributive violence” or “violent vengeance” on the part of God and/or God's agent(s) in eschatological texts:
It may indirectly authorize and foster violent and vindictive behaviors (and indeed has done so) especially “when coupled with the conviction that one (or one's group) is on God's side and knows God's will”; and
It contributes to a violent God-image, “manufacturing God in our own image” (pp. 1, 241).
This is so even where nonretaliation itself is predicated on an expectation of God's prerogative for eschatological vengeance. This view fosters the notion that violence is quelled only by greater violence, and calls into question the salvific significance of the cross, as a disarming of evil. Thus, Neville is unimpressed by any solution to the moral-theological conundrum that simply demarcates God's (prerogative for) vengeance from (or as the basis for) the imperative for human nonviolence (e.g. W. Swartley, B. Reid, M. Volf, and others).
Following a helpful introduction that orients the reader to the author's understanding of “eschatology” and “apocalyptic,” and to the varieties of eschatology, the book is framed by treatments of two pairs of writings (Matthew and Mark; and the Fourth Gospel and Revelation), which sandwich an exploration of the Lukan writings. Matthew and Revelation begin and close the discussion, emulating the canonical order, but ironically as the two most morally problematic texts. A conclusion nicely reviews the entire discussion, reframes the moral questions, and articulates a canonically appropriate “shalom-oriented interpretation” that can guide faithful Christian practice. Crucial to this is a listing of “treasure texts” that give moral shape to the historic mission and message of Jesus, and that can be used to assess the moral value of end-expectation texts.
Neville finds morally and theologically acceptable eschatology first and foremost in the Fourth Gospel, but also in Mark and Acts. He concedes that his reading of the latter two goes against what is often asserted about their eschatology; he thus “pleads” for an “ethical eschatology” in Mark. These three writings relativize or eliminate divine vengeance from the “standard apocalyptic scenario.” Neville is keen to note, however, that this tendency does not entail a “Christian” understanding over against a Jewish one, but is thoroughly grounded in Jewish theological traditions (pp. 8–9).
On the other side of the moral spectrum are Matthew and Revelation, where the eschatological scenario is overtly violent, retributive, and/or vengeful; he thus “protests” Matthew's violent eschatology. Neville argues, however, that even internally to these documents, there are elements that subvert or destabilize that scenario, so that as a whole they may not be as bad as they seem. Moreover, they must be read according to a “shalom-oriented interpretation” appropriate to the “determinative canonical trajectory” (pp. 243–44). (He also slips in the historical-critical argument that the nonviolent mission and message of Jesus is more original—morally repugnant eschatology is a “later development”—but concedes that one must be cautious with this sort of argument [p. 44].) Neville acknowledges that expectations of violent retribution in Matthew and Revelation may well be understandable in their particular socio-historical contexts; but this does not ameliorate their violent potential when put into the hands of those with temporal power (p. 37).
In between is the Gospel of Luke, which continues to “stymie” the author: for all its peace potential, there are violent elements in its “retributive eschatology” that cannot be easily explained away. And Neville seeks to guard against any “interpretive violence” that “coerces” nonretributive meanings on texts that display “divinely authorized retributive violence” (p. 86). Ultimately, certain elements of Luke's eschatology remain “incongruent with his Christology of peace and peaceable moral ethos” (p. 250).
While the author is careful to explain his particular use of the terms “apocalyptic” and “eschatology,” a counterpart discussion of what is meant by the pervasive terminology of “violence,” “retribution,” “vengeance,” or “terror” (in various combinations along with their adjective forms), or even “nonviolence” is missing. This is so especially insofar as the author retains a commitment to divine “eschatological judgment” (simply distinguished as involving “reversal,” not “retribution”). After all, it could be argued that even “political love” as presented in Christian Scripture can be seen as a type of violence (e.g. Zizek, Violence).
Guided by an interpretive commitment that is both ethically engaged and exegetically rigorous, this book makes a significant contribution to the study of peace and violence in Scripture.