Chapter 22: Caught in the Cross Fire
Boyd believes that the New Testament amplifies and clarifies the 'cosmic conflict' worldview of the Old Testament. Jesus viewed Satan as a powerful agent and functional ruler of the earth. Indeed, Jesus ministry was about overcoming the rule of Satan and establishing a new rule. And His crucifixion is the act by which this overcoming was accomplished.
Boyd's view is similar to that of C.S. Lewis. The devil simply did not understand the 'secret' plan that God was carrying out via the cross of Christ. Selfish Satan could not comprehend selfless love. Violence done to Jesus isn't what saves us. Jesus willingness to love without limits is what saves us, for it reveals the true character of God (destroying the devil's false-teachings about God's character).
In the remainder of the chapter, Boyd touches on the fact that we DO have, within us, an image-of-God bearing warrior instinct. It was never meant to be directed at people. It is intended toward the cosmic conflict. Because this instinct is legitimate, there are valuable lessons we can learn from the violence in the Old Testament (actual violence and imprecatory Psalms).
Reaction
This chapter felt a bit scattered in nature. Authors sometimes like to try to keep the chapter lengths close to the same when, to my mind, it's okay to have numerous short chapters.
In any case, I did find what Greg had to say about the 'secret' nature of God's plan intriguing. This is not a motif that is talked about all that often, but it is present in Scripture. I think his criticisms of (at least) the popular versions of Penal Substitution Atonement are valid. I think he's right that there is a legitimacy to the 'warrior instinct' and that that is relevant to the usefulness of these Old Testament passages.
I'm not with him on the imprecatory Psalms, though. I think it is far easier to interpret them as simply honest expressions from human beings. They are 'inspired' in the sense that God is pleased when we deal honestly with HIM instead of taking out our anger, frustration, and hatred on others.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
CWR (Chapter 21)
Chapter 21: Battle of the Gods
Boyd believes that "the most fundamental thing that the cross accomplished... is that it in principle defeated Satan and all other forces of destruction that had held us captive and corrupted the creation for eons." The third principle of the cruciform thesis is thus: "The agents that carry out violence when God withdraws... include perpetually-threatening cosmic forces." In other words, when God withdraws, it is these forces (not God) who actually carry out or are behind the carrying out of) the violence.
Boyd spends time, in this chapter, showing how the Old Testament talks about these powerful forces (the raging sea, cosmic monsters, chaos, etc.). In a real sense, they are rival gods... part of the heavenly counsel. They have free will and some of them are in rebellion against God. These truths do not deny God's sovereignty. Boyd wouldn't even say they threaten it. But they do complicate it in relation to how many Christians today imagine the spiritual scene (most seem to ignore the reality and power of these forces).
Reaction
I have read Boyd on this subject before. I think he makes some very strong points about the nature of monotheism and the reality of powerful spiritual beings other than God. He does a great job of showing the form this cosmic conflict takes in Old Testament literature. He also suggests (as will be made clear in the next chapter) that this motif isn't pushed to the side in the New Testament. The opposite is true. The nature of the cosmic conflict is clarified and amplified in and through Jesus.
Boyd believes that "the most fundamental thing that the cross accomplished... is that it in principle defeated Satan and all other forces of destruction that had held us captive and corrupted the creation for eons." The third principle of the cruciform thesis is thus: "The agents that carry out violence when God withdraws... include perpetually-threatening cosmic forces." In other words, when God withdraws, it is these forces (not God) who actually carry out or are behind the carrying out of) the violence.
Boyd spends time, in this chapter, showing how the Old Testament talks about these powerful forces (the raging sea, cosmic monsters, chaos, etc.). In a real sense, they are rival gods... part of the heavenly counsel. They have free will and some of them are in rebellion against God. These truths do not deny God's sovereignty. Boyd wouldn't even say they threaten it. But they do complicate it in relation to how many Christians today imagine the spiritual scene (most seem to ignore the reality and power of these forces).
Reaction
I have read Boyd on this subject before. I think he makes some very strong points about the nature of monotheism and the reality of powerful spiritual beings other than God. He does a great job of showing the form this cosmic conflict takes in Old Testament literature. He also suggests (as will be made clear in the next chapter) that this motif isn't pushed to the side in the New Testament. The opposite is true. The nature of the cosmic conflict is clarified and amplified in and through Jesus.
Saturday, July 08, 2017
CWG (Chapter 20)
Chapter 20: When God's Nonviolent Plans Fail
Finally, in this chapter, Boyd puts his cruciform hermeneutic to work as it is applied to the 'herem' command (specifically, the command to annihilate the Canaanites). Starting from the cross, Greg knows that God is non-violent. Given this fact, certain elements (even inconsistencies) from the Old Testament story of Israel's conquering of Canaan come to light like never before.
For instance, Boyd observes a thread within the story that God's original plan was to bring the Israelites into the land (and take the Canaanites out of the land) non-violently. God planned to use non-violent phenomena to slowly remove the Canaanites. But when the Israelites (Moses & Joshua) received this plan from God, it got distorted by their pre-conceived notions that violence would be necessary to accomplish such a task. Nevertheless, elements of God's original plan were preserved in the text. When we look at the text with 'cross-vision', we find them.
The remnant of the original (non-violent) command actually produces a number of 'inconsistencies and incoherencies' in the text once it is mixed the typical ANE violent worldview. Again, those with 'cross-vision' are able to recognize such things and attribute them to God's accommodating nature. Since the people of Israel rejected God's non-violent plan, God stayed in relation with them in spite of their violent behavior.
God did intend to 'judge' the Canaanites... just not via violence. But because Israel disobeyed God, He instead had to endure their judgment being performed violently by Israel. And God did intend to bring Israel into the land promised to them... just not via violence. But because Israel disobeyed God, He instead had to endure their violence against the Canaanites (and His reputation being attached to violence). God was willing to endure all this to stay in covenant relationship with His people for the good of the entire world.
Reaction
It was nice to see the various elements of Boyd's approach (so far) brought together in a case study (of sorts). I think Boyd made a good case that the original plan, from God, was for Israel to be given the Promised Land in a non-violent way. I think it is very believable that Moses and Joshua, being men from the ANE, misunderstood and distorted God's plan.
Nevertheless, it is still difficult (for me) to think of Moses and Joshua being so wrong about so much and their stories still being considered holy Scripture. What's more, they seem to be praised as heroes in Scripture (and in Sunday School classes today). It would be difficult, to say the least, to convince a typical person in the pew of this view. That's not to say the view is wrong.
Of course, Boyd does have an answer for how such texts are still inspired Scripture. It's the answer he's been giving throughout the 2 volumes. These violent stories are still Scripture in the sense that they show God stooping to our level to stay in relationship with us, just as He did on the cross through Jesus Christ. They reveal how far God will go to be with us.
Finally, in this chapter, Boyd puts his cruciform hermeneutic to work as it is applied to the 'herem' command (specifically, the command to annihilate the Canaanites). Starting from the cross, Greg knows that God is non-violent. Given this fact, certain elements (even inconsistencies) from the Old Testament story of Israel's conquering of Canaan come to light like never before.
For instance, Boyd observes a thread within the story that God's original plan was to bring the Israelites into the land (and take the Canaanites out of the land) non-violently. God planned to use non-violent phenomena to slowly remove the Canaanites. But when the Israelites (Moses & Joshua) received this plan from God, it got distorted by their pre-conceived notions that violence would be necessary to accomplish such a task. Nevertheless, elements of God's original plan were preserved in the text. When we look at the text with 'cross-vision', we find them.
The remnant of the original (non-violent) command actually produces a number of 'inconsistencies and incoherencies' in the text once it is mixed the typical ANE violent worldview. Again, those with 'cross-vision' are able to recognize such things and attribute them to God's accommodating nature. Since the people of Israel rejected God's non-violent plan, God stayed in relation with them in spite of their violent behavior.
God did intend to 'judge' the Canaanites... just not via violence. But because Israel disobeyed God, He instead had to endure their judgment being performed violently by Israel. And God did intend to bring Israel into the land promised to them... just not via violence. But because Israel disobeyed God, He instead had to endure their violence against the Canaanites (and His reputation being attached to violence). God was willing to endure all this to stay in covenant relationship with His people for the good of the entire world.
Reaction
It was nice to see the various elements of Boyd's approach (so far) brought together in a case study (of sorts). I think Boyd made a good case that the original plan, from God, was for Israel to be given the Promised Land in a non-violent way. I think it is very believable that Moses and Joshua, being men from the ANE, misunderstood and distorted God's plan.
Nevertheless, it is still difficult (for me) to think of Moses and Joshua being so wrong about so much and their stories still being considered holy Scripture. What's more, they seem to be praised as heroes in Scripture (and in Sunday School classes today). It would be difficult, to say the least, to convince a typical person in the pew of this view. That's not to say the view is wrong.
Of course, Boyd does have an answer for how such texts are still inspired Scripture. It's the answer he's been giving throughout the 2 volumes. These violent stories are still Scripture in the sense that they show God stooping to our level to stay in relationship with us, just as He did on the cross through Jesus Christ. They reveal how far God will go to be with us.
Friday, July 07, 2017
CWG (Chapter 19)
Chapter 19: Defending Divine Genocide
Here, Boyd narrows in on the 'herem' command (the call to annihilate the Canaanites) and how it is 'defended' by, especially, Paul Copan. He starts with Copan's defense of a literal reading of the text and then moves on to Copan's suggestion that the commands were heavily hyperbolic.
Copan argues that 'genocide' isn't an appropriate label for what happened (Copan does believe it happened) since 'herem' was also applied to Israelite towns who fell into idolatry and because some Canaanites were purposefully spared. Boyd thinks these minor points are not enough to overcome the obvious parallels between this motif in Scripture and what we would normally call genocide. He believes defending this violence opens the door to violence today.
Copan suggests God has the 'right' to take lives (being the Creator), but Boyd responds that it's not about God's rights. It's about God's character. It's not whether God 'could' take lives. It's about whether God 'would' command His people to slaughter other people.
Copan says it was necessary to destroy the Canaanites to protect Israel from their idolatry. While Boyd recognizes this rationale is given in Scripture, he points out that it didn't really work (even in the world of the text). Or, in a similar argument, Copan says it was necessary to destroy the Canaanites because they were SO evil. Boyd asks what could be more 'evil' than annihilating an entire people group!
Moving on to Copan's claims for Hyperbole, Copan believes the conquest of Canaan mostly involved the defeat of military strongholds. Women and children were not actually killed. Boyd considers this line of defense much more compelling than the first. But, ultimately, he lists a number of reasons for rejecting it. Perhaps most importantly, the hyperbole interpretation would STILL not be Christlike. Boyd recognizes that ANE people exaggerating the 'numbers' of those killed in military battles, but argues that they didn't exaggerate the 'type' of people killed (women and children really were killed). He questions whether God would happily endorse such violent hyperbole.
But Boyd's lengthiest argument against the hyperbole defense involves the numerous passages which seem to clearly demonstrate that women and children were the victims (in the text, at least) of the 'herem' command.
In the end, Boyd thinks Moses got it wrong. What Moses claimed God said doesn't match up with what we know about God through Jesus. What is needed is not a 'defense' of the violent command, but an 'explanation' for how this violent command may actually reveal (indirectly) the God of the cross. God accommodated the violent worldview of His people in order to stay in covenant relationship with them as He attempted to pave the way to peace.
Reaction
I don't think Boyd was entirely fair to Copan in this chapter. For instance, on page 922 he says that Copan's view would open the door for people today to practice violence so long as they feel called by God to do so. But in the previous chapter (page 910), Boyd seemed to shut the door on that very way of thinking.
Additionally, I thought Boyd's critique of Copan's insistence that all babies go to heaven was lame. Greg uses the way he has organized the chapter (literal defenses followed by the 'hyperbole' defense), to force Copan into a box that he's not really stuck in (since he doesn't have to separate his arguments like that). I say it is a 'lame' argument because it doesn't actually seem like Boyd disagrees with Copan on this point to any significant degree.
In any case, I ultimately think Boyd is right when he says that Copan has argued in the wrong directon. "Copan should have started with the revelation of God on the cross and then moved on to interpret the defective divine portrait in the conquest narrative in this light." Boyd offers his strongest critique of Copan's strongest claim when he points out that there are some texts in which it seems inarguable that women and children were present on at least some of the occasions involved in the conquering of Canaan.
Here, Boyd narrows in on the 'herem' command (the call to annihilate the Canaanites) and how it is 'defended' by, especially, Paul Copan. He starts with Copan's defense of a literal reading of the text and then moves on to Copan's suggestion that the commands were heavily hyperbolic.
Copan argues that 'genocide' isn't an appropriate label for what happened (Copan does believe it happened) since 'herem' was also applied to Israelite towns who fell into idolatry and because some Canaanites were purposefully spared. Boyd thinks these minor points are not enough to overcome the obvious parallels between this motif in Scripture and what we would normally call genocide. He believes defending this violence opens the door to violence today.
Copan suggests God has the 'right' to take lives (being the Creator), but Boyd responds that it's not about God's rights. It's about God's character. It's not whether God 'could' take lives. It's about whether God 'would' command His people to slaughter other people.
Copan says it was necessary to destroy the Canaanites to protect Israel from their idolatry. While Boyd recognizes this rationale is given in Scripture, he points out that it didn't really work (even in the world of the text). Or, in a similar argument, Copan says it was necessary to destroy the Canaanites because they were SO evil. Boyd asks what could be more 'evil' than annihilating an entire people group!
Moving on to Copan's claims for Hyperbole, Copan believes the conquest of Canaan mostly involved the defeat of military strongholds. Women and children were not actually killed. Boyd considers this line of defense much more compelling than the first. But, ultimately, he lists a number of reasons for rejecting it. Perhaps most importantly, the hyperbole interpretation would STILL not be Christlike. Boyd recognizes that ANE people exaggerating the 'numbers' of those killed in military battles, but argues that they didn't exaggerate the 'type' of people killed (women and children really were killed). He questions whether God would happily endorse such violent hyperbole.
But Boyd's lengthiest argument against the hyperbole defense involves the numerous passages which seem to clearly demonstrate that women and children were the victims (in the text, at least) of the 'herem' command.
In the end, Boyd thinks Moses got it wrong. What Moses claimed God said doesn't match up with what we know about God through Jesus. What is needed is not a 'defense' of the violent command, but an 'explanation' for how this violent command may actually reveal (indirectly) the God of the cross. God accommodated the violent worldview of His people in order to stay in covenant relationship with them as He attempted to pave the way to peace.
Reaction
I don't think Boyd was entirely fair to Copan in this chapter. For instance, on page 922 he says that Copan's view would open the door for people today to practice violence so long as they feel called by God to do so. But in the previous chapter (page 910), Boyd seemed to shut the door on that very way of thinking.
Additionally, I thought Boyd's critique of Copan's insistence that all babies go to heaven was lame. Greg uses the way he has organized the chapter (literal defenses followed by the 'hyperbole' defense), to force Copan into a box that he's not really stuck in (since he doesn't have to separate his arguments like that). I say it is a 'lame' argument because it doesn't actually seem like Boyd disagrees with Copan on this point to any significant degree.
In any case, I ultimately think Boyd is right when he says that Copan has argued in the wrong directon. "Copan should have started with the revelation of God on the cross and then moved on to interpret the defective divine portrait in the conquest narrative in this light." Boyd offers his strongest critique of Copan's strongest claim when he points out that there are some texts in which it seems inarguable that women and children were present on at least some of the occasions involved in the conquering of Canaan.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
Tierza's Excuses
Below is a list of Tierza's excuses for coming downstairs after being put to bed.
10/2
I'm scared. I don't know why. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared...
9/14
I'm trying to sleep but Kenzie keeps trying to read!
8/19
I'm scared. Kenzie goes potty a lot. And she doesn't tell me when she goes.
8/19
I'm scared. Sometimes scary stories... I remember them and then I'm scared.
8/19
I can't sleep. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. Sometimes I think that Mr. Grinch is in the closet. I'm scared. I know he's not real, but sometimes it just pops inside my head and I don't know why.
7/24
I can't fall asleep because I'm scared to have a bad dream
7/16
Kenzie's being mean, I can't take it any more up there
My finger hurts
I am too scared to go upstairs alone because I am afraid of monsters still
7/11
I can't go back upstairs without kitty [kitty is 'lost' in her bed]. I'm scared when I'm upstairs, but I'm not scared downstairs. I need kitty.
Kenzie found a spider web and told me about it and I freaked out. I'm scared. I'm really scared.
7/9/17
I can't sleep because the TV is off and there is a red light and it's scary. And I can't sleep if the TV is on because it's too bright.
7/8/17
I forgot if we're supposed to take off our shirts or not
I'm afraid of the dark. I'm too scared.
I'm scared of the part of Veggietales that WAS scary
7/7/17
I can't sleep because I'm thinking of a pretend thing, but when I think about it it's real.
7/6/17
I can't sleep because there's a bug and I think it's a stink bug because it smells bad.
I can't sleep because I'm scared of the Gremlins in that episode of rescue bots that is over
I can't sleep because every time I come downstairs I don't feel scared, but everytime I go back upstairs I feel scared again
I remembered the gremlins again
I tried to stop thinking of gremlins but my imagination's too strong
10/2
I'm scared. I don't know why. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared...
9/14
I'm trying to sleep but Kenzie keeps trying to read!
8/19
I'm scared. Kenzie goes potty a lot. And she doesn't tell me when she goes.
8/19
I'm scared. Sometimes scary stories... I remember them and then I'm scared.
8/19
I can't sleep. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. Sometimes I think that Mr. Grinch is in the closet. I'm scared. I know he's not real, but sometimes it just pops inside my head and I don't know why.
7/24
I can't fall asleep because I'm scared to have a bad dream
7/16
Kenzie's being mean, I can't take it any more up there
My finger hurts
I am too scared to go upstairs alone because I am afraid of monsters still
7/11
I can't go back upstairs without kitty [kitty is 'lost' in her bed]. I'm scared when I'm upstairs, but I'm not scared downstairs. I need kitty.
Kenzie found a spider web and told me about it and I freaked out. I'm scared. I'm really scared.
7/9/17
I can't sleep because the TV is off and there is a red light and it's scary. And I can't sleep if the TV is on because it's too bright.
7/8/17
I forgot if we're supposed to take off our shirts or not
I'm afraid of the dark. I'm too scared.
I'm scared of the part of Veggietales that WAS scary
7/7/17
I can't sleep because I'm thinking of a pretend thing, but when I think about it it's real.
7/6/17
I can't sleep because there's a bug and I think it's a stink bug because it smells bad.
I can't sleep because I'm scared of the Gremlins in that episode of rescue bots that is over
I can't sleep because every time I come downstairs I don't feel scared, but everytime I go back upstairs I feel scared again
I remembered the gremlins again
I tried to stop thinking of gremlins but my imagination's too strong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)