Chapter 3: Finding Jesus in the Old Testament
Boyd believes that the church has always used (albeit inconsistently) a christocentric hermeneutic. In other words, Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ. Specifically, Jesus is our key we use to best understanding the Old Testament Scriptures. The 'in-light-of-Christ' meaning should be even more central to the Christian understanding of Old Testament passages as the 'original' meaning would have been.
This is how the New Testament authors read and interpreted the Old Testament. They felt free to find Jesus there in creative and flexible ways (some that aren't convincing to most modern people). The early church continued this way of reading the Old Testament through 'typological' and 'allegorical' readings. In fact, the Old Testament was considered 'Christian' Scripture only insofar as it was read christologically. Though set aside at the time of Constantine, the christological hermeneutic came back at the time of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin), but especially with the radical reformers (Anabaptist). More recently, the work of Barth has reignited the christological reading of Scripture.
But while this (Christian) way of reading the Old Testament has experienced a resurgence, Boyd isn't impressed withe the results. Though he whole-heartedly agrees that this is the right way for Christians to read Scripture, he believes the lens hasn't been used consistently. To remedy this, Boyd believes we need a more focused lens. The cross of Christ, specifically, needs to be at the center of our Old Testament reading. Making that point will round out part 1 of Boyd's work over the span of 3 chapters.
Reaction
I agree that a christological reading of Scripture is the Christian way to read Scripture (seems like a no-brainer). Boyd did a good job of dealing with the (sometimes uncomfortable, from our perspective) way the NT authors found Christ in the Old Testament. I also agreed with Boyd that the radical reformers were on the right path in their views of Scripture and how to read it.
I may be less inclined, than Boyd, to dismiss the NT authors' specific readings as lacking modern day plausibility (I'd be more inclined to say our plausibility structures are broken). And, I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical that the cross, specifically, should be made the epicenter of our hermeneutic. It seems to me our task is to read Christ well (and in a well-rounded way) rather than to focus on 1 aspect or event in his life. I'd suggest that the solution to misreading Jesus is not a more narrow reading, but a better reading. But I'm willing to hear Boyd's argument over the next 3 chapters.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Thursday, May 11, 2017
CWG (Chapter 2)
Chapter 2: The True Face of God
In this chapter, Boyd spends over 50 pages to drive home the point that Jesus isn't just a revelation of God, He is THE revelation of God. In the cross (the thematic center of everything Jesus was about), we find the full revelation of God's character. He painstakingly goes through passage after passage highlighting this fact.
Since Jesus is the revelation of God, Christians must read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ. All of Scripture is about Jesus and its interpretation must be subjected to the revelation that is Christ. Jesus was not afraid to set aside Old Testament teachings. He had the authority to do so and His followers must follow suit. Consistently, Christ used this authority to set aside laws that called for violence and replaced them with the law of love.
In some ways, he was the anti-Moses, the anti-Joshua, the anti-David, the anti-Elijah, etc. He was the Messiah no one expected because they were prepared (largely by the Old Testament) for a military Messiah. It is the challenge of Boyd's book to discover how the violent texts of the Old Testament actually testify to the revelation of God through Christ.
Reaction
This chapter was fairly repetitious. Boyd wanted to make the point boldly and strongly. There were some good interpretive insights throughout. He argued his position well. I agree with his approach and am thankful for the new light cast on some familiar texts.
I did appreciate footnote 4 in which Boyd clarifies that when he refers to the revelation of God through the cross of Christ, it should not be thought that he's distinguishing the cross from other aspects of Jesus' life and ministry, but locating the thematic center of such in the event of the cross. This removes an early concern I had about this project.
In this chapter, Boyd spends over 50 pages to drive home the point that Jesus isn't just a revelation of God, He is THE revelation of God. In the cross (the thematic center of everything Jesus was about), we find the full revelation of God's character. He painstakingly goes through passage after passage highlighting this fact.
Since Jesus is the revelation of God, Christians must read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ. All of Scripture is about Jesus and its interpretation must be subjected to the revelation that is Christ. Jesus was not afraid to set aside Old Testament teachings. He had the authority to do so and His followers must follow suit. Consistently, Christ used this authority to set aside laws that called for violence and replaced them with the law of love.
In some ways, he was the anti-Moses, the anti-Joshua, the anti-David, the anti-Elijah, etc. He was the Messiah no one expected because they were prepared (largely by the Old Testament) for a military Messiah. It is the challenge of Boyd's book to discover how the violent texts of the Old Testament actually testify to the revelation of God through Christ.
Reaction
This chapter was fairly repetitious. Boyd wanted to make the point boldly and strongly. There were some good interpretive insights throughout. He argued his position well. I agree with his approach and am thankful for the new light cast on some familiar texts.
I did appreciate footnote 4 in which Boyd clarifies that when he refers to the revelation of God through the cross of Christ, it should not be thought that he's distinguishing the cross from other aspects of Jesus' life and ministry, but locating the thematic center of such in the event of the cross. This removes an early concern I had about this project.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
CWG (Chapter 1)
Boyd's book is written in 7 parts. Part 1 (The Centrality of the Crucified Christ) includes 6 chapters.
Chapter 1: The Faith of Jacob
In this chapter, Boyd addresses 3 foundational issues: His understanding of the doctrine of inspiration, our willingness to 'wrestle' with Scripture, and the practical impacts of our portraits of God. What binds this chapter together (as its title makes clear) is that Boyd is attempting to do something within orthodoxy, in the name of 'Israel' (wresler), and that will be useful in defending the Christian faith.
First, Boyd believes his view of the God-breathed nature of Scripture is in agreement with the historic-orthodox Christian faith (God is the ultimate author of these books). He does not feel free to dismiss any part of Scripture (hence the previously mentioned conundrum).
Second, Boyd knows his approach may be unsettling for many of his Christian readers... therefore he reminds us that struggling with Scripture is at the heart of the Christian faith. The term "Israel" means to wrestle with God. Job spoke in a raw and honest manner about God and was commended. Scripture even argues with itself at times. Jesus' teaching changed some Old Covenant teachings. It's okay (healthy even) to have our interpretations shaken up. Boyd is really just continuing the Christo-centric reading started by the early church fathers (but cut off around the time of Constantine). Besides, the Spirit is still in the process of guiding us to greater understandings of Scripture. New is not necessarily bad. Nevertheless, Boyd accepts that the burden of proof is on him to persuade the reader against the grain of centuries of church tradition. He offers his proposal to the church for consideration.
Third, Boyd reminds us that our mental picture of God is extremely important. Our views impact our actions. The actions of the church throughout much of history reveal our flawed pictures of God. Too often (maybe especially in American history) we've allowed the Old Testament pictures of God to lead us (and shape our understanding of Jesus) instead of the reverse. Rather than trying to defend 'Christian' history, we should side with our critics (and outdo them). "We should be in the front lines declaring insofar as people engaged in violence in the name of Jesus, they were engaging in the most diabolical form of violence there is." Nevertheless, Boyd believes there is a way forward. Just as the beauty of God can be seen through the ugliness of the cross, the beauty of God can be seen through the ugliness of the violent depictions of God contained in the Old Testament.
Both the cross and the Old Testament were God breathed. We should wrestle with how this is so. In fact, we must.
Reaction
On inspiration, I can certainly see the appeal of just abandoning belief in the inspiration of either the Old Testament or, at least, its most problematic texts. But this does seem like the easy way out (and, worse yet, inconsistent with Jesus' approach), so I appreciate Boyd's purposes here to focus on Christ AND retain a high view of all Christian Scripture.
I have read Boyd's book "Benefit of the Doubt" and thought it was excellent, so I was very much on board with his emphasis on wrestling with Scripture. And I am concerned, with him, about the use of violent texts in Scripture to justify violent attitudes and actions in our modern world.
As an aside, in discussing the inspiration of Scripture, Boyd says the following: "It is the God-breathed nature of the text that renders it authoritative, not the relation a text may or may not have with actual history." I would be interested to know what Boyd's view is in regards to the historicity of the conquest (for instance). I assume this will be addressed later in the book to some degree.
Chapter 1: The Faith of Jacob
In this chapter, Boyd addresses 3 foundational issues: His understanding of the doctrine of inspiration, our willingness to 'wrestle' with Scripture, and the practical impacts of our portraits of God. What binds this chapter together (as its title makes clear) is that Boyd is attempting to do something within orthodoxy, in the name of 'Israel' (wresler), and that will be useful in defending the Christian faith.
First, Boyd believes his view of the God-breathed nature of Scripture is in agreement with the historic-orthodox Christian faith (God is the ultimate author of these books). He does not feel free to dismiss any part of Scripture (hence the previously mentioned conundrum).
Second, Boyd knows his approach may be unsettling for many of his Christian readers... therefore he reminds us that struggling with Scripture is at the heart of the Christian faith. The term "Israel" means to wrestle with God. Job spoke in a raw and honest manner about God and was commended. Scripture even argues with itself at times. Jesus' teaching changed some Old Covenant teachings. It's okay (healthy even) to have our interpretations shaken up. Boyd is really just continuing the Christo-centric reading started by the early church fathers (but cut off around the time of Constantine). Besides, the Spirit is still in the process of guiding us to greater understandings of Scripture. New is not necessarily bad. Nevertheless, Boyd accepts that the burden of proof is on him to persuade the reader against the grain of centuries of church tradition. He offers his proposal to the church for consideration.
Third, Boyd reminds us that our mental picture of God is extremely important. Our views impact our actions. The actions of the church throughout much of history reveal our flawed pictures of God. Too often (maybe especially in American history) we've allowed the Old Testament pictures of God to lead us (and shape our understanding of Jesus) instead of the reverse. Rather than trying to defend 'Christian' history, we should side with our critics (and outdo them). "We should be in the front lines declaring insofar as people engaged in violence in the name of Jesus, they were engaging in the most diabolical form of violence there is." Nevertheless, Boyd believes there is a way forward. Just as the beauty of God can be seen through the ugliness of the cross, the beauty of God can be seen through the ugliness of the violent depictions of God contained in the Old Testament.
Both the cross and the Old Testament were God breathed. We should wrestle with how this is so. In fact, we must.
Reaction
On inspiration, I can certainly see the appeal of just abandoning belief in the inspiration of either the Old Testament or, at least, its most problematic texts. But this does seem like the easy way out (and, worse yet, inconsistent with Jesus' approach), so I appreciate Boyd's purposes here to focus on Christ AND retain a high view of all Christian Scripture.
I have read Boyd's book "Benefit of the Doubt" and thought it was excellent, so I was very much on board with his emphasis on wrestling with Scripture. And I am concerned, with him, about the use of violent texts in Scripture to justify violent attitudes and actions in our modern world.
As an aside, in discussing the inspiration of Scripture, Boyd says the following: "It is the God-breathed nature of the text that renders it authoritative, not the relation a text may or may not have with actual history." I would be interested to know what Boyd's view is in regards to the historicity of the conquest (for instance). I assume this will be addressed later in the book to some degree.
The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (Introduction)
Summary of Introduction
Greg Boyd believes that Jesus (and especially the cross) is at the center of the Christian faith and the greatest revelation of God's character. He also believes in the divine inspiration of Scripture. But this creates a conundrum. How do we reconcile what we know of Jesus (self-sacrificing, enemy-loving, other-oriented, etc.) and the violent depictions of God that we often find (especially) in the Old Testament? We can't just reject the Old Testament (it's divinely inspired), but we also can't embrace it's violence.
Originally, Greg thought putting the 'best-spin' on these Old Testament texts might redeem them, but he determined that this approach was strained and inadequate. He came to the conviction (helped by Origen), instead, that it would be a better project to consistently apply a cruciform hermeneutic (a way of reading Scripture through the lens of Christ and the cross) to these passages. The way forward wasn't to soften the rough edges of the Old Testament depictions of God, but to see them in a new way (similar to looking at a 'Magic Eye' picture).
Greg came to the conclusion that looking backward from the height of the cross is the best vantage point (following, in this hermeneutic, Luther & Moltmann especially) for understanding the violent portraits of God given in the Old Testament. He hopes that his 2-volume work will help readers see the 'self-sacrificial, indiscriminately loving, nonviolent God revealed on the cross in the depths of the OT's sometimes horrifically violent depictions of God'. In short, he hopes to show that the very idea of a violent warrior God has been crucified in Christ.
Reaction
I've been waiting for this book for a long while and have heard Greg Boyd preach on the subject multiple times... so I knew what the book was going to be about. This introduction does an excellent job of describing the path which brought Greg to the point (a decade, really) of writing the book and describing, for the reader, the ground that will be covered.
Greg Boyd believes that Jesus (and especially the cross) is at the center of the Christian faith and the greatest revelation of God's character. He also believes in the divine inspiration of Scripture. But this creates a conundrum. How do we reconcile what we know of Jesus (self-sacrificing, enemy-loving, other-oriented, etc.) and the violent depictions of God that we often find (especially) in the Old Testament? We can't just reject the Old Testament (it's divinely inspired), but we also can't embrace it's violence.
Originally, Greg thought putting the 'best-spin' on these Old Testament texts might redeem them, but he determined that this approach was strained and inadequate. He came to the conviction (helped by Origen), instead, that it would be a better project to consistently apply a cruciform hermeneutic (a way of reading Scripture through the lens of Christ and the cross) to these passages. The way forward wasn't to soften the rough edges of the Old Testament depictions of God, but to see them in a new way (similar to looking at a 'Magic Eye' picture).
Greg came to the conclusion that looking backward from the height of the cross is the best vantage point (following, in this hermeneutic, Luther & Moltmann especially) for understanding the violent portraits of God given in the Old Testament. He hopes that his 2-volume work will help readers see the 'self-sacrificial, indiscriminately loving, nonviolent God revealed on the cross in the depths of the OT's sometimes horrifically violent depictions of God'. In short, he hopes to show that the very idea of a violent warrior God has been crucified in Christ.
Reaction
I've been waiting for this book for a long while and have heard Greg Boyd preach on the subject multiple times... so I knew what the book was going to be about. This introduction does an excellent job of describing the path which brought Greg to the point (a decade, really) of writing the book and describing, for the reader, the ground that will be covered.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
The Bible Tells Me So
The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture has Made us Unable to Read it (By Peter Enns)
Summary of Contents
In chapter 1, Enns discusses his reasons for writing the book. He chooses 'door number 3' in the debate about accepting (positively) what we find in the Bible vs. simply rejecting the Bible.
As Christians, we often try to 'tidy-up' the Bible. But the Problem isn't the Bible. The problem is coming to the Bible with expectations it's not set up to bear. Maybe the Bible was meant to be messy, troubling, and weird.
Enns conveys 'biblical scholarship' as a fairly uniform group reaching relatively liberal conclusions. But those conclusions (which he shares) haven't interrupted his faith in God. Instead, it's deepened his faith. He gained a Bible -- and a God -- that he was free to converse with, complain to, talk back to, interrogate, disagree with (not as a act of rebellion, but as an act of faith and trust). God WANTS us to wrestle with the Scriptures. The Bible itself is an inspired wrestling match.
Enns came to his conclusions when he noticed that, in the Bible, God does a lot of killing; that what the Bible says happened often didn't happen (historically, at least the way the Bible said it did); and that the biblical writers often disagreed with one another. The next three chapters elaborate on these observations.
Chapter 2 is about the 'bad' stuff Enns finds in the Bible.
Enns points out that there is a lot of killing in the Bible. Violence, at times, seems to be God's preferred method of conflict resolution. We need to take these portraits of God seriously, but not as the final word. God commands the genocide of the Cannanites, for instance. We shouldn't try to justify the elimination of the Canaanites. All such attempts are really hard to defend. Enns believes the biblical writers were wrong in some of their beliefs about God. They were wrong to think God commanded genocide. Thankfully, according to Enns, this mass killing never really happened anyways (they were just exaggerations made up during the monarchy).
But why would God allow Himself to be painted in these ways if they aren't even real depictions of Who He is? Enns insists, again, that the Bible is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time. But God wants us to see the development that occurs throughout the Bible. God's people today are actually obligated not to repeat the mistakes of the more ancient people as they attempted to follow God and failed to discern His true leading. God chose to let these (False) stories be told because, as the next chapter will show, God likes stories.
(MORE TO COME)
Summary of Contents
In chapter 1, Enns discusses his reasons for writing the book. He chooses 'door number 3' in the debate about accepting (positively) what we find in the Bible vs. simply rejecting the Bible.
As Christians, we often try to 'tidy-up' the Bible. But the Problem isn't the Bible. The problem is coming to the Bible with expectations it's not set up to bear. Maybe the Bible was meant to be messy, troubling, and weird.
Enns conveys 'biblical scholarship' as a fairly uniform group reaching relatively liberal conclusions. But those conclusions (which he shares) haven't interrupted his faith in God. Instead, it's deepened his faith. He gained a Bible -- and a God -- that he was free to converse with, complain to, talk back to, interrogate, disagree with (not as a act of rebellion, but as an act of faith and trust). God WANTS us to wrestle with the Scriptures. The Bible itself is an inspired wrestling match.
Enns came to his conclusions when he noticed that, in the Bible, God does a lot of killing; that what the Bible says happened often didn't happen (historically, at least the way the Bible said it did); and that the biblical writers often disagreed with one another. The next three chapters elaborate on these observations.
Chapter 2 is about the 'bad' stuff Enns finds in the Bible.
Enns points out that there is a lot of killing in the Bible. Violence, at times, seems to be God's preferred method of conflict resolution. We need to take these portraits of God seriously, but not as the final word. God commands the genocide of the Cannanites, for instance. We shouldn't try to justify the elimination of the Canaanites. All such attempts are really hard to defend. Enns believes the biblical writers were wrong in some of their beliefs about God. They were wrong to think God commanded genocide. Thankfully, according to Enns, this mass killing never really happened anyways (they were just exaggerations made up during the monarchy).
But why would God allow Himself to be painted in these ways if they aren't even real depictions of Who He is? Enns insists, again, that the Bible is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time. But God wants us to see the development that occurs throughout the Bible. God's people today are actually obligated not to repeat the mistakes of the more ancient people as they attempted to follow God and failed to discern His true leading. God chose to let these (False) stories be told because, as the next chapter will show, God likes stories.
(MORE TO COME)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)