Agree with many of your statement (except your closing statement on idioltry- missed the point you are trying to make)

it makes sense to see different perspectives for an Invisible, All powerful God that has always existed (I still have difficult time wrapping my mind around that). We can not and will not fully understand or comprehend God and thus we relate to him in what we know and experience. The (4) blind men in picture are all speaking truth in what they are experiencing (touching)- they just fail to see the entire picture.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) summed up our need for God's help in the following prayer he wrote: "God our Father, we find it difficult to come to you, because our knowledge of you is imperfect. In our ignorance we have imagined you to be our enemy; we have wrongly thought that you take pleasure in punishing our sins; and we have foolishly conceived you to be a tyrant over human life. But since Jesus came among us, he has shown that you are loving, and that our resentment against you was groundless."

I just mean to say that if we read ourselves into the text and if the writers write themselves in (both of which I think is inevitable) and we dont recognize that we are doing so, we end up worshipping a god that looks exactly like ourselves with no real way of correcting for it.

I'm not sure what the solution is other than humility, skepticism, and faith in the church rather than just personal interpretation.

craigernaught said:

---

There's no "OT God". The OT was written by many different authors from many different perspectives. Some are confusing, others violent, others peaceful, others are super social justice warrior-like. God ends up portrayed as a mirror of the author and we interpret God as a mirror of ourselves. Those who "believe in the Bible" without recognizing this reality engage in idolatry and worship of self.

---

I really like your posts. I've come to the conclusion that the writers, not just of the OT, but of books in the Bible in general were writing these things down as a way to grapple with the very questions that we find ourselves asking today. What is the nature of God? What is the subjective world that we act in? How should we act in it? What are the consequences of acting in certain ways? And on and on. I think too many of the protestant approaches have no respect for that as even a possibility. I find it frustrating.

I think you're right, although it was a Protestant seminary that trained me to think that way. One professor told us that the two biggest mistakes in interpretion are thinking that the biblical writers were so very different from us and the other is thinking that they were just like us. They were a lot like us with very similar questions and struggles, just living very different lives due to technology, culture, and government.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a disconnect between what gets taught at seminaries and what makes it down to the congregational level. It seems to me that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a good idea about why you should prevent "personal interpretations" of scripture. It helps prevent asinine theologies like the YEC and literalist interpretations. Of course, it's also at the same time overbearing and limits individuality.

That's the thing, there is a far cry from the literalist interpretation of faraint et. Al. and most modern seminary. The idea of black and white, yes I can't explain it but take it on faith vs maybe the bible doesn't need to be utterly magical truly leads to what I consider barely the same religion. And part of that is the willingness to accept that rationality plays a part in belief or to say my own thoughts be damned I have utterly blind faith.

Aggrad08 said:

---

That's the thing, there is a far cry from the literalist interpretation of faraint et. Al. and most modern seminary. The idea of black and white, yes I can't explain it but take it on faith vs maybe the bible doesn't need to be utterly magical truly leads to what I consider barely the same religion. And part of that is the willingness to accept that rationality plays a part in belief or to say my own thoughts be damned I have utterly blind faith.

---

Hey. Not sure which of my posts you were responding to. I personally have a difficult time incorporating things that don't make sense into my personal actions. Taking things "on faith" from the Bible seems to me to be an excuse to ignore logical inconsistencies. It's important to recognize true religious experiences when we have them, but frequently people seem to use such a thing as a reason to reject rational interpretation. I don't get that. Literalist interpretations aren't just "wrong" in my estimation, but dysfunctional. They lack a complete understanding of the nature of God and Christ. Its not surprising considering how limited protestant views are at the individual level. I don't know if any one of these answers your questions. Let me know what you need clarity on.

I think you're unfairly picking on Protestants here. There are no less arbitrary, asinine, or uncritically literalist views in orthodoxy or Catholicism than in Protestantism. The vast majority of modern critique of such assumptions come from Protestants, especially the German tradition. Traditionally, Orthodox and Catholics have been hostile to the modern, liberal views of Protestant scholars.

craigernaught said:

---

I think you're unfairly picking on Protestants here. There are no less arbitrary, asinine, or uncritically literalist views in orthodoxy or Catholicism than in Protestantism. The vast majority of modern critique of such assumptions come from Protestants, especially the German tradition. Traditionally, Orthodox and Catholics have been hostile to the modern, liberal views of Protestant scholars.

---

Good point. Transubstantiation comes to mind. You don't see Protestants who insist they are drinking the actual blood of Christ during communion.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Well that's not very nice.

---

If it can only be explained away as a divine mystery...

That's a pretty general statement. Anything metaphysical in your view is nonsense?

Woody2006 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Well that's not very nice.

---

If it can only be explained away as a divine mystery...

---

I'm personally not willing to dispense with the divine. This is probably a heretical viewpoint, but whatever. It seems like some people think you have to fully accept the Bible and everything in it as is. I don't do that. Some things in it I can interpret and understand philosophically, rationally, or even scientifically, and those things are easy to accept. But when it talks about miracles and the dead coming back to life, instead of accepting or rejecting that, I just leave it alone and stay open to the possibility of one day understanding that material experientially, whether the result is accepting or rejecting it. I used to be an atheist and was a very black or white thinker. It dropped me right into existential despair because you really can't logic your way out of nihilism. It's an extremely compelling case rationally speaking.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Well that's not very nice.

---

If it can only be explained away as a divine mystery...

---

I'm personally not willing to dispense with the divine. This is probably a heretical viewpoint, but whatever. It seems like some people think you have to fully accept the Bible and everything in it as is. I don't do that. Some things in it I can interpret and understand philosophically, rationally, or even scientifically, and those things are easy to accept. But when it talks about miracles and the dead coming back to life, instead of accepting or rejecting that, I just leave it alone and stay open to the possibility of one day understanding that material experientially, whether the result is accepting or rejecting it. I used to be an atheist and was a very black or white thinker. It dropped me right into existential despair because you really can't logic your way out of nihilism. It's an extremely compelling case rationally speaking.

---

It's nihilism, hedonism or humanism. Pick your poison carefully.

Got this in an email from an archbishop. Thought this excerpt was relevant.

Quote:

---

...the purest theological tradition of Orthodoxythe Patristic consensusapproaches sin from within a medical model, as a spiritual illness to be treated by the Great Physician (Christ) and through the efficacy of the Church's Mysteries (and especially the Eucharist, the "Medicine of Immortality"), wherein God's Love, rather than wrath, is a central theme. The Old Testamental language of wrath and anger most Orthodox theologians see as anthropomorphic conceptions of God's unfathomable justice and foreign to the actual experience of Christ, Whose saving Grace is, again, rooted in Love. The "fear to love" journey characterizes, for Orthodox, the fulfilling nature of our New Testamental covenant.

---

Just finishing up Volume 1 of Greg Boyd's Crucifixion of the Warrior God. First, this is an amazing read. We haven't really delved into specific OT violent depictions yet, as that's found primarily in Volume 2, but he's laid the foundation well enough that I can see where he's going.

• Christ is what God looks like. He's the full radiance of God's glory, and exact representation of His nature.
• If a portrait of God does not look like Christ, then we must dig deeper into it to find how it testifies to Christ.
• God is relational at His very core. We see this in the relational aspect of the Trinity. We see this throughout the Scriptures as He attempts to work through His people.
• All Scripture is "God-breathed", which does not mean dictated by God to the authors. God acts through humanity, and allows humanity to act on Him. He uses the crucifixion as an example of this, which is not surprising since Boyd believes the crucified Christ is the thematic center of the entire canon. If we look at the crucifixion only superficially, it is hideous. It is barbaric. It is mankind acting on God. Only when we look beyond that hideous surface, w/ the guidance of the Holy Spirit, do we see the beauty. God didn't commit the brutality we see on the cross, but He worked through man's acting on Him to reveal His true nature.
• OT violent depictions, Boyd argues, are literary crucifixions. They appear ugly and hideous because they are conveyed by fallen men who have limited understanding of God's true nature. There is an aspect of cultural conditioning in these depictions, and only when we allow the Spirit to guide us past that hideous surface created by man, can we begin to discern the cruciform-centered message of the text.
• Boyd refers to the commands to commit genocide and infanticide w/ the Canaanites. The term used was herem, which meant to "consecrate for destruction". This was a common understanding of deity worship in the ANE (Ancient Near East) tribal cultures. To many of the surrounding cultures, genocide was an act of worship to their deity. We see this seep into the Israelites, which is not surprising given how drawn they were to be like these surrounding cultures. This is the "cultural-conditioning" to which Boyd refers. The authors of these genocidal depictions, because of where they were as a people, saw these acts as worship. As we see later, however, God makes it clear that He didn't desire sacrifice. We also see in the Psalms 50:21 the limited understanding of God's nature when He says "These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you...". We see this flawed/limited understanding of God's nature when Christ explicitly repudiates the principal of lex talionis in His Sermon on the Mount.
• In short, there cannot be competing portraits of God. Christ, specifically Christ crucified, is the preeminent, authoritative portrait. If it doesn't look like the revelation of God's nature we see in the crucified Christ, then we aren't to dismiss it, but allow the Spirit to lift the veil and see how God is speaking to His true nature in the text underneath the ugly, culturally-conditioned surface.
• If God's nature is unchanging, then His true nature cannot look differently than what we see revealed in Christ, especially His enemy-loving self-sacrifice on the cross. Just as He took on sin to become His own antithesis in order to reveal His true nature, so too does He "accommodate" man's flawed and culturally-conditioned portraits of Him in order to continue His relational work with humanity.
• Boyd also goes into the creative approaches to reinterpretation of OT text by the early church (even NT authors), focusing largely on Origen. One example of this was Melchezidek. Nothing in the original telling of Melchezidek would lead one to believe he was anything other than a priest of God. But, the author of Hebrews, presumably in order to connect this to Christ, talks of him being "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually." The NT authors and early church leaders, after the full revelation of God's nature through Christ, would creatively reinterpret OT texts to point them to Christ.

I'm sure many will not agree with Boyd, but he litters the book with countless scripture references to support his thesis. In the end, this is an effort to interpret Scripture with a consistent understanding of God's nature. He hasn't even delved into the problematic position of moral relativism created by claiming God commanded genocide, that is to say the morality of genocide is relative to whomever is commanding it. He does raise the issue of claiming that God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites as an act of "justice", seeing as it was supposedly commanded for events that took place 400 years prior. Killing infants for the sins of a people 400 years prior is like killing a baby today because of the genocide of native populations in the colonial days.

Just wanted to add my thoughts based on my readings lately. I will say that, even if you disagree with Boyd based on what I wrote above, I highly recommend the books. It is a refreshing perspective of interpretation which we saw traces of in the early church. And, since it is all centered on the unfathomably beautiful revelation of God's nature through Christ, you spend page after page about reading how truly awesome and beautiful Christ is. Not a bad way to spend your time.

Quote:

---

OT violent depictions, Boyd argues, are literary crucifixions. They appear ugly and hideous because they are conveyed by fallen men who have limited understanding of God's true nature. There is an aspect of cultural conditioning in these depictions, and only when we allow the Spirit to guide us past that hideous surface created by man, can we begin to discern the cruciform-centered message of the text.

---

Kind of curious about this. Is he saying that the ancient Israelites thought God commanded the genocide but in reality He did not? (Not trying to debate it, just clarifying)

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

OT violent depictions, Boyd argues, are literary crucifixions. They appear ugly and hideous because they are conveyed by fallen men who have limited understanding of God's true nature. There is an aspect of cultural conditioning in these depictions, and only when we allow the Spirit to guide us past that hideous surface created by man, can we begin to discern the cruciform-centered message of the text.

---

Kind of curious about this. Is he saying that the ancient Israelites thought God commanded the genocide but in reality He did not? (Not trying to debate it, just clarifying)

---

Yes, that is what I've gathered so far. One of the supporting claims made for this was the reference to Psalms 50:21, which indicates that God's "silence" was taken by the people as a sign that He was like them. Or when, through Hosea, God indicated He didn't desire sacrifice and burnt offerings, but loyalty and "knowledge of God".

Obviously we can't know but that is a theory I've thought of before. My question is what are the consequences of that viewpoint? If the Israelites errored on that account then what else did they error about?

Frok said:

---

Obviously we can't know but that is a theory I've thought of before. My question is what are the consequences of that viewpoint? If the Israelites errored on that account then what else did they error about?

---

Just on the surface, I'd say they erred anytime their depiction of God does not look like Christ crucified. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't fault them for this, as they didn't have the advantage that we have, which is we know what God looks like. We know what His nature looks like. We know this because we have Christ. They had a very limited knowledge of God's nature, and were also shaped by cultural constraints/pressures.

One of the analogies I've used, which was kind of addressed above w/ the cartoon, is a shadow puppet on the wall. The OT authors looked at the shadows and thought "Aha! That's a dog!". Christ came and revealed God's exact nature and allowed us to see that, no it's not a dog, but actually two hands held together at the right angle.

So, I'd start with saying they erred when their portrait ceased to look like Christ crucified. Now, I do believe that God, knowing their cultural constraints and the condition of their hearts/minds, was always working below the surface to reveal Himself as much as possible in these portraits. The key is to realize that the superficial portrait is distorted and earnestly seek to discern Him under the surface. I believe that's where Christ coming opens up these mysteries to us. The veil being torn in the Temple is also the veil being lifted from our eyes.

Oh, and as for the consequences of such a viewpoint, I honestly don't see the negative in it. IMO, it allows one to actually hold a consistent view of God's nature without having to rationalize actions that are diametrically opposed to Christ (genocide, infanticide, stoning disrespectful children, etc). Reading this book has drawn me in so much closer to God because I'm starting to see His beauty throughout the OT as well.

Of course, this was a perspective I've leaned towards for a while, so the "consequences" may be a blind spot for me. I'd love others to offer input to that question, as I think it's a great question. I do know that the violent, genocidal depictions of God in the OT are a significant stumbling block to many non-believers, so I believe this allows a way to actually reconcile them w/ Christ without rationalizing evil acts or dismissing the OT altogether.

Quote:

---

Now, I do believe that God, knowing their cultural constraints and the condition of their hearts/minds, was always working below the surface to reveal Himself as much as possible in these portraits.

---

Thanks for what you've posted. The only nitpick I have is to say God reveals Himself as much as He deems necessary, not as much as possible.

I understand the idea of blaming the idea of genocide on the misunderstandings of the authors of the OT, but it really doesn't fit. Saul lost his kingship over not following one such command (and not because he was sparing women and children).

God Himself carries out mass killings in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, killing th Assyrian army overnight, the Egyptian plagues, and the plagues of David's times. So mass killing is hardly out of God's character. Looked at in one way, God has killed everyone and will kill everyone who ever lived. He doesn't seem that concerned about speeding up that process when it suits Him.

My big question is why have the Israelites do it? The only thing I can figure, is that God wanted the nation of Israel to carry out His Will on Earth. He wanted them to be so obedient and loyal that they would be like wind, water, earthquakes and other acts of God. The difference is that Israel as a nation could proclaim God's glory while delivering His Justice, which is not something that happened with the wind or water.

Maybe if Israel had been faithful and blessed, the example of God's Law and Justice would have spread greatly decreasing the suffering worldwide. Thus making the Caananites death necessary so as to prevent much more future suffering. Since the presence of the Canaanites would interfere with God's will for Israel, making them less effective as an instrument to improve the world.

Even then I feel like there would be a better way than genocide/infanticide, but I'm not God. Everytime I think about this, I feel like I'm missing something important

But doesn't that make you wonder why God doesn't do that today?

For example, why didn't the coup attempts against Hitler succeed? If they had millions of lives would have been spared. Instead Hitler almost miraculously survived. (Sorry to Godwin the thread, just read a book about this so it's fresh on my mind)

Quote:

---

God Himself carries out mass killings in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, killing th Assyrian army overnight, the Egyptian plagues, and the plagues of David's times.

---

Or, OT authors ascribed these killings to God because that's what they believed God was, and God was willing to accommodate these flawed, hideous portraits placed on Him by man (similar to the ugliness of the cross) while working deeper to maintain a covenant relationship (the beauty beneath the surface of the cross) and slowly draw His people closer to Him over time.

Additional note, one of Boyd's points regarding this that he's touched upon briefly, but will elaborate on in the second volume, is God's withdrawal of His protection from those who make it clear they are rejecting Him and thereby allowing them to suffer the consequences of the path they chose. I look at it like the story of the Prodigal Son. The father, being rejected by his son, allows his son to go down the path that he chose away from the father's protection. The son, then, suffers the consequences of his chosen path. The father didn't punish him or cause the bad things that happened to him, but "withdrew" his "protection" and allowed the son to have the life he chose.

The imagery in Jude and Revelations also show a fairly violent side of God. Death, violence, and suffering is pretty ubiquitous in the world and the Bible. The suffering of Christ and Christians by violence is the flip side of that coin.

In regards ro killing Hitler, the situation I mentioned only applies when God creates a specific nation to glorify His name. No such situation existed in Nazi Germany

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The imagery in Jude and Revelations also show a fairly violent side of God. Death, violence, and suffering is pretty ubiquitous in the world and the Bible. The suffering of Christ and Christians by violence is the flip side of that coin.

---

Yes, there is violent imagery. He has a 28 page appendix re: Revelation and Violence which digs into that. He makes a very compelling case that the violent imagery is used to point to the exact opposite of a violent God. As with anything related to Revelation, however, it is complex and I'll need to pull the book out later this evening to lay out his case sufficiently.

I'm not sure how much I agree with Greg Boyd at this point but I will say that he's well educated and loves Jesus tremendously. Taking his view the we must look the OT through the lens of the crucified Christ, here's what I see.

When I look at God's judgement in the OT:

• humanities sins were being punished
• it was horribly brutal and painful
• the innocent died along with the wicked
• Because we know God's character and His abilities, we can trust that any innocent caught up in the judgements are taken care of

When Jesus was crucified:

• all of humanities sins were being punished.
• it was horribly brutal and painful
• the innocent died
• the innocent was resurrected to eternal life and glory to never to die again or experience pain

When looking at the brutality we see, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" When looking at the end of the story we see, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

I think you'd like Boyd's book on this. Not that it will convince you, as he even starts out acknowledging that everyone won't agree. But it's a refreshing and intensely Christocentric way of reading the Scriptures that you can't help, agree or not w/ his general premise, to be constantly reminded of just how beautiful Christ is. And for a 1400 page theology book that is insanely well-researched, it's a remarkably easy read. I've tried reading his book God at War and just cannot get through it. It's great, but has a very academic writing style that's hard to get into. That's not the case here.

In the end, his effort is to read Scripture w/ a consistent view of God's nature (not saying those that disagree hold inconsistent views). Tackling the issue of OT violent depictions of God is something that I think the church has dropped the ball on, no matter where one comes down. We can't go all Marcion on it and simply dismiss the entire OT, and our efforts to put the best spin on it have just never sat well with me. This avoids those shortcomings.

Agree or not, I would highly recommend it because, as you said, he's a very intelligent man who deeply loves God and that comes through in the book. And when you read or are around someone that loves Him so deeply, it becomes infectious to the point that the disagreements become trivial.

BTW, I came across this today, which lays out, in a more condensed fashion, Boyd's case on Revelation. I think this may help in at least understanding how he's interpreting the book.

http://reknew.org/2014/01/the-cruciform-center-part-4-how-revelation-reveals-a-cruciform-god/