The Cruciform Hermeneutic

[AnthonyMartin]

I am nearing completion of Greg Boyd's "Crucifixion of the Warrior God". I am wondering how many others have read the two texts. I know there was a Cavey/Boyd video posted a while back with a little dialogue regarding this. Based on the video, I was still pretty skeptical.

I've found these two volumes very compelling. I am nearly convinced Boyd has this right. Any guidance or cautions from those who have read this material?

[joshuabgood]

I haven't read it yet...but will soon.

[MaxPC]

I am nearing completion of Greg Boyd's "Crucifixion of the Warrior God". I am wondering how many others have read the two texts. I know there was a Cavey/Boyd video posted a while back with a little dialogue regarding this. Based on the video, I was still pretty skeptical.

I've found these two volumes very compelling. I am nearly convinced Boyd has this right. Any guidance or cautions from those who have read this material?

Now you have me intrigued.
I'm going to check my "book budget" with my accountant (wife) and see if there's room to buy this one.

[Sudsy]

I am nearing completion of Greg Boyd's "Crucifixion of the Warrior God". I am wondering how many others have read the two texts. I know there was a Cavey/Boyd video posted a while back with a little dialogue regarding this. Based on the video, I was still pretty skeptical.

I've found these two volumes very compelling. I am nearly convinced Boyd has this right. Any guidance or cautions from those who have read this material?

I have God at War by Boyd but haven't read the "Crucifixion of the Warrior God". Watching a summary video on this I think this is a very compelling opinion of Boyd on how to reconcile an OT violent God with the God revealed in Jesus as nonviolent. Basically Boyd is suggesting that although the OT is the inspired word of God, there is a way to view the many places where God is referred to as violent that, although it reads that God did this or that, it was the destroyer who was doing the violence and God allowed it to occur to a certain degree. Sometimes the destruction is very gory.

I think it is interesting to have a start point of the cross and Jesus laying down His life for the sins of the world rather than God the Father taking out His wrath on Jesus regarding the sins of the world. The ugliness of what man did was turned into something beautiful to those who believe.

Since Jesus is the best view of God we can have, and God is love, I find it hard to believe that what is written as assigned to God being so violent in the OT is to be taken literally as it directly contradicts the God we find in Jesus. So, when Greg suggests another way to view God as never being violent and how this all points toward Jesus, I'm curious.

The overall concept of a wrathful God as found in the OT and the concept NT interpreters take on ECT, I believe has a big bearing on how we regard what God is like and how we go about having a relationship with the God reflected in Jesus.

Of course the Gospel Coalition and others challenge this opinion.

Official Trailer -

[MaxPC]

In watching some of videos I'm getting the following impressions:
-The traditional protestant view resembles Calvinism and predestination. This interferes with understanding Boyd's point.
-My impression of Boyd's point is that it is explicative of Free Will. Those in the OT brought their destruction upon themselves through their own actions. God warned them. They didn't listen. I feel this points up the fact that the word "destruction" can be considered "consequences" because those people brought it on themselves. Cause and effect.

My impressions of course are from a Catholic perpsective. YMMV.

[Neto]

Could someone outline the basic premise of this view? Is this a theory of the doctrine of salvation?
In reading what has been posted so far, I immediately thought of the passage Jesus read in the synagogue in Capernaum when he was handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, leaving out the latter part of the passage, where judgement is 'promised'. Do you think he left off where he did because he was only referring to the part of it that referenced his objective while on earth at that time, because the omitted part refers to a future time, a time when those who refused to accept his message would bear the result of their own choices, or was he implying that that latter part did not apply to him at all? (Remember also that God kept the Israelites out Canaan for 400 years, while allowing the ethnic groups already living there to "fill up their cup of iniquity". You can see the same underlying principle expressed in the book of the prophet Habakkuk as well.)

[AnthonyMartin]

Basic overview as I see it.
1. Gods character is fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, particularly His sacrificial, non-violent response to violence, love demonstrated through his crucifixion.
2. All scripture is God-breathed, reliable and to be embraced fully by all Christ followers. Jesus also declared the texts in the OT were the words of God.
3. Many OT texts present a God commanding horrific acts of violence.
4. Since we know the character of God through the non-violent responses of Jesus there must be more going on than is clear on an initial reading.
5. The"more" going on is a covenant relationship between God and man. The texts involve a human telling of a non-violent God stooping to interact with the violence present in the very violent Ancient Near East cultures.

I've probably really butured #5. The two texts wrestle with the many objections to #5, and examine how the difficult violence in the OT ultimately point to the non-violent response of Christ on the cross.

Over all the books seem very much along the Christus Victor model of atonement to me.

[AnthonyMartin]

(Remember also that God kept the Israelites out Canaan for 400 years, while allowing the ethnic groups already living there to "fill up their cup of iniquity". You can see the same underlying principle expressed in the book of the prophet Habakkuk as well.)

I believe Boyd would view these types of scripture as the human impression of God's interactions with them. More than a God of wrath choosing to set them up for greater judgment and annihilation.

[Neto]

(Remember also that God kept the Israelites out Canaan for 400 years, while allowing the ethnic groups already living there to "fill up their cup of iniquity". You can see the same underlying principle expressed in the book of the prophet Habakkuk as well.)

I believe Boyd would view these types of scripture as the human impression of God's interactions with them. More than a God of wrath choosing to set them up for greater judgment and annihilation.

So, would he say that what is reported in say, the prophet Habakkuk as the words of God answering the prophet's complaints are really the conclusions of the prophet (what he thought God might say if He did actually answer), and not a true reflection of God's own words or attitude? If so, then I could not accept this writer as one who respects the Scripture.

[AnthonyMartin]

(Remember also that God kept the Israelites out Canaan for 400 years, while allowing the ethnic groups already living there to "fill up their cup of iniquity". You can see the same underlying principle expressed in the book of the prophet Habakkuk as well.)

I believe Boyd would view these types of scripture as the human impression of God's interactions with them. More than a God of wrath choosing to set them up for greater judgment and annihilation.

So, would he say that what is reported in say, the prophet Habakkuk as the words of God answering the prophet's complaints are really the conclusions of the prophet (what he thought God might say if He did actually answer), and not a true reflection of God's own words or attitude? If so, then I could not accept this writer as one who respects the Scripture.

Not exactly. He would view God as wearing masks because the free agents He was interacting with were not capable of seeing God for who He actually is.
"God's masks are thus the result of God stooping out of covenental love to allow His people to act towards Him."
I would prefer you read for yourself before you conclude him a heretic based on my poor attempt to review his words.