The Second Testament as a Covenant of Peace.

Abstract

This review article critiques Covenant of Peace by Willard Swartley as a work of Second Testament theology and ethics. The broad scope of the book is an important feature, and the basic thrust of Swartley's argument for placing peace at the center of Second Testament interpretation is affirmed. Certain methodological and hermeneutical shortcomings are noted, albeit within the context of appreciation for the work as a whole. However, on the question of eschatological vengeance, which features in the first and last books of the Second Testament, Swartley's approach is considered problematic.

**********

Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006. Pp. xviii + 542. ISBN 0-8028-2937-6. Paper, $34.00.

In 1975 Nils Alstrup Dahl declared that "the neglected factor in New Testament theology" was God (reprinted in Dahl 1991: 153-63). For Willard Swartley, the neglected factor is peace. Few would deny that peace is an important biblical theme; yet as Swartley documents in his major new work, Covenant of Peace, peace is largely neglected in many standard texts on Second Testament theology or ethics. (Note: In accordance with BTB conventions, I refer to the "Second Testament" rather than "New Testament." As his title signals, however, Swartley generally refers to the "New Testament.") To begin where Swartley ends, in an appendix analyzing some twenty-five works of Second Testament theology or ethics since about 1950, he shows that the theme of peace is often overlooked and is rarely given the attention that its prominence within the Second Testament writings themselves would indicate it deserves. This hints at a blind spot among Second Testament scholars generally, yet one that can no longer be ignored now that Swartley has focused his scholarly searchlight on the peace emphasis at the core of all major strands of Second Testament theology and ethics.

This book is atypical in at least three ways. First, it is unusual in its insistence that the theme of peace is central to Second Testament theology and ethics. Second, it holds together theology and ethics within its purview, thereby refusing to rend asunder what is inextricably interrelated within the collection of writings under investigation. And third, although Swartley compares his book to other works of Second Testament theology and ethics, thereby suggesting that this is the appropriate category for interpreting his work, there is little explicit discussion of key methodological and thematic concerns that have dominated discussion relating to Second Testament theology during the past century or so. The first two of these differences are blessings rather than banes, but more explicit discussion of certain methodological questions would have enhanced the volume.

Covenant of Peace is wide-ranging in its scope, in part because of its concern to cover the full range of Second Testament writings. This is not a Second Testament theology/ethics that either subordinates the whole to Paul and John (cf. Bultmann 1951, 1955) or focuses solely on major witnesses (cf. Kummel). Instead, it seeks to make the case that throughout the Second Testament peace is a central theological and moral concern. This thesis is easier to defend in certain writings than in others, which the shape of Swartley's volume bears out.

In an introductory chapter, Swartley shows how the theme of peace is much neglected in works of Second Testament theology and ethics, and he also offers brief observations on his approach, which he describes as "largely canonical" (p. 9). Chapter 1, "Jesus and Peace: The Gospel of the Reign of God," examines the interrelated themes of the reign of God, gospel, and peace in the proclamation of Jesus. Clearly, Swartley is here concerned with the proclamation of Jesus as a historical figure, but no attention is given to the perplexing question of what role an appeal to the historical Jesus should be given within the context of Second Testament theology and/or ethics. To side with Jeremias (1971) against Bultmann on this point is acceptable, but in a work of this kind explicitly aligned with the canonical approach of Brevard Childs, one is entitled to expect some rationale for giving primary consideration to the thematic content of Jesus' own proclamation. All that Swartley offers by way of rationale is that "the strength and coherence of this vision [of Jesus] permeate the whole NT canon" (p. 9). Many would contest this assertion, and with good reason, but in view of the history of animated debate on what status, if any, should be given to the historical Jesus within a work of Second Testament theology/ethics, my principal point is that Swartley's reason(s) why the mission and message of Jesus of Nazareth should be considered within his project and what role such considerations might play deserved explicit attention and even elaboration. After all, to ask, "Does the 'Historical Jesus' belong within a 'New Testament Theology'?" is not an idle question (see Tuckett).

Chapter 2 contextualizes Swartley's broader discussion by examining the meaning(s) of shalom and peace in Hebrew scripture, the Greco-Roman world, and the Second Testament. Here Swartley makes plain that, as he understands it, Second Testament theology and ethics is incomprehensible apart from Hebrew scripture. That is not to say that the Second Testament simply reiterates Israelite scripture; the relation of Second Testament to First is much more dynamic than that of mere repetition, especially with respect to peace and violence. Not only here but also in his discussions of various individual writings or groupings of writings, Swartley's attention to ways in which the Second Testament not only adopts but also adapts motifs and themes from the First Testament is usually illuminating and often compelling. On this particular topos of biblical theology, Swartley has much to offer, which might be expected of the author of Israel's Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story (1994).

It is also within his second chapter that Swartley broaches the question of the presence of violence within the Second Testament, which resurfaces from time to time in his treatment of specific writings. In addition to pointing out in which chapters he addresses such issues as the divine warrior motif, the imagery of warfare applied to the Christian life, and specific texts that have been used to justify Christian involvement in state-sanctioned violence, Swartley also responds to the thesis of Michel Desjardins (1997) that the Second Testament promotes both peace and violence. Needless to say, if Desjardins is correct, Swartley's thesis is bankrupt, but Swartley finds support in Richard Hays's (1996) contention that the Second Testament provides no support for human resort to violence. His own defense of the Second Testament as a "covenant of peace" makes the more positive case that not only does the Second Testament promote nonviolence but it also advocates proactive peacemaking by peaceful means.

An important feature of Swartley's case is the following claim: "To adequately understand the peace teaching of the NT it is essential to set it within the longer biblical theology perspective on war and peace throughout canonical Scripture" (p. 51). So, before discussing specific Second Testament writings, Swartley identifies the following "seven strands of biblical-theological emphasis" as providing the necessary framework for appreciating the peace-centered focus of the Second Testament as a whole: (1) throughout scripture God is both peacemaker and divine warrior, whose combat against evil in pursuit of justice and peace delegitimizes human retaliation and vengeance; (2) Jesus adopts the mantle of divine warrior against the forces of evil; (3) in view of Jesus' victory over evil, his disciples are called upon to trust in his accomplishment (and, one might add, in the means by which he defeats evil); (4) Jesus overturns traditional expectations of what constitutes victory over evil, that is, he denounces the "domination system" (cf. Wink) by renouncing violence; (5) Jesus displays openness to those considered enemies within his social context; (6) the twin, complementary Lukan themes of (a) peace and justice as the fruit of Jesus' mission based upon (b) Jesus' offensive against demonic forces; and (7) the Pauline perspective on the powers as a theological interpretation of the meaning and significance of Jesus' mission. Together, these seven emphases set the stage for Swartley's more detailed analysis and appraisal.

Chapters 3-6 explore the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and ... Acts! In his introductory chapter, Swartley forewarns that the fourth Gospel is treated along with the larger Johannine corpus. Yet in view of his stated adherence to the canonical method as defined by Childs (p. 9), a designation not entirely apposite in view of Childs's focus on canon as interpretive context rather than method (see Harrisville & Sundberg: 314-16), this disruption of canonical sequence is rather surprising. Perhaps all that Swartley affirms about a canonical approach is that what is authoritative is a biblical text's final, canonical form, not its ostensible prehistory. Yet he would know that at a certain point in the development of a canonical approach, Childs (1984: 143-209) noted that the fourfold gospel collection placed Luke's Gospel in an interpretive framework different from its original context, that is, as the first volume of a two-volume work, and that in certain respects at least, the fourth Gospel provides the key for interpreting the other Gospels. While Childs (1992: 262-87) seems prepared to discuss the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in inverse order from their canonical sequence, the fourfold gospel corpus seems crucial to his determination to interpret scripture within a canonical context. Moreover, given the canonical sequence of the four Gospels, which is notably different from the so-called "Western" or Old Latin order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), it might be argued within the context of a Second Testament theology that the most explicitly theological Gospel should serve as the capstone and interpretive benchmark for the previous three. (Historically, of course, this is how the fourth Gospel has functioned doctrinally.) In any case, it would seem that historical-critical as well as canonical considerations contribute to the structural arrangement of Swartley's Second Testament theology/ethics. This is his prerogative, but the function of historical-critical considerations within a Second Testament, or biblical, theology is controversial (see Via; and cf. Collins: 1-44). Again, therefore, more explicit attention to the validity and role of such considerations within Swartley's project was desirable.

Among the narrative writings within the Second Testament, Luke's Gospel is most susceptible of a peace-centered interpretation. Swartley's discussion bears this out, not only by attending to the vastly more frequent usage of peace-terminology in Luke's Gospel than in the other three but also by showing that Luke's use of such terminology occurs at structurally strategic junctures in the narrative. Upon reading his analysis, it is difficult to contest his view that "for Luke peace (eirene) expresses the very heart of the gospel" (p. 130). Swartley also uses Luke's peace-focus to argue against Conzelmann's (1960) thesis that a key Lukan concern was to display the early Christian movement as politically innocuous. For those who equate pacifism with passivism, this might seem contradictory, or at least counterintuitive, yet Swartley buttresses his argument by documenting Luke's complementary concern for genuine justice. Luke's Gospel is no tract crying out "Peace, peace" when there is no peace; rather, in narrative form it presents a clear-visioned and sober determination to proclaim peace with justice, whether construed as peace as the fruit of justice or justice as the mode of peace.

But does Luke's peace-with-justice concern carry over into Acts? Swartley thinks so and probably does as well as one could to defend this viewpoint. I am less sure. Granted, "Luke's purpose [in Acts] is to portray an alternative community with its own kingdom-gospel-eirene agenda that is inherently neither pro- nor anti-Roman" (p. 154). Yet it seems that in turning from the story of Jesus to the story of the movement he initiated, Luke's peace-beacon dimmed somewhat. This is not simply because the term eirene occurs only half as frequently in Acts as in Luke's Gospel, but also because when it does appear it often lacks the full-orbed dimensions it so often conveys in the Gospel. Acts 10:36 is a notable exception, but otherwise the theme of peace in Acts is muted, despite Swartley's (often illuminating) argument to the contrary. Perhaps one could support Swartley's case by maintaining that Luke intended the dominant peace-with-justice emphasis in his Gospel to flow over into Acts, but one suspects that if that were so there would be more textual evidence than there is to support such a viewpoint. On the other hand, might not Acts provide evidence that while the early Jesus-movement carried out its mission(s) in Jesus' name, it lost from fairly early on, perhaps even from the outset, his radical commitment to peace at the heart of the good news grounded in the conviction that the reign of God is one of peace? In short, perhaps Acts, especially by comparison with the same author's Gospel, provides evidence of how early the missing peace began to go missing.

Before turning to the Pauline corpus, Swartley inserts an unnumbered chapter entitled "Jesus Makes the Covenant of Peace (Retrospect and Prospect)," in which he attends to the peacemaking significance of the Lord's Supper. Once again, the extra-textual reality of Jesus as a historical figure is brought into focus, and so, too, the Eucharistic liturgy of the church during the three centuries after the period in which the Second Testament documents were written! Clearly, despite Swartley's affinity with a canonical approach, he finds value in looking beyond the text. In other words, his Second Testament theology/ethics is both textual (focusing on the canonical text of the Second Testament) and extra-textual (cf. Via: 25-29), yet without clearly articulating the precise nature of the relation between canonical text and extra-textual referents.

The Pauline corpus is treated in two chapters (7 and 8), with the Pastoral Epistles discussed in a two-page addendum to chapter 8. Given both the basic structure of Pauline theology (moral imperative grounded in theological indicative) and the significance of Paul for most Second Testament theologies, it is here that Swartley's complaint about "the missing peace in NT theology and ethics" is most telling and compelling. For it is in the Pauline corpus, especially in the more "systematic" epistles of Romans and Ephesians, that peace and related concepts such as reconciliation are central to an interpretation of both the divine initiative and appropriate moral response. As Swartley asserts, "Paul, more than any other writer in the NT canon, makes peace, peacemaking, and peace-building central to his theological reflection and moral admonition" (p. 190). While Swartley makes good use of Chris Marshall's Beyond Retribution to argue for a close relation between "righteousness/justification" and peace in Paul's thought, this tight connection would be made more obvious by using the language of rectification instead of justification, even if the social-justice implications are perhaps less clearly signalled by this word-family. Yet there is a clear conceptual connection between God's rectifying initiative in and through Jesus Christ, which restores right relations between God and human beings, and a mission of social reconciliation grounded in God's reconciliation of the world to God's own self through the mission of Jesus Christ, especially his death and resurrection. Peace with God grounded in God's creation-wide rectifying, reconciling initiative in and through Jesus Christ is fully appropriated and experienced only in Christian life and witness wholly oriented to peacemaking and peace-building, which necessarily includes attention to issues of justice.

Especially illuminating is Swartley's discussion of the distinctively Pauline phrase, "God of peace," which occurs seven times in the Pauline writings and is echoed in the benediction at Hebrews 13:20. Alongside the absence of any characterization of God as "God of wrath/judgment" and the comparatively infrequent references to the "God of hope" or "God of love" (once each, with "God of love and peace" in 2 Corinthians 13:11 the only reference to "God of love"), the relative frequency with which the phrase, "God of peace," occurs is striking. Little wonder that Swartley finds it inexplicable that major treatments of Pauline theology overlook this phrase and the peace-emphasis that it bespeaks. In this connection, Swartley finds support in Klaus Haacker's (1990, 2003) identification of peace with God and peace between various people-groups as a major concern of Romans. No one would want to displace from Christian consciousness the Johannine "definition" of God as love, but to add the Pauline peace-dimension so that Christians routinely considered God the God of love and peace (2 Cor 13:11) could conceivably have a revolutionary impact on Christian imagination and moral formation.

In the second chapter devoted to Pauline thought, Swartley explores what one might call Pauline cosmology as the backdrop to showing how Christian "warfare" against spiritual forces is part and parcel of a peaceable or nonviolent ethic. Useful as his discussion is, he might have addressed more fully how easily militant imagery feeds a militant mindset. History shows how easily demonic forces can be equated with flesh-and-blood opponents. Here attention to the reception history of Pauline language concerning "spiritual warfare" might have been salutary (cf. Luz). On the other hand, Swartley's discussion of the counter-imperial dimension of Paul's theology and moral exhortation is a useful corrective to the view that equates pacifism (literally peacemaking) with passivism. A peace-oriented theology-cum-ethic is not necessarily quietist, even if nonviolent in how it both challenges dominant theological discourse and agitates for social change. As Swartley remarks about Paul:

   From the gospel-peace perspective of Jesus Christ the pseudonature
   of Rome's peace is glaring.... In the context of this Pax
   Romana peace-through-oppression, Paul proclaims a counterpeace,
   a peace that repudiates domination over others, unites
   people of diverse backgrounds into the Christ-bond of peace,
   exhorts believers to welcome one another as brothers and sisters
   in Christ overcoming hierarchical societal structures marking
   the honor-shame culture, and commits his mission to reallocate
   monetary resources from the wealthier newly founded
   churches to help the poor in Jerusalem. This is Paul's alternative
   peace-gospel, a subversive power in the Roman Empire
   that promised and inaugurated a new order of society, birthing
   a new socioeconomic, political creation [p. 250].

Even if one were to respond that this is not the whole Paul or that this presents Paul at his most magnanimous, it is nonetheless a meaningful description of Paul's theological vision within his social context. Moreover, drawing on the work of Frances Young (1994), Swartley contends that this counter-imperial dimension of Paul's theological vision is to be found in the Pastoral Epistles. In view of the domesticated social vision often associated with the pastorals, this counterbalancing observation has the potential to encourage interpreters to approach these three epistles with greater openness.

Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter are discussed in chapter 9, with 2 Peter and Jude covered in a brief addendum (pp. 274-75). With respect to Hebrews, Swartley naturally focuses on the priestly christology of this "brief word of exhortation" (Heb 13:22). For not only is peace between humanity and God accomplished by the once-for-all sacrifice of the superior high priest himself, but the characterization of Jesus Christ as a priest of permanence according to the order of Melchizedek links Jesus to one whose name is explicated as "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Heb 7:2). Despite the typological association, this is not quite the same as identifying Jesus as "king of peace," as Swartley contends (p. 255). No doubt what is affirmed of Melchizedek can be affirmed of Jesus, so that it is appropriate to claim Hebrews in support of a christology of peace, but perhaps Swartley arrives at that conclusion too soon. In any case, he rightly points out the similarity in structure between Pauline theology and that of Hebrews with respect to peace; peace between God and humanity is brought about via the atoning work of Jesus Christ and is at least partly realized in the life of believers through relationships governed by a commitment to peace. As exhorted in Hebrews 12:14, "Pursue peace with everyone...." Moreover, the benediction in Hebrews 13:20-21 refers to "the God of peace," whose peace-initiative reached a high point in the resurrection of Jesus yet continues in equipping believers with everything good. Thus, it is legitimate for Swartley to conclude: "The 'better covenant' theology of Hebrews is explicated within a distinct peace accent: Jesus is King of peace; people are called to pursue peace with everyone; and the epistle climaxes with a blessing from the God of peace" (p. 259). Had this been affirmed more robustly in the past, Hebrews' "better covenant" theology might have been used less frequently in the service of violence against those deemed to belong to a lesser covenant.

Swartley's discussion of James centers on James 3:17-4:4. He helpfully links justice and peace within a broader wisdom context. Here wisdom and understanding are related to the good life in such a way that morality is perceived to consist in humility (or perhaps gentleness) that derives from true wisdom, the wisdom from above that is characterized in James 3:17 as being above all pure (of envy and self-aggrandizing ambition; cf. 3:16), peaceful, gentle, flexible, etc. Indeed, although the peace theme is not sounded often in James, the strong connection between genuine wisdom and both peace and justice in James 3:17-18 is a notable contribution of this letter to a Christian peace ethic.

Within the chapter on Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter, Swartley devotes most attention to I Peter. This is partly because of the importance accorded the command not to return evil for evil or abuse for abuse (1 Pet 3:8-9), which is scripturally sanctioned by the injunction to turn from evil and to do good by pursuing peace (I Pet 3:11). But Swartley also takes up the challenge of assessing the pertinence of the command against retaliation for oppressive situations and the question of war. His fivefold response affirms the principle of nonretaliation without endorsing a passive, quietist interpretation. Yet there may be readers who consider that Swartley does not do enough to affirm the moral rectitude of doing what one can nonviolently to end situations of injustice or oppression.

Chapters 10-12 examine the Johannine literature, with chapter 10 focusing on the "conflictual ethos" reflected in the Johannine writings, chapter 11 devoted largely to the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 as a key "peace and mission text," and chapter 12 reserved for Revelation. Swartley does not hold that the Johannine literature is held together by common authorship or audience. But, as he points out, "a strong conflictual atmosphere permeates all the Johannine writings" (p. 277), and this conflict between Christian believers and the hostile world is where he begins his discussion of the theme of peace in relation to the Johannine corpus.

Swartley's case for the importance of the peace theme in the fourth Gospel and Johannine letters, where neither love for enemies nor peacemaking features as a mark of the Christian life, is grounded in the inner-community love command that witnesses to the wider world of God's love for it. Moreover, he contends that the "sectarian" character of Johannine Christianity made possible a profound critique of the way things are in the wider world, including violent and oppressive structures. The peculiarly Johannine mode of peacemaking comprises a cord of three strands: (1) the pervasive emphasis on inner-community love, which serves as an appealing witness to outsiders because it witnesses to God's love for the world; (2) the universal and inclusive potential of the Johannine theology of the Logos, through which the world as a whole originates and in which the world as a whole is sought out and addressed; and (3) the exemplary depiction of Jesus' refusal to retaliate violently when arrested, brutalized, and killed. Together, these three strands allow Swartley to make a case for "John's peacemaking potential" (p. 295).

Yet there is more. An editorial oversight (p. 289) suggests that Swartley's chapter on "Peace and Mission in John's Gospel" was not part of the original plan of this book; yet it contributes significantly to Swartley's case for seeing "peacemaking potential" in the fourth Gospel. His discussion of the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 as a "peace and mission" text is illuminating, even if his contention that this episode is a precursor to the commissioning text in John 20:19-23 might have been made more strongly. But most compelling is Swartley's exposition of the peace and mission connection in John 20:19-23 itself. In this account of a post-resurrection encounter with Jesus, the juxtaposition of the themes of peace, sharing Jesus' mission, reception of the Holy Spirit, and forgiveness draws together dynamic peacemaking resources.

With respect to Revelation, Swartley naturally begins by emphasizing its affinity with other apocalyptic writings of the period, knowledge of which discourages (but unfortunately does not prevent) literalistic interpretations. Swartley ably plots a path toward peacemaking by pointing out that although much of the imagery of holy war present in other apocalyptic writings occurs also in Revelation, nevertheless the holy-war tradition is reconstructed (i.e., adopted but also adapted) in line with the Lamb christology that permeates the book. For Swartley, "The Lamb christology combined with the faithful word-witness is the heartbeat of Revelation's distinctive contribution to peace theology" (p. 333). He successfully shows that Revelation does not endorse violence on the part of believers, and in this sense is in tune with the remainder of the Second Testament. Yet on the ethical significance of eschatological vengeance, Swartley might have said more.

Unlike previous chapters, chapters 13-15 discuss major themes that cut across various Second Testament writings. The first of these is that of discipleship as imitation of Jesus, discussed in relation to, but also as a correction of, Rene Girard's theory of mimetic desire. The second concerns "God's Moral Character as the Basis for Human Ethics," especially in relation to the scripturally sanctioned divine prerogative to exact vengeance. The third relates the Second Testament emphasis on peace and peacemaking to Christian moral formation.

A concluding chapter reiterates some key findings, including Swartley's contention that "peace is pervasive in NT gospel proclamation and parenesis" (p. 419) and his view that in all major strands of Second Testament thought there is an implicit or explicit counter-imperial aspect to peace-related theological affirmations. Swartley also offers brief reflections of a more practical nature, including a proposal to make three additions to the Apostles' Creed so as to reaffirm the theological significance of Jesus' life and teaching. I am not convinced that any one of us, no matter how confident one might be of one's (superior?) perspective, is entitled to alter a text from an earlier period, but there is no reason why those who use the Apostles' Creed, whether in liturgy or for instruction, should not provide commentary on its (perceived) shortcomings.

Two appendices, a substantial bibliography, and indices round out this important contribution to Second Testament scholarship. In Appendix I Swartley surveys twenty-five works devoted to Second Testament theology or ethics, with particular attention to how much or how little peace features as a significant theme. Appendix 2 reproduces "Peter Stuhlmacher's Twelve Theses on Peace in the New Testament," which Swartley discusses briefly in his second chapter.

Reading and pondering Swartley's book leaves one with a sense of the author's passionate commitment to a peace-oriented hermeneutic and, one suspects, a life that witnesses to that peace-centeredness. That in itself is commendation enough for his exegetical and hermeneutical labors. Only with the passage of time will it be possible to ascertain whether Swartley's concern "to restore peace in the study of NT theology and ethics" (p. 10) is successful, but in my judgment both the concern and effort signify success in and of themselves. The validity of a peace witness is not contingent on its perceived impact. Thus, my critical comments and queries are but minor reservations within a larger context of affirmation and appreciation.

Looking back over Swartley's discussion of Second Testament writings, I find that he is most compelling in articulating a peace-oriented focus for the Gospels of Mark and Luke and key Pauline letters. He does a fine job of putting peace back into the picture in relation to Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter. His discussion of Acts is helpful, even if too intent on showing that the peace-focus of Luke's Gospel is maintained in the sequel. With respect to the fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles, Swartley does well to retrieve the peacemaking potential of the Johannine theological and ethical perspective. And as far as he goes, his treatment of the first and last books in the Second Testament strongly support a peacemaking ethic. As far as he goes....

Throughout Covenant of Peace christology naturally features prominently. After all, early Christian perspectives on God, God's relation to humanity, and human responsibility before God were all profoundly affected by their (admittedly varied) understandings of Jesus' identity and significance. Yet for all the fulfillment early Christians attributed to Jesus' mission, they nevertheless awaited final resolution. That eschatological resolution was also christologically focused, meaning that what was inaugurated in Jesus' mission would be realized by the risen Jesus. For this reason, eschatology is central to Second Testament theology and ethics. In light of certain texts, especially the Gospel of Matthew and the Revelation to John, a crucial question is provoked by their depictions of eschatological consummation, namely: Will the peacemaking ethic that Jesus taught and practiced be validated at the eschaton? Neither Matthew nor John seems to have thought so, especially if one takes their anticipated eschatological scenarios at face value. Of course, whether one should take at face value what they say concerning the future about which no one can know is an important question. In any case, the church down through the centuries has taken both Matthew's and John's eschatological scenarios with utmost seriousness, to the extent that its theology, liturgy, mission endeavors, and moral instruction have been profoundly influenced by the first and last books of the Second Testament--not always healthily and rarely with an accent on peace.

While discussing Matthew's Gospel, Swartley is conscious of the need to address the question of consistency between Jesus' moral instruction and the hostile way in which his relation to Jewish religious leaders is displayed. This he does well; yet his only reference to the question of consistency between Jesus' moral teaching and his anticipated vengeance at the time of eschatological judgment occurs in a footnote at the end of the chapter: "Some apocalyptic scenes (13:41-42, 24:27-31) are consummation-judgments that belong to the divine prerogative. They do not provide warrant for the moral practices of Jesus' disciples" (p. 90, n. 120). Unfortunately, this comment does not reflect how central eschatological judgment is to Matthean theology, nor how starkly the tone of such anticipated judgment scenes varies from what Jesus teaches. Swartley does discuss the theme of eschatological vengeance in relation to the book of Revelation, and does so by speaking of traditional holy-war and judgment imagery being transformed and even subverted in conformity with the conviction that God's vanquishment over the forces of evil is by means of the Lamb that undergoes slaughter rather than inflicts it. Swartley even makes the "Lamb's War" in Revelation one of five "symbolic world" perspectives that shape Christian moral formation (p. 403). This is in line with his concern to show that vengeance is a divine prerogative, not something that believers have any part in executing.

But given the peace-oriented mission of Jesus, is vengeance a divine prerogative? Or, put differently, if the mission of Jesus was, as early Christians believed, authorized by God and reflective of God's way of relating to humanity and of overcoming evil in the world, what does the anticipation of eschatological vengeance imply about that particular conviction or about God's true character? Something must give. Swartley takes up this conundrum in his chapter entitled "God's Moral Character as the Basis for Human Ethics: Foundational Convictions." Framed that way, it is clear that Swartley's chief concern is to uphold a pacifist ethic, even at the expense of conceding that God might, after all, be violent and vengeful (from a certain perspective). I am less confident than Swartley that the pragmatic acceptance of divine violence to ensure the repudiation of violence on the part of persons is compelling. God's prerogative to use violence might well encourage some to foreswear violence here and now, but it might just as easily inspire violent human behavior. In the human psyche, the traffic of motivational cause and effect flows in more than one direction, and there are occasional pile-ups. For some, eschatological vengeance is reason enough to repudiate violence in the here and now; for others, the logic of "since they have it coming anyway, why not now?" is overwhelming.

Despite my qualms about the moral rationale for protecting the divine prerogative to exercise vengeance, my chief concern within the framework of Second Testament theology and ethics is the discrepancy between christology and eschatology, that is, between what early Christians understood about God from reflecting on the (paso mission of Jesus and what they anticipated of God in the future. Accepting that Jesus was God's messiah necessitated significant revision of inherited preconceptions, but if a militant model of messiah-ship was merely interrupted or postponed until the eschaton, perhaps that revision did not extend far enough.

Swartley outlines four foundational moral convictions as the supporting pylons for a pacifist ethic: (1) God's vanquishment of evil, which does not require human violence against (perceived) enemies; (2) the scriptural disclosure of both the cultural mechanism of sacred violence and its transcendence in Jesus' relinquishment of violent retaliation; (3) positive mimetic desire that does not lead to rivalry and violence, which is Swartley's renovation of Girard's theory of mimetic desire; and (4) our view of God's moral nature, which Swartley brings into sharp relief with the question: "Is God a God of violence (or wrath?), who uses violence to conquer evil, or is God to be understood as a nonviolent God?" (pp. 383-84). Regarding this fourth foundational conviction, Swartley emphasizes both God's prerogative to judge and punish and the illegitimacy of appealing to moral precepts to assess divine action. Apart from begging the question whether what is claimed to be divine violence or vengeance is actually so (unless one accepts as given that whatever is asserted about God in Jewish and Christian scripture is true without remainder), neither of these "two fundamental points" (p. 384) takes full cognizance of what Swartley himself outlines in his second foundational conviction, namely, that the mechanism of sacred violence is drained of its legitimacy and transcended in Jesus' refusal to respond to violence violently. If, with the Second Testament writers, one accepts that Jesus of Nazareth is the fullest disclosure (yet) of God's nature and of God's way of relating to the world, to pose the question whether divine violence is legitimate is not to judge God by human standards but to acknowledge Jesus as the measure of God. Naturally, this is a faith stance that is not open to independent verification, but it would seem to be Swartley's own standpoint. To wrestle toward the view that God is a God of shalom alone and not a God who resorts to violent vengeance is not to deny the divine prerogative to use violence; after all, if God is God, God's means are beyond human evaluation. Rather, the view that God is nonviolent is, for Christian believers, a christologically determined affirmation.

In an irenic (perhaps too irenic!) spirit, Swartley tries to hold together the views of those who argue that Christian nonviolence is predicated on divine nonviolence and those who contend that Christian nonviolence is predicated on the divine prerogative to avenge violently. Undoubtedly there is (some) truth in both perspectives, but within a Jewish-Christian framework God is either violent or nonviolent, not both, even though scripture suggests otherwise. To cope with difference and, indeed, contradiction within the biblical tradition, every theological-hermeneutical perspective privileges some aspect of scripture above others, adamant denials notwithstanding. The Second Testament writings privilege Jesus as God's messiah; a hermeneutical stance that follows suit still has work to do, but at least it has an inner-scriptural touchstone by which to appraise all other aspects of scripture.

Swartley offers an alternative biblical perspective. On the basis of an analysis of the biblical (largely Hebrew!) data relating to violence, he contends that since scripture rarely refers to divine violence against humanity but generally identifies human violence as the reason for divine judgment, to speak of the violence of God is a "category fallacy" (p. 394). This is simply inaccurate, as Swartley himself confirms when in the subsequent paragraph he acknowledges that "Scripture rarely speaks explicitly about God being violent or nonviolent..." (p. 395). Indeed, it is only because there are scriptural depictions of God executing violent vengeance that Swartley grapples with this issue. He is right to insist that "judgment is what characterizes the sovereign, holy God who punishes humans for sin and violence" (p. 395), but there can be little doubt that some scriptural depictions or anticipations of divine judgment entail violence either authorized or carried out by God. Eschatological vengeance is a scriptural reality, and there is a better way to address it than to deny that it is violence. Or so I think.

In conclusion, Swartley is largely successful in showing that peace is a prominent theme in many Second Testament writings, or at least that no Second Testament writing is inimical to a peace-centered theology and ethics. But in view of certain recalcitrant features of such texts as the Gospel according to Matthew and the Apocalypse of John, perhaps it might have been advisable to press the point that the quest for peace is no less an interpretive choice than an exegetical reclamation. Nevertheless, Swartley has provided enough exegetical detail in support of perceiving the Second Testament as a "covenant of peace" to provoke the question: Why should we not (re)place peace at the center of Second Testament interpretation?

Works Cited

Bultmann, R. 1951, 1955. The Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. New York, NY." Charles Scribner's Sons. The German original was published in three parts (1948, 1951, 1953), with Part II comprising "The Theology of Paul and John."

Childs, B. S. 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. London, UK: SCM Press.

1984. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London, UK: SCM Press.

Collins, J. J. 2005. Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Conzelmann, H. 1960. The Theology of St Luke, trans. G. Buswell. London, UK: Faber & Faber/New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Dahl, N. A. 1991. Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

1975. "The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology." Reflections 75: 5-8.

Desjardin, M. 1997. Peace and Violence in the New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Haacker, K. 2003. The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1990. "Der Romerbrief als Friedensmemorandum." New Testament Studies 36: 25-41.

Harrisville, R. A., & Sundberg, W.. 2002. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.

Hays, R. B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.

Jeremias, J. 1971. New Testament Theology, Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. John Bowden. London, UK: SCM Press.

Kummel, W. G. 1973. The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John, trans. John E. Steely. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Luz, U. 2006. "The Contribution of Reception History to a Theology of the New Testament." Pp. 123-34 in The Nature of New Testament Theology, edited by C. Rowland and C. Tuckett. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Marshall, C. D. 2001. Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Swarthy, W. M. 1994. Israel's Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Tuckett, C. 2006. "Does the 'Historical Jesus' belong within a 'New Testament Theology'?" Pp. 231-47 in The Nature of New Testament Theology, edited by C. Rowland & C. Tuckett. Malden, MA/Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Via, D. O. 2002. What Is New Testament Theology? Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Wink, W. 1992. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Young, E 1994. The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

David J. Neville, Ph.D. (Murdoch University, Western Australia) is Senior Lecturer in Theology in the School of Theology, Charles Sturt University (e-mail: [e-mail]), and lectures in Second Testament studies at St Mark's National Theological Centre in Canberra, Australia. He is the author of two books on the relations between the synoptic Gospels, most recently Mark's Gospel--Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), and he has edited two collections of essays in Christian social ethics.