Scan barcode
Reviews
Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence by Gregory A. Boyd
bengresik's review against another edition
4.0
The book does what it says. Provides a thorough accounting of Old Testament texts that make God appear quite violent from a pacifist perspective. It's very readable (Greg's a good writer and teacher and has clearly thought a lot about how to present this material). This book certainly provides a helpful approach for anyone struggling with these texts.
[personal note] I think I'm just at a place in my faith where I'm not really asking these questions anymore though. The book represents one way of resolving the questions, but the questions I'm asking are different now compared to when I started reading the book and so that's an interesting revelation. That's probably why it took me a year and a half to finish reading this book. While initially it seemed urgent, it didn't by the end. [/personal note]
Anyways, this is a good book. If you're asking these questions, this will give you one approach to the answers.
[personal note] I think I'm just at a place in my faith where I'm not really asking these questions anymore though. The book represents one way of resolving the questions, but the questions I'm asking are different now compared to when I started reading the book and so that's an interesting revelation. That's probably why it took me a year and a half to finish reading this book. While initially it seemed urgent, it didn't by the end. [/personal note]
Anyways, this is a good book. If you're asking these questions, this will give you one approach to the answers.
drbobcornwall's review against another edition
2.0
I recognize that the violence attributed to God in the Bible is a problem for many of us. Finding a solution to that problem is itself a challenge. Marcion solved it by attributing the violence of the Hebrew Bible and in the Gospels to the demiurge -- a lower, creator god -- but not the God revealed in Jesus.
Gregory Boyd attempts to resolve this problem by appealing to the cross of Jesus. In the process, as I read the book (and I finally gave up after chapter 9 and skipped to the end) Boyd understands God accommodating God's self to the cultural dynamics, and allows God's self to be portrayed as a warrior God, with that culminating in the cross, where God shows God's true nonviolent self. I found Boyd running in circles trying to accommodate his understanding of God (non-violent love) with his insistence of keeping adherence to a conservative hermeneutic and an affirmation of infallibility. Ultimately, what have is a supersessionist view that sees the original covenant, which included sacrifices, etc., as somehow less than stellar, and which must be replaced by the new covenant in Jesus, which is a better covenant.
As I read the book, I recognized the reason why I gave up on infallibility. It makes you juggle too many balls. Perhaps this will help some, but for this former adherent of infallibility and penal substitution (he says he doesn't affirm penal substitution, but it sure looks like it to me) I shall move on to other books. That said, having read less than 150 pages and finding myself ready to move on, I can't imagine reading the 1500 word academic version.
Gregory Boyd attempts to resolve this problem by appealing to the cross of Jesus. In the process, as I read the book (and I finally gave up after chapter 9 and skipped to the end) Boyd understands God accommodating God's self to the cultural dynamics, and allows God's self to be portrayed as a warrior God, with that culminating in the cross, where God shows God's true nonviolent self. I found Boyd running in circles trying to accommodate his understanding of God (non-violent love) with his insistence of keeping adherence to a conservative hermeneutic and an affirmation of infallibility. Ultimately, what have is a supersessionist view that sees the original covenant, which included sacrifices, etc., as somehow less than stellar, and which must be replaced by the new covenant in Jesus, which is a better covenant.
As I read the book, I recognized the reason why I gave up on infallibility. It makes you juggle too many balls. Perhaps this will help some, but for this former adherent of infallibility and penal substitution (he says he doesn't affirm penal substitution, but it sure looks like it to me) I shall move on to other books. That said, having read less than 150 pages and finding myself ready to move on, I can't imagine reading the 1500 word academic version.
zacattk01's review against another edition
5.0
What if there's actually more going on here?
“…we only see Scripture’s violent divine portraits as literary crucifixes if we remain resolved in our faith that God has always been exactly as he’s revealed himself to be on the cross.”
“…we only see Scripture’s violent divine portraits as literary crucifixes if we remain resolved in our faith that God has always been exactly as he’s revealed himself to be on the cross.”
johnboscoreads's review against another edition
3.0
First half was good about process theology and a lens of the cross, but second half was pretty repetitive and just lots of examples without much content
ronald_schoedel's review against another edition
5.0
Other reviewers have offered excellent summaries of this work, so I won’t reinvent the wheel.
To tell the truth, I didn’t need much persuading. I just needed to figure out “what else is going on?” when it comes to the OT’s violent representations of God. I’ve always thought there had to be a “rest of the story”, and I think Pastor Boyd has found it.
So many people I’ve known have experienced great crises of faith because of the apparent contradictions between YHWH as revealed in the OT and Jesus as revealed in the NT. I almost wish every bible printed could contain an introductory note explaining Pastor Boyd’s theory.
Those who subscribe to strict scriptural infallibility or literal historicity of the entire Bible will have the most difficulty with this book, but Boyd does address this issue in a way that reframed the concept of what is meant by scriptural infallibility.
I highly recommend this quick version of his two-volume “Crucifixion of the Warrior God”, which I may now take on.
To tell the truth, I didn’t need much persuading. I just needed to figure out “what else is going on?” when it comes to the OT’s violent representations of God. I’ve always thought there had to be a “rest of the story”, and I think Pastor Boyd has found it.
So many people I’ve known have experienced great crises of faith because of the apparent contradictions between YHWH as revealed in the OT and Jesus as revealed in the NT. I almost wish every bible printed could contain an introductory note explaining Pastor Boyd’s theory.
Those who subscribe to strict scriptural infallibility or literal historicity of the entire Bible will have the most difficulty with this book, but Boyd does address this issue in a way that reframed the concept of what is meant by scriptural infallibility.
I highly recommend this quick version of his two-volume “Crucifixion of the Warrior God”, which I may now take on.
abwrites's review against another edition
2.0
This is such a frustrating book. On the one hand, Boyd does an excellent job of laying out how violent events in the Old Testament often have other, underlying, implicit things going on which are not at first obvious. On the other hand, Boyd delves into some straight universalism and white-washing of the Old Testament portrayals of God. That said, his chapters where he interprets stores like the Red Sea Crossing and Elisha summoning bears to kill a bunch of kids are top-tier in their approach to the scripture from a culturally-contextual point of view. The simple fact of the matter is that the Old Testament was written in the context of other Ancient Near-Eastern myths and religions, and it often interacts with those myths and religions in interesting and non-obvious ways. Today we have so sanitized and westernized the Bible that we miss half of the cultural subtext and therefore grossly misrepresent what it says.
Any book, when separated from its cultural context, may be made to say whatever you want. Furthermore, any book, when properly place into its cultural context, may not always say what you expect or think it should.
Boyd attempts to put the Bible in its context, but then chooses his own feelings over the more obvious answers. And for a book which aims to interpret all Biblical violence in light of Christ on the cross, it is very odd and annoying to me that Boyd never deals with Jesus cleansing the temple or the prophecies of his return where he slaughters armies. It's a case-in-point example of cherry picking and hoping the audience doesn't think about those stories because they're inconvenient to deal with.
Was Jesus pacifistic? Yes. Would Christians today do well to be more pacifistic and like Jesus? Absolutely. Does Boyd make a good argument for God's preference for pacifism? I think so. But when the pacifistic character of the sacrificial Christ is our interpretive lens (and it's a good one, to be sure) for all scripture which seems to contradict this character, what do we when the sacrificial Christ himself acts in violence? Reading this book will not answer this question because Boyd never deals with it.
Also, Boyd is so wishy-washy on whether or not scripture is inspired as to cause eye-rolling. How can the scripture be both inspired and (in places) inaccurate? But Boyd is certain this is the case, since anytime violence is attributed to God it is the mistake of the author (based on their worldview). So was the author inspired or mistaken? Can they be both? How does that work? If the author was wrong about this (pretty fundamental) understanding of God's character, then what else might they be wrong about? Boyd never addresses this (and, to be fair, such is outside the scope of his book), but it leaves a gaping hole in his book that is otherwise well researched, sourced, and (at times) even well reasoned.
As an apologetic text, this book is somewhat successful (only somewhat). It also opens the gate to a better cultural understanding of the Bible, which is highly helpful, even if a significant portion of what Boyd writes is only half-baked or entirely unbaked altogether. But it is so fundamentally uneven and annoying that I can in no way recommend it as anything except a bibliography of better books and papers on the same subject matter.
Any book, when separated from its cultural context, may be made to say whatever you want. Furthermore, any book, when properly place into its cultural context, may not always say what you expect or think it should.
Boyd attempts to put the Bible in its context, but then chooses his own feelings over the more obvious answers. And for a book which aims to interpret all Biblical violence in light of Christ on the cross, it is very odd and annoying to me that Boyd never deals with Jesus cleansing the temple or the prophecies of his return where he slaughters armies. It's a case-in-point example of cherry picking and hoping the audience doesn't think about those stories because they're inconvenient to deal with.
Was Jesus pacifistic? Yes. Would Christians today do well to be more pacifistic and like Jesus? Absolutely. Does Boyd make a good argument for God's preference for pacifism? I think so. But when the pacifistic character of the sacrificial Christ is our interpretive lens (and it's a good one, to be sure) for all scripture which seems to contradict this character, what do we when the sacrificial Christ himself acts in violence? Reading this book will not answer this question because Boyd never deals with it.
Also, Boyd is so wishy-washy on whether or not scripture is inspired as to cause eye-rolling. How can the scripture be both inspired and (in places) inaccurate? But Boyd is certain this is the case, since anytime violence is attributed to God it is the mistake of the author (based on their worldview). So was the author inspired or mistaken? Can they be both? How does that work? If the author was wrong about this (pretty fundamental) understanding of God's character, then what else might they be wrong about? Boyd never addresses this (and, to be fair, such is outside the scope of his book), but it leaves a gaping hole in his book that is otherwise well researched, sourced, and (at times) even well reasoned.
As an apologetic text, this book is somewhat successful (only somewhat). It also opens the gate to a better cultural understanding of the Bible, which is highly helpful, even if a significant portion of what Boyd writes is only half-baked or entirely unbaked altogether. But it is so fundamentally uneven and annoying that I can in no way recommend it as anything except a bibliography of better books and papers on the same subject matter.
the_beer_baron's review against another edition
4.0
Undoubtedly, "do the curtains match the drapes?" will continue to refer to personal grooming. However, if that was asked theologically, maybe it would imply 'does your soteriological understanding match your hermeneutics?' If that was the case, Boyd would have consistency top and bottom, with what I understand is a Christus Victor view of atonement and annihilism paired with his "conservative hermeneutical principle." I'm a stickler for consistency and precedent in hermeneutics, so I don't think Boyd's reasoning is bulletproof. And though I would also fall in the same camp, reading backwards with a nonviolent basis still feels like putting the cart before the horse. At least that basis is acknowledged since we are not blank slates and have opinions and experience. My issue is that if a case were to defend a violent God, and the person was from a violent background, a warrior God motif might be the lens to view Scripture as opposed to a cruciform image - though Paul would favour the latter. In a less dramatic setting, a more violent view of atonement via penal substitution may colour other instances of how violence is read in the Scripture. Theological threads are connected, so his book would have greater coherency including his view of atonement.
A few good points to mull over:
- At the cross Jesus took on the worlds' sins. Since Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, should we see a pattern of God taking on the sins of his people prior to this? (This moves to Boyds conservative hermeneutical principle)
- Given that ancient Hebraic language is shaped by other Semitic languages, how else would their worldview be influenced by cultural surroundings? (There is plenty of references to ANE beliefs but the interplay with the OT is not explicitly established)
- How do sin and the presence of God play out in a community? Related to this, what are the dynamics of divine consent? (This relates to suffering and 'judgement')
- Are people alright with mandated poetic (or organic) justice, as a form of judgement? (An injustice that undoes itself may not be as active a judgement as some people would/want to expect)
- What levels of theological misattribution are acceptable by authors in the Bible? The standout being David driven by God and Satan (2 Sam. 24:1 vs 1 Chr 21:1).
My bottleneck in reading this is that regardless of a high, low or sideways view of Scripture, we are still left with its concrete form. Thus if God is misattributed as overly violent, he still consented to be recorded as such and therefore misunderstood as such.
A very enjoyable read. But I wouldn't recommend this to a person who hasn't had some theological readings under their belt. There might be a better book to introduce the doctrine of Scripture and the nature of God first. But then... Go for it.
A few good points to mull over:
- At the cross Jesus took on the worlds' sins. Since Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, should we see a pattern of God taking on the sins of his people prior to this? (This moves to Boyds conservative hermeneutical principle)
- Given that ancient Hebraic language is shaped by other Semitic languages, how else would their worldview be influenced by cultural surroundings? (There is plenty of references to ANE beliefs but the interplay with the OT is not explicitly established)
- How do sin and the presence of God play out in a community? Related to this, what are the dynamics of divine consent? (This relates to suffering and 'judgement')
- Are people alright with mandated poetic (or organic) justice, as a form of judgement? (An injustice that undoes itself may not be as active a judgement as some people would/want to expect)
- What levels of theological misattribution are acceptable by authors in the Bible? The standout being David driven by God and Satan (2 Sam. 24:1 vs 1 Chr 21:1).
My bottleneck in reading this is that regardless of a high, low or sideways view of Scripture, we are still left with its concrete form. Thus if God is misattributed as overly violent, he still consented to be recorded as such and therefore misunderstood as such.
A very enjoyable read. But I wouldn't recommend this to a person who hasn't had some theological readings under their belt. There might be a better book to introduce the doctrine of Scripture and the nature of God first. But then... Go for it.
beejai's review
4.0
This is a popularized version of a more scholarly work: The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.
That work has been on my radar to read for a while now but when I saw this, I figured I would read it quickly first to see if the other is worth my time. It is.
Two phrases keep popping out that, when explained help explain the main thrust of this book. Boyd keeps talking about the missionary activity of a loving God. By this Boyd is basically saying that God is willing to meet people where they are at, to lead them to where He wants them to be. The theory is good in and of itself. He is talking about progressive revelation but I think Boyd takes it a bit further than I would. He is saying that God is willing to accommodate people's false understanding of who He is until they are ready for a more full revelation (of which Jesus is the ultimate "exact representation" Hebrews 1:1-3) Again, I agree with the principle but not his level of application.
The second phrase that Boyd will often use is to urge us to look through the cruciform looking glass when seeing OT examples of the violence of God. In using Alice and Wonderland's looking glass that changes how everything is seen, Boyd asks us to look at the apparent violence through the lens of the cross.
He not only presents his ideas, but Boyd layers them with many examples of how we can look at some of the most difficult and challenging scriptures in the Old Testament like the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, and the conquests of Canaan. If these, and other scriptures have given you pause then I would strongly recommend this book. Even if you do not fully agree with him, it is definitely food for thought.
That work has been on my radar to read for a while now but when I saw this, I figured I would read it quickly first to see if the other is worth my time. It is.
Two phrases keep popping out that, when explained help explain the main thrust of this book. Boyd keeps talking about the missionary activity of a loving God. By this Boyd is basically saying that God is willing to meet people where they are at, to lead them to where He wants them to be. The theory is good in and of itself. He is talking about progressive revelation but I think Boyd takes it a bit further than I would. He is saying that God is willing to accommodate people's false understanding of who He is until they are ready for a more full revelation (of which Jesus is the ultimate "exact representation" Hebrews 1:1-3) Again, I agree with the principle but not his level of application.
The second phrase that Boyd will often use is to urge us to look through the cruciform looking glass when seeing OT examples of the violence of God. In using Alice and Wonderland's looking glass that changes how everything is seen, Boyd asks us to look at the apparent violence through the lens of the cross.
He not only presents his ideas, but Boyd layers them with many examples of how we can look at some of the most difficult and challenging scriptures in the Old Testament like the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, and the conquests of Canaan. If these, and other scriptures have given you pause then I would strongly recommend this book. Even if you do not fully agree with him, it is definitely food for thought.
rubybastille's review
5.0
"If we trust the Bible to do what God inspired it to do, and if we are interpreting it correctly, it will not fail us. But the all-important question is, what did God inspire the Bible to infallibly accomplish?...God inspired all Scripture to point us to Jesus, and more specifically to the cross that culminates everything Jesus was about." pg 56
This took me nearly a year to read but I'm glad I stuck with it. Boyd breaks down all the ugliest moments of the Old Testament in reframes them historically, philosophically, and exegetically in ways that restore faith and paint a healthier image of God.
This took me nearly a year to read but I'm glad I stuck with it. Boyd breaks down all the ugliest moments of the Old Testament in reframes them historically, philosophically, and exegetically in ways that restore faith and paint a healthier image of God.
More...