In this third issue on Boyd’s monumental work, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, I begin to interact with the book itself. In the first six chapters, Boyd gives us his general theory of interpretation or, in one word, his hermeneutic. Before I dive into this, I need to vent a major frustration I have with this book.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
This is the third installment of a project that will take me several issues to complete. The subject is a big one: what some people refer to as the violence of God in the OT. Gregory Boyd has written a 1400-page book about this: The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross(2017). I have been asked for my opinion; this has led me to undertake this project.
When Is It Violence?
Boyd does not give a definition of violence. In academic writing, this is not quite the unforgivable sin (plagiarism may fill that role), but it does count as a serious omission. It is also infuriating.
To claim that “everyone seems to know violence when they see it” is ludicrous (Boyd 2017, endnote 34 in chapter 1). In this footnote, Boyd argues violence is hard to define and there is no consensus among scholars. This is precisely why it needs discussion. At the very least he should have offered his readers a working definition, however rough, that gives us some idea of his boundaries around the concept.
To be sure, this omission in itself does not invalidate his argument. It just makes it hard to read. I am still wondering if Boyd would accept a distinction between violence and force or not (and if yes, what the distinction would be). If a police officer uses a gun to stop a criminal, to use a banal example, is that violence? Is it legitimate? What if a parent uses physical force to prevent a child from running out onto the road (an illustration that ‘violence,’ or force, and love are not necessarily always mutually exclusive)? And what about verbal violence and verbal abuse? Is this included? About one fourth into this book, I am still unsure.
Crucifix, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The Cross as Revelation
Despite this lack, I was positively surprised by Boyd’s general hermeneutical foundation. This first part of the book was a great read. Boyd argues for interpretation that is both Christ-centred and cross-centred.
Jesus and the New Testament (NT) are not an addition to earlier revelation, something that stands alongside the earlier parts. Jesus is not merely a better or greater revelation. He transcends and outshines previous revelation, something that in the NT is perhaps best expressed by Hebrews 1:1-4. As a result, we can only truly understand the old in the light of the new, that is, Jesus.
Boyd also argues that it is precisely on the cross that this superior revelation finds its centre and shines most brightly. Everything Jesus is and does, and everything God is and does, is related to the cross. This, too, needs to guide and shape our interpretation of previous revelation. it means that everything God says and does in the Old Testament (OT) must also be related to Christ and the cross, pointing forward to him (as pointed out by Jesus himself in Lk. 24:25-27). This is how we know what God is like, who he truly is.
A different word that can be used to speak of God’s nature is, of course, love. Often the Greek word agape is used to make clear this love is utterly unique and supreme because it seeks nothing for itself. This is the essence of God, and on the cross, we get to see what this means: this is how far God is willing to go. The cross is the highest expression of love. For this reason, Boyd adopts the term cruciform for his approach to interpretation. The cross should be the centre of all Christian theology and of all our interpretation of Scripture.
Point well taken, even if there are also things I find unpersuasive or questionable. I have my doubts, for instance, about Boyd’s strong critique of the fifth-century church father Augustine, but I don’t know Augustine well enough to discuss this. Besides, it does not belong to the essence of Boyd’s argument.
A second example: the claim that Jesus “blatantly” contradicted and overturned “multiple Old Testament passages and principles” (Boyd 2017, chapter 2) completely fails to do justice to the rich and nuanced relationship between old and new, between type and fulfilment. Notice that in Matthew 5, Jesus explicitly denied doing what Boyd claims he did. Later in this chapter, Boyd admits as much, but in doing this, he contradicts himself. To fulfil or perfect (and to take something to its true meaning and purpose) is different from to revoke or overturn.
Good, but New?
Still, so far, this is pretty good. But it is also nothing new. This shows in the massive array of quotations from other writers and theologians in these chapters. This includes Martin Luther, who rediscovered the centrality of the cross and gave it central place in his theology.
On one point, however, Boyd may indeed be on to something new. He points out that no one, at least no theologian, has applied this hermeneutic to those passages in the OT that appear to associate God with violence. Surely such passages stand in tension with (Boyd might prefer: contradict) the NT revelation of God’s unconditional love and self-sacrifice through the cross? Surely there is a need for a consistent and systematic application of the cruciform hermeneutic to such passages? How do they relate to Christ and the cross, how do they point forward to him?
These are good questions and it may indeed be that no theologian has produced such a study. However, I do think many of the faithful already read Boyd’s problem passages in a cruciform or Christ-centred way.
I have benefited greatly from reading and studying Joshua and Judges, to name two of the more violent books in the Bible. I have never been inclined to apply them in any violent way. Almost automatically and perhaps unwittingly most of us read such books through the lens of the NT. We know our war is not against flesh and blood. We know we are involved in a spiritual, not a physical war. We know Jesus taught us to love and forgive and bless our enemies. we know that we conquer (a military term) through the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony (Rev. 12:11), utterly non-violent means.
We may not have an answer for every ‘hard passage’ in the OT, but we are reading the OT in the light of Jesus. Which means, if this is true for you, you are ahead of the scholars.
Criticism: A Pacifist God?
I should point out that Boyd has a specific take on what a cruciform hermeneutic means. To him, cruciform implies:
- Nonviolent
- Self-sacrificial
- Enemy-embracing
- Unconditional
- Indiscriminately (or agape-) loving
- Other-oriented
Throughout the book, some combination of these terms in connection with either God or his love appears numerous times, almost like a mantra, and it obviously summarizes Boyd’s understanding of what ‘cruciform’ means.
This raises some questions. God is certainly enemy-embracing, but I wonder if God’s love is in every sense of the word non-conditional. More importantly, is God entirely, essentially, and always nonviolent, as Boyd believes?
Of course, at this point it is most unfortunate that violence has not been defined, but this much is clear. Boyd is a pacifist. He argues that Christians should never resort to violence, that this is what Jesus taught us and practised himself, and that the early church up until Constantine (early fourth century) practised nonviolence, including the rejection of military service for Christians (that the entire early church was pacifist is denied by Boyd’s critics; e.g. Copan 2018, especially point 5 and 6, and Charles 2010; it appears to me Boyd’s claim is simply not true).
Should Christians be pacifists? I am not convinced by Boyd’s arguments. That God in Jesus refuses to use violence on the cross and during his earthly ministry does not mean he will never resort to force. This simply does not follow.
The standard set by Jesus certainly changes much, including the way believers ‘make war.’ Violence is not the way of the kingdom, unlike that of empire. The way of the cross is that of forgiveness and love for enemies. But does this mean that the use of force in a fallen world is always wrong?
Boyd’s nonviolence is a vital presupposition of the entire book. Take it out, and his case begins to break down. To the extent that we believe God may use coercive force, whether in the past, the present, or the future, Boyd’s diatribe against the ‘violent portrayals’ of God and his search for a radical solution loses much of its force. In that case, God may well have compromised in the past (yes, compromised; he certainly did this with many commandments in the OT law that obviously fall short of his real standard) by going along with human violence. War and violence are obviously not God’s ideal, and he will put an end to them eventually. But what if a ‘violent’ act is the lesser evil?
Michael Jaletzke (2007), CC BY-SA 3.0
Or a Warrior God?
That God is a warrior (Ex. 15:3) is, to Boyd, a distorted portrayal of God, who in his essence is wholly nonviolent. For a pacifist, the image of ‘warrior’ or war cannot be positive. But in the Bible, the image is positive (the warrior David becomes a type of the Messiah), although it will undergo substantial redefinition in the progression of revelation. God did reveal himself as a warrior, to a people familiar with war and warfare. He did work with David as a warlord and military leader. When David wrote, “he trains my hands for war” (Ps. 18:34), he wasn’t misrepresenting God; he was speaking from personal experience. God went along.
War (like violence) is undesirable but there is no quick fix. Throughout Scripture and history, God gradually opens up alternatives and introduces a vision for a very different world. He also enables a redefinition of who the enemy is and of who are the objects of his love and compassion. For the fierceness with which he pursues this love and compassion, ‘warrior’ is a fitting image.
None of this means that God has never used ‘violence’ (in the sense of coercive force) in the past and will never use ‘violence’ in the future. A true cruciform hermeneutic, while critical of human violence (which rarely serves justice), does not need this presupposition of absolute nonviolence.
Next
In upcoming issues, I will look at:
- How Boyd further develops and specifies his [own version of] cruciform hermeneutic: how to reinterpret those ‘violent portraits’ of God.
- What happens when Boyd turns his attention to those passages of Scripture that allegedly show violent and distorted portrayals of the God who is pure love.
After all, if the above were all there is to say about Boyd’s cruciform hermeneutic, this would not be a controversial book. There must be more to it.
Even when Jesus forbids the sword as a means to advance the kingdom, the New Testament cannot be said to teach absolute pacifism, nor does it forbid the Christian from “bearing the sword” in the service of society and the greater good of others, even when this was the practice of some in the early church. (Daryl 2010:42)
Attribution
Violence, http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/v/violence.html, CC BY-SA 3.0
Crucifix: Zonsondergang, centraal crucifix op de begraafplaats Pasbrug: Sint -Katelijne-Waver, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sint-katelijne-waver/5251962397/, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Darolu (2010), Peace Dove Icon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peace_dove_icon.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0
Michael Jaletzke (2007), Erzengel Michael, Universität Bonn Haupteingang, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael4.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0
References
Boyd, Gregory (2017), The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press)
Charles, J. Daryl (2010), “Pacifists, Patriots, or Both? Second Thoughts on Pre-Constantinian Early-Christian Attitudes toward Soldiering and War” Logos 13:2, 17-55.
Copan, Paul (2018), Greg Boyd’s Misunderstandings of the ‘Warrior God’ (The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/crucifixion-warrior-god-greg-boyd/) Accessed 13 September 2018
Standard Bible Society (2001), The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.