The Narrow Path Ministries

I'll be blogging summaries and reaction to Greg Boyd's Crucifixion of the Warrior God as I read it over the next month

http://matthew94.blogspot.com/2017/05/c ... r-god.html

I've been looking forward to this release for quite a while now, as many i'm sure. Are you going through the popular release or the 'big and boring' one?

big and boring...

I didn't even realize the popular version was released yet. Is it?

Cool. I've heard him interview about it, but he seemed to just restate the problem without much in the way of answers. I expect that the book is more revealing.

Here is Boyd's interview with Paul Walker on MennoNerds podcast. It's also in 17 snippets on Boyd's own podcast.

http://pauldouglaswalker.blogspot.com/2 ... r-god.html

When Boyd asserts that God can not possibly be as depicted in the Old Testament IMO Boyd has a big problem. He believes God loves with no discrimination, He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust. This is of course true regarding God's providence. But if, as Boyd says, all (including the OT) is to be seen through the lens of the cross, what do we find in the most quoted of all scriptures:

John 3:16 (NASB)

16. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Are not the benefits of God's love, exhibited in Jesus' death on the cross, limited to the "whoever" in verse 16? Is not the clear implication that those not of the "whoever" will perish? And did not Jesus plainly indicate that when He returns in Judgement He will personally separate the "whoever" from the "not whoever"?

Hello Homer,

No, I think to conclude that God's exhibition of the cross is limited to the believing ones in John 3:16 is getting the cart before the horse(I mean this in the close context of this thread, not as a sweeping theological statement). For while we were yet enemies, Christ died for the ungodly—who is this limited to? Your question would be more sensible if Greg Boyd's conclusion was therefore God being a nice person will let them off with a wag of the finger. Seeing the father through the lens of the cross is more about seeing God's heart for his creation without taking it to the end with the result. It's about a starting point.

Matt, No it's not out yet. I was mistaken thinking they would be released at the same time. I looked and then remembered him saying it would be released later than this one.

Homer wrote:When Boyd asserts that God can not possibly be as depicted in the Old Testament IMO Boyd has a big problem. He believes God loves with no discrimination, He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust. This is of course true regarding God's providence. But if, as Boyd says, all (including the OT) is to be seen through the lens of the cross, what do we find in the most quoted of all scriptures:

John 3:16 (NASB)

16. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Are not the benefits of God's love, exhibited in Jesus' death on the cross, limited to the "whoever" in verse 16? Is not the clear implication that those not of the "whoever" will perish? And did not Jesus plainly indicate that when He returns in Judgement He will personally separate the "whoever" from the "not whoever"?

Boyd isn't a universalist. He's actually one of the leading advocates of the annihiliationist position in regards to the fate of the wicked.

The core issue, here, is (to my mind) whether Jesus is simply a 'part' of God's self-revelation or 'the fullness' of God's revelation. If Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, then I think Boyd is correct to want to re-interpret some popular interpretations about the Old Testament with light (And through the lens) of Christ.

I'm not sure I'll agree with his fresh interpretation(s)... But I do think he's reading the Old Testament the way Christians are called to read it.

Matt,

I am looking forward to reading your summary and comments regarding Boyd's book. I have long believed most, at least, of the appearances of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament were of the pre incarnate Christ. The following quote from "Answers in Genesis" sums it up well, I think:

These truths have led many students of Scripture to conclude that “the Angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament is none other than Christ Himself. He is called God, given attributes of God, seen by people, worshiped, and distinguished from the Father and Spirit. So rather than undermining the uniqueness and importance of Christ, theophanies affirm the uniqueness of Jesus. They also show the intimacy of God with His creation, unlike the distant god of deism that some people incorrectly associate with the God of the Bible.

Also, interestingly, once Christ comes there is no more mention of the Angel of the Lord.

If this idea is correct, I am interested in how Boyd handles 2 Kings 19:35:

2 Kings 19:35 (NASB)

35. Then it happened that night that the angel of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead.

This incident is not simply sending an army (Joshua) to do the task, but appears to be God in the person of (pre incarnate) Christ personally acting.

It seems to me God withheld His judgement while Christ was here on earth (and perhaps is still doing so, although I wonder - 70AD) but when Jesus returns He will be as both Savior and Judge.

I've read and reviewed through chapter 4
http://matthew94.blogspot.com/2017/05/c ... r-god.html