Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, IVP Academic,

2008.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the subject called Old Testament Theology has
been blessed (if such a word is proper) with dynamic and invigorating contributions.
Gerhard von Rad, Walther Eichrodt, Horst Preuss, and Otto Kaiser to name just a few, all
wrote theologies of the Old Testament.

So what can be added to what has already been done? Hasn’t the subject been so
thoroughly covered that any new treatment really can be nothing more than a
redundancy? These questions routinely arise whenever a new Theology or a new
Commentary on some Biblical book appears. And normally, such questions are justified.
Many scholars, it has to be admitted, simply glean from the fields of others and package
their own work in a new wrapping. But that is not what Routledge does.

The Old Testament Theology presently under review is aimed at a general readership and
as such it masterfully achieves its goal. Theologians and Old Testament scholars of the
lofty heights occupied by the likes of von Rad and Eichrodt may not be the intended
audience, but even the most experienced scholar could learn from Routledge’s volume.

In his tome, Routledge discusses various approaches to OT theology (chapter 1), God and
the ‘gods’ (chapter 2), God and creation (chapter 3), election and covenant (4), worship
and sacrifice (5), receiving instruction (6), kingship in Israel (7), ethics (8), God and the
future (9), and God and the nations (10). The whole ends with the expected bibliography
and indices.

Though the volume as a whole is, I have to say, really quite good (again, especially for
persons just beginning OT study or laypersons interested in learning what the OT is all
about) I want to focus my remarks on the chapter titled ‘God and Creation’ (chapter 3).
And I want to do so because I think R. does an absolutely fantastic job discussing, first of
all, the idea of ‘myth’ in the OT.

R. writes ‘… myths are not simply fiction; they convey a basic truth… Viewed in this way,
parts of the OT may be described as myth, though the term needs to be used with
caution’ (p. 127). He goes on to describe a very cautious, but very insightful approach to
the use of the word myth in connection with the OT.

He also takes a look at the old notion of the Chaoskampf. A notion which R. believes ‘…
enables the OT writers to show God’s victory in creation as a past event, a present reality
and a future hope’ (p. 130).

But what I found particularly enamoring in R.’s presentation was his willingness to
comprehend the biblical text as a theological document. In particular, concerning Gen 1-
11, he writes ‘However, important though the question of historicity may be, that is not
central to these chapters: the main issue here is their theological significance’ (p. 130-31).
R. does go into substantive detail in negating what he sees to be an ahistorical view of the
OT narrative (pp. 62-63) but that he sees the opening chapters of Genesis as essentially
theological is excellent. These chapters highlight God’s transcendence, immanence,
creative power, and redemption.

R. too discusses the relationship of man and woman made in the image of God, human
personality (including discussion of the Hebrew terms ruach, lev, basar, and nephesh),
and the ‘origin and spread of sin’ (which of course harkens back to von Rad’s description
of these chapters as the ‘incursion and spread of sin’).

But my glowing appreciation of R.’s work isn’t unqualified. His description of the
temptation narrative causes a stir of consternation when he writes ‘Temptation comes via
a snake’ (p. 148). He knows, of course, that ‘serpent’ is the proper word because he uses it
in the same paragraph (‘snake/serpent’, p. 149). Still, he correctly goes on to observe that
‘… the constant temptation for human beings [is] to seek to be like God, to take control of
their own destiny and so allow the world to fall back into chaos’ (p. 149).

Despite his conservatism (and he is conservative), R. should not be taken as a

fundamentalist. His work is far from that camp and his willingness to emphasize
theology as well as the equality of women proves it. Concerning Eve and her yielding to
temptation, he writes ‘Eve did not subvert Adam; rather, both failed to fulfil the role for
which God created them’ (p. 154).

Only one thing in R’.s presentation confused me- and it was the word ‘backcloth’ (p. 158).
In context, ‘However, even against the backcloth of this long and inexorable decline into
sin, God’s grace is evident in the expressions of mercy that accompany the curses and
judgments in Genesis 3-11’. Did he mean ‘backdrop’? I’m left to wonder.

Nonetheless, one thing I’m not wondering about is recommending this volume to general
readers and beginning students. I do without reservation. Even against the ‘backcloth’ of
larger and lengthier volumes (such as Goldingay’s massive 3 volume delight).

Tolle, lege.

Jim West
Petros, Tn