Still working through volume 1 (page 350 of 600....it's quite detailed and exhaustive).
That said, I believe I can see where he's going with it. He certainly doesn't dismiss the OT violent portrayals of God. He starts with a few basic premises. 1) God looks like Christ 2) All Scripture is God-breathed 3) All Scripture testifies to Christ 4) The key to understanding Scripture is Jesus, and the key to understanding Jesus is the cross.
So, first and foremost, if an OT portrait of God does not look like Christ, then there has to be something deeper going on. Something deeper that needs to be looked at. Now, I get the sense that Boyd views those OT portrayals of God as violent and genocidal in a similar way that people accused Jesus of being a drunkard because of who He associated with. God is willing to "stoop" down into the mess to work everything to His purpose, even if that means accommodating inaccurate portraits of Himself. He talked of the Canaanite conquest and how the word used throughout to describe the conquest was
herem. This meant to "consecrate for destruction". As we have seen throughout the Scriptures, the Israelite people were constantly trying to look like the other nations surrounding them. Genocide, as an act of worship to tribal deities, was common among the surrounding cultures. So, to the Israelite armies, this genocide was seen as an act of worship. It was essentially human sacrifice, one could argue. Obviously, though, God does not command human sacrifice. Now, how that points to Christ is something I'm about to get to.
I'm about to start the next part, which involves him actually taking these OT portraits and reevaluating them through a cruciform hermeneutic. I believe that's what you're really looking for, as am I. So far he has laid the foundation of his belief that Christ crucified is where we begin and end, some of the different interpretive strategies throughout church history, and the role of the attaining of power had on altering interpretive strategies. Just finished up reading about Marcion and his dismissal of the OT, which Boyd obviously rejects.
One of the central assumptions that must be accepted, however, is that spiritual warfare is very real. That we are surrounded by this invisible, but very real, spiritual realm where demonic and angelic forces can have very real impacts on humanity. If one does not hold to this view, then his cruciform hermeneutic will not suffice as it would have gaping holes. I get the sense that many of the things ascribed to God is actually the influence of demonic forces.
I'm not sure if that really adds much for you, but I'm really hesitant to misrepresent his position given that I'm only 350 pages into a 1300-ish page, 2-volume work. While it is certainly daunting in its depth and detail, this has really been such a help for me to read. And while it is very detailed and clearly well researched, the writing style makes it very easy to read. I'd highly recommend it, even if one finds areas of disagreement.
*****edit to add a note:
This was a quote on page 196 that I think gives a glimpse of where he's at in his initial reasoning, especially in the centrality of the cross:
Quote:
any conception that characterizes God's power in terms of coercive control rather than self-sacrificial love...must be identified as an all-too-common anthropomorphic projection onto God, and- in terms of its religious nature- as essentially pagan."