284 - Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context

Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context
By Brevard S. Childs
Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985. 255 pp. $16.95.

Professor Childs is arguably the most influential Old Testament interpreter now at work. His insistence on canonical interpretation has decisively changed the shape of scholarly discussion. Critically, he has shown the problematic character of much critical study that has failed to take the text seriously in terms of its own shape and claims. Constructively, he has effectively insisted on theological modes of interpretation, has shown how the claim of authority is urgent in the midst of interpretation, and has insisted that the theological enterprise of interpretation cannot avoid the issue of relating the text to the New Testament. On all these grounds, he has implicitly promised us a programmatic Old Testament theology that moves beyond questions of prolegomena.

In light of his bold influence and the enormous promise of his work, I find this present book more than a little enigmatic, and a serious disappointment. Perhaps, if it were not authored by Childs, the disappointment would not be so keen, because the expectation would not be so high.

Childs proceeds with von Rad and Zimmerli as his major conversation partners, and shapes his discussion very much around the same topics which Old Testament theologies have generally covered. While the book is not organized into larger sections, it seems fair to say that there are four major sections: (1) the mode and substance of revelation, (2) the ethical claims of the canon, (3) the offices of Israel: judge, king, prophet, priest, and (4) the organizational life of Israel. These headings do not comprehend the entire discussion, but they do indicate the scope and character of the discussion. Of special interest are a discussion of "male and female" as a problem in understanding God, and two concluding chapters on blessing and threat, which are among the best in the book.

Childs' book is enigmatic, because he does not seem to adhere stringently to the notion of canon, which he himself has articulated. He repeatedly insists that we must practice a "canonical construal" of the

286 - Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context

material. At times, my impression is that he means simply that we should say what the text says, but it must mean more than that. However, the "more than that" is not only unclear, but seems to be quite, subjective. It is easy to identify the positions of others that Childs criticizes and rejects, but his own use of texts seems highly selective and the guidelines for his selectivity are not obvious.

A representative case of this difficulty is Chapter 3, on "How God Is Known." The subheadings refer to "creation," "wisdom," and "history," with a brief reference to the "name" and an abbreviated discussion. of the God of the Old Testament as a "male deity." I regard this discussion as not only legitimate, but, on the whole, persuasive, although I cannot see what makes this a "canonical construal" any more than many other scholars have done. Moreover, I should think a canonical approach must be comprehensive concerning the ways in which God is known. What then of revelation in theophany, or levitical preaching, or cult, or priestly lots?

The book is a disappointment, because I had hoped that Childs' program would lead to a genuinely fresh shaping of Old Testament theology. But this book seems to me to be largely a reiteration of what is generally said, albeit with some different nuances. In his brief discussion of kings in the chapter entitled "Agents of God's Rule," Childs resists the notion of pro- and anti-monarchal sources in I Samuel, and says the two accounts are "carefully intertwined" in spite of "vestiges of friction." He then discusses Saul, David, and messianic hope. Childs has, however, deliberately dismissed any sociological sensitivity (as his strictures against Gottwald make clear) that might let the tensions in the canon reflect genuine issues of faith. It seems to me that a study of kingship which does not take up the abrasive Deuteronomistic submission of monarchy to torah, the prophetic critique, or the emergence of a Judean theology of monarchy is not very helpful. And it is hardly canonical in the sense of attending to the whole picture.

Childs has earned the right to present a highly personalized account, and that is what he has given us. But it is quite odd how his own interpretive conclusions turn up without warning and without rationale from the text. Thus, he approves inclusive language for God; and he prefers words like "salvation" or "redemption" to the "much-abused term 'liberation.' " He does not seem to reflect on the fact that all these terms are "much abused." He dismisses the prospect of finding a "biblical opening, if not warrant, for the practice of homosexuality." This last is interesting in light of the very carefully nuanced discussion of Childs' associate and student, Gerald Sheppard. Childs may be right on any or all of these points, but it is difficult to understand what the warrants are or how they fit his general program. By dismissing and excluding historical perspective, Childs-when he wants-is able to make things flat and absolute in ways that are not always convincing.

I do not believe this book advances the discussion of canonical modes of interpretation. In other ways, it will be a useful book. It is simple,

287 - Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context

direct, straightforward, and the argument is easily available. However, it leaves the impression that it lacks the studied reflectiveness we expect from Childs.

As with everyone I know, my debts to Childs are enormous. Thus, I write this with deference and trepidation. However, my critique is at least partly his fault, because he has taught us to expect much more. I still expect much more from him. I hope he still intends a book that will help us more on the matter of canonical construal. I suspect that when that move is clarified, more attention will have to be given to the social processes that operate in the text. Without that, the text becomes rigid and absolute, an ideological statement of the kind Childs critiques in others.

Walter Brueggemann

Eden Theological Seminary
St. Louis, Missouri