Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament

by Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld

Is the New Testament inherently violent? In this book a well-regarded New Testament scholar offers a balanced critical assessment of charges and claims that the Christian scriptures encode, instigate, or justify violence. Thomas Yoder Neufeld provides a useful introduction to the language of violence in current theological discourse and surveys a wide range of key ethical New Testament texts through the lens of violence/nonviolence. He makes the case that, contrary to much scholarly opinion, the New Testament is not in itself inherently violent or supportive of violence; instead, it rejects and overcomes violence. [Published in the UK by SPCK as Jesus and the Subversion of Wrestling with the New Testament Evidence .]

Genres: Theology, Religion

192 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2011

Reviews

[Genni · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very thoughtful and sensitive look at violence in the New Testament. It is addressed to those who already accept Christianity and the Scriptures for guidance in their way of life. It is very focused and concise, almost worth reading for the summaries of issues alone. Agnosticism in the face of violence is not really an option, however, that does not mean that there remains no mystery after studying the subject. There are some things we simply cannot know, contexts we have no way of regaining, and cultural environments that affect the way we read and Nuefeld does well to acknowledge that and encourage humility.

In some sense, it is a call to embrace ambiguity. It reminds me of how C.S. Lewis advocated for something similar in Mere Christianity. For example, Christian denominations argue over HOW Jesus atones for our sins exactly, but one thing they all agree on is that somehow he does. Nuefeld encourages something like a “third way” between violence and passivism that “forces” the reader into a dynamic relationship with God and the world around him rather than a stance.

That said, I experienced cognitive clashes while reading. The implication that God (rather than Jesus) is violent in some way is touched on, but not dealt with comprehensively. Really, it is beyond the scope of the book. Even so, there is no way to focus solely on Jesus without drawing implications to or about God. Nuefeld holds that God is actively judgmental, while still holding that Jesus teaches a “defiant” vulnerability for Christians as a way of life. Especially after reading books like Greg Boyd’s Cross Vision, I cannot really see the internal consistency in this paradigm anymore. However, for me, the practical application of problematic Jesus texts outweighs theological contentions extant.

[Pete · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a little unclear what Yoder Neufeld set out to accomplish in this book, but it made a little more sense when partway through he mentioned taking "core samples" of some passages of Scripture that are often difficult to reconcile. He takes a stab at a sampling of New Testament passages that seem to promote violence—or have been used to do so through Christendom. Many footnotes showed that he has written more extensively on many of these passages elsewhere in his previous writing, so I'm not sure if he intended this book to be an introduction or summary of much of his broader work.

He starts by considering how broadly to define violence, since the broader the definition (physical + emotional + spiritual + structural + etc.) the easier it is to blame the Bible for endorsing this violence. One thing that I found interesting is his question, "Does peacefully submitting to violence potentially lead to more violence? In that case, does returning nonviolence for violence actually condone or condemn the violence?"

He says that our reading location matters since we can either (a) valorize violence or (b) try to downplay the Scriptural images of God as warrior, etc. Yoder Neufeld writes from the peace church tradition, and he acknowledges in this book his own context. Unsurprisingly, he concludes that the images of God as warrior or calling Christians to "put on armor" actually subvert our expectations of power/dominance/warfare/violence. Indeed, Jesus triumphs in a completely different way than we expect (Colossians 2:15, Revelation 5:5–6). Because of this, I could say that Jesus' victory doesn't subvert our expectations—but that our expectations are perversions of the antiviolent way that God operates in the world. I appreciate how he didn't try to "tame" the difficult passages to fit his nonviolent lenses, but was willing to allow Scripture to continually surprise us.

The author also concluded that all the atonement theories offer incomplete glimpses into what Jesus accomplished (as all metaphors are limited since they are like/different). He pointed out that our theorizing often asks, "Hypothetically, what would it take to reconcile God and humanity?" But we can ask the better question, "What did it actually take?" as we are continually surprised by the good "news" of the Gospel.

I found Yoder Neufeld's exploration of 1 Thessalonians 5 helpful, that we as children of the day (both in contrast to night and as the Day of the Lord) are called to put on God's armor (imagery borrowed from Isaiah 59). As God is the warrior on behalf of the oppressed, God invites us into joining that same mission, using the "weapons" of light, life, and love. The armor isn't intended to make us feel safe/comfortable, but to endow us with God's ministry of reconciliation in the world.

[Amalia Ranstrom · Rating 2 out of 5]

Neufeld brings up a lot of fascinating points and I really want to believe in the pacifist reading of the Bible. However, in my opinion he never satisfactorily answered the questions he raised and left me less convinced of his view than I started.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Christian history is filled with violence? Are the founding documents of the church, the New Testament, inherently violent? Do those who commit such atrocities have the support of their own holy book, or are they reading it wrong?

These are the sorts of questions this book seeks to answer. Neufield's book is a great read for any interested in Christian ethics, especially as it relates to violence. While Neufield defends the position that the New Testament is not inherently violent, he does also show that many of the passages that have been used to support violence can be read in just that way. His point seems to be that your situation in life will play a big part in how you understand the text. Those in positions of power, unlike the positions of the authors of the text, can manipulate the text in support of violence. But if we come at it from the perspective of the first authors, it will be very difficult to see it favoring our use of violence.

Overall, a thoughtful read.

[Adam Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting examination of violence, violent imagescand metaphors, and how they are employed in the New Testament. He defines violence in the broad sense of abuse that can include psychological and emotional trauma and oppression, which was refreshing. His work is primarily to show that the New Testament's use of violence is subversive to the simplistic assumptions so common among Christians, demonstrating a high view of nonviolence and an inversion of violent images from the Old Testament. He shows how many of the violent judgement prophesies are fulfulled by Christ's forgiveness and his death, and that this turns the New Testament fulfilment of th Old Testsmen expectation inside out. That said, much of the book is interested in careful documentation of other viewpoints and how they don't work rather than on positive construction of his own. Yet the book was helpful to the growing scholarship that shows how God's love and mercy and peace trumps his vengeance and judgment against his enemies.