Yaweh and the Destroying Angel

[Jason]

I'd love to hear some opinions on Greg Boyd's latest blog posting: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/yahweh-and ... ing-angel/

[TK]

I'll ask a dumb question-

Why would Satan (or a malevolent evil spirit) destroy those who were rebelling against God? It seems like he would be cheering them on, and in fact behind the rebellion.

TK

[Jason]

TK, I think Boyd's view is that there are powerful angels who also possess a free will, like humans, and therefore can act in murderous ways. God, in his view, will honor their free will decisions. It could also be that God simply removes his protection. I'm reading between the lines a bit since Greg is not clear (at least in that post) as to which view he holds.

[TK]

Hi Jason-

i understand what you are saying, but i still dont understand why an evil angel would destroy those revolting against God (as opposed to destroying those on God's side). of course God might have protected those on his side, but i still am not sure why the bad guys would kill their fellow bad guys.

TK

[steve7150]

i understand what you are saying, but i still dont understand why an evil angel would destroy those revolting against God (as opposed to destroying those on God's side). of course God might have protected those on his side, but i still am not sure why the bad guys would kill their fellow bad guys.





Maybe Satan just likes to destroy anyone he can when he has the chance. After all they could repent later and follow God.

[Jason]

i understand what you are saying, but i still dont understand why an evil angel would destroy those revolting against God (as opposed to destroying those on God's side). of course God might have protected those on his side, but i still am not sure why the bad guys would kill their fellow bad guys.

I don't necessarily agree with Boyd's proposition but we might think it similar to a pitbull and his owner. The pitbull would prefer to be let loose and just chomp on something and the owner would either loose or bind the dog, depending on what he sees as a threat. I'm not sure his theory of the destroying angel is the best explanation but, unlike Steve Gregg, whom I've heard address the issue of OT violence a few times, I think there IS a stark contrast between the revelation about God in the OT and what Jesus revealed about Him. For example, the NT does depict Jesus as a warrior God but only in the poetic passages of Revelation. Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead for lying but I'm sure there were other liars who didn't drop dead on the spot. Harrod was struck dead because he took credit for the words God had given him as though they were his own, yet how many people do that and aren't killed on the spot? Many people that are quite evil live a long life and die a peaceful death. Granted, their eternal fate may not prove so peaceful but we're discussing earthly judgements. From the NT examples of God judging people, it seems he did them for spectacle or to literally put the fear of God into people. In the OT, it would seem that complete annihilation was the reason for these judgements.

I really wish I could agree with Boyd on this one because OT annihilation is a hurdle that's impossible to jump since none of us can probably imagine Jesus with a sword in his hand, cutting people open with a war cry. I'm uneasy about this topic because I believe God was fully revealed in Jesus and yet I also believe the OT prophets were correct.

[Homer]

In his blog, Boyd wrote:

In Numbers 16 we read about participants in Korah’s rebellion who were consumed by fire that came “out from the Lord” (vs. 35). The narrative clearly depicts Yahweh as a ferocious flame-throwing deity. How can such a portrait be reconciled with the non-violent picture of God we’re given in Jesus?

And:

It seems evident that Paul is reflecting this theological shift when he ascribes the consuming fire to “the destroying angel” rather than to Yahweh. Indeed, the same shift is reflected in the fact Paul mentions several episodes of divine judgment in I Corinthians 10 (vss. 5,8,9) without ever mentioning God as the agent who carried out these judgments.

What "seems so evident" to Boyd doesn't seem so evident to me.

Deuteronomy 4:24 (New King James Version)
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Hebrews 12:29 (New King James Version)
For our God is a consuming fire.

Got my doubts about this Boyd fella.

[TK]

God did use a destroying angel to kill the firstborn in Egypt:

23 For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. NKJV

These verses say that both the Lord AND the destroyer did it. So I suppose it is conceivable that the Numbers passage leaves out the mention of the intermediary-destroyer that God used as an executioner. I think the point is clear, nonetheless- God ordered the annihilation and whether He did it Himself or used an executioner doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me-- God still did it.

GB seems to be arguing that the fact that God used "something else" to do the destroying somehow lessens God's perceived "culpability." I don't see that at all.

TK

[Jason]

TK, here is what Mr. Boyd says to summarize:

While God was in some sense ultimately behind the consuming fire (for he permitted it), he did not himself incinerate the rebels. This violent work was carried out by “the destroying angel.”

I think his argument is rooted in the idea that God/Jesus is incapable of carrying out violence himself so he makes use of evil intermediaries. For example, in this view God could very well order the Israelites to wipe out an entire clan because the people doing the killing at his behest (the Israelites) were already tainted themselves, being sinners. Likewise if the destroying angel was doing the violence, like with Korah and Egypt. Remember that God used David to commit violence by doing war with other nations, yet wouldn't allow him to built his temple because he'd shed blood (1 Chronicles 22:7-9). In the book of Job, satan wanted to test Job and God saw that it would be beneficial to test him, but why didn't God just do the dirty work himself? It does seem like God uses evil spirits to "get the job done." In Boyd's mind, there's a difference between God doing violence and God allowing someone else to do violence for a given purpose.

[TK]

Jason wrote:

In Boyd's mind, there's a difference between God doing violence and God allowing someone else to do violence for a given purpose.

I understand his reasoning, but I can't figure out how it makes a difference. I mean, i understand the technical difference between God doing it and God having someone/something do it. But God is still doing it, really.

A person who hires a hit-man is as culpable as the hit-man.

Believe me, I am not comparing God to a person who hires hit-men. But I don't see how GB's concept can bring any real comfort to those who are troubled by the OT stories. God didn't hamstring horses, but he told men to do so. Perhaps my problem is that I should be more troubled by the OT stories than I am. Something to think about, I suppose.

TK