Recently we had a discussion about the claim that Jesus repudiated Scripture. I didn't see it at the time, but days later an article by no one less than Greg Boyd took on the same topic. Now I, of course, held that Jesus did not repudiate Scripture while people like Peter Enns and commenter Naum disagreed ... disagreed with me, not Boyd. Boyd (et al.), you see, is quite sure that Jesus overturned God's Word in the Old Testament.
It's a devastating concept. Embraced by some, it leaves me no place to stand. Interestingly, Boyd sees it, too, but doesn't seem to notice. "Jesus," he writes, "is not merely repudiating three verses of the OT. He is, at least indirectly, undermining the inherent violence of all retributive laws in the OT." Boyd is arguing (as if it's a good thing) that all of God's laws that included "inherent violence" (like death for adultery or hell for sinners) were repudiated by the Son. Boyd goes on to agree with another author, C. S. Cowles, who argues further down this logical rabbit hole that Jesus repudiates at the same time all of God's genocidal commands. Jesus "stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence." Get that? When God ordered Israel to take Canaan, He was wrong. When He ordered them to kill the Amalekites, He was wrong. Boyd talks about the time when the disciples asked Jesus to call down fire on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54-55) and He rebuked them. Boyd makes this astounding statement: "As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah's enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic." Think about that. The Spirit in Elijah and Elisha and John the Baptist was "ungodly, if not demonic."
Perhaps now you see how the notion leaves me nowhere to stand. God the Son has either declared that God the Father is "ungodly, if not demonic" or that the Word of God cannot be trusted--you know, the Word that Jesus said would never pass away (Matt 5:18-19). That's it. We're done. We can know nothing. Nothing of God, nothing of Christ, nothing of Christianity. There is no ground on which to stand. Especially since Jesus said, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:19). Because Boyd et al. are arguing that Jesus annulled commandments, sealing His own fate as "least in the kingdom of heaven."
Of course, I cannot go there, as happy as others seem to be with it. Perhaps you can see why.
19 comments:
It never ceases to amaze me how some "scholars" can miss an elephant in the room that I see clearly in my little Bible Study group. In my opinion, they are looking at the Scriptures with a mind firmly planted in the world. It is often overlooked by biblical academics that the God of the OT is a just God, punishing the people with the commensurate sentence of death. But if you don't accept God's sovereignty and our hopeless condition, it becomes easy to see how Jesus "overturned the OT commandments". It's sad because all you'd have to do is suspend your hubristic ego and humbly read what the Word is clearly saying. Jesus did not come to overturn the OT, but to affirm and fulfill it.
Jesus on the cross took upon himself the sin of humanity. Jesus was the same then as he has always been. Jesus is the truest representation of the image of the unseen God. Therefore, God has always taken on the sin of humanity. So, if the God of the OT looks ugly, it is because he is taking on the sin of an ugly humanity, in order that his people will be drawn closer to him.
Josh, didn't you argue in the past that Jesus DID contradict God? If the standard is "turn the other cheek" and God didn't do it in the Old Testament, isn't that a problem (i.e., a contradiction between the Father and the Son)? It looks here as if you're arguing that Jesus did not contradict the Father from the Old Testament.
"So, if the God of the OT looks ugly, it is because he is taking on the sin of an ugly humanity,"
I'm not even sure what that means. Punishing sinners was taking on humanities sin? When people typically talk about the "ugliness" of God, it is reference to those things which they find oppose their ideals. I can't think of any examples of God being ugly being confused for God being redemptive.
In the OT we get a glimpse of what God is like, but in Jesus we see the truest image.
I guess I disagree with you David. I find a God who has his followers burn their children as a sacrifice... ugly. (Judges 11:30-40)
A God that commands the genocide of men women, children, and infants... ugly. 1 Sam. 15:3
Infants dashed to pieces before their parents eyes...ugly Is. 13:15-16
Pregnant women ripped open...ugly. Hosea 13:16
None of these look like the image of God we see in Christ. You are right, these go against my ideals. However, I believe they go against the ideals found in the teaching and life of Christ.
How do you reconcile these with the truth revealed in Christ?
I have to say, Josh, that I don't understand your position. Your original statement was, "If the God of the OT looks ugly, it is because he is taking on the sin of an ugly humanity, in order that his people will be drawn closer to him." Now you point to what you classify as the ugliness of God, referring not to God taking on the sin of an ugly humanity in the way that Christ took the sin of humanity, but more of God taking on the sin of an ugly humanity by engaging in it. If the ugliness of God in your perspective is Him taking on the sin of an ugly humanity, by that you mean He sinned just as ugly as humans do? Whether or not I properly understood you, it would appear that the concept of a truly good and loving God in the Old Testament is false and that your view necessarily includes an offensive deity remedied in some way by Christ.
I know of no instance where God had His followers sacrifice their children. The account of Judges 11 does not include any such command from God or any approval by God (and commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are not convinced Jephthah actually killed his daughter--many suggest he merely "sacrificed" her by having her remain a virgin for life). And it makes me somewhat sad that what God considers justice you consider ... ugly. Oddly, the largest portion of Scripture dedicated to the descriptives of the eternal torment of sinners is provided by Jesus in the Gospels. How do I reconcile God's judgment of sinners in the Old Testament with the truth revealed by Christ in the New? They seem completely consistent. And when my "ideals" contradict the ideals I find in Christ and His Father, I find I need to revise my ideals.
More importantly (to the topic at hand), you do actually argue that Christ in the New Testament contradicted and repudiated His Father in the Old Testament. And you don't have a problem with that. That I find baffling.
You really associate all those things as commands from God? Even though He explicitly forbade all but one of those you listed? No wonder you have such an odd view of the difference between Old and New Testament.
I will address your "more importantly" portion. It is obvious that Christ did change the teachings in the OT, or at the very least bring about a new way to view them. This is exactly the case with the Law and Christ fulfilling the Law.
Why do you have a problem with Christ bringing a new more perfect way forward? Showing us a previously unknown revelation of what God is like?
Another example is God commanding genocide in 1 Samuel 15:3, and Jesus telling us to love our enemies. Explain to me how these are not in conflict.
One final question. Is it your contention that God commanding infants to be dashed to pieces in front of their parents, shows us a picture of God's justice?
I have a problem with it when Jesus said it would never pass away (as I said in the post). I have a problem with it when Jesus said, "I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment—what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49). "Oh, that's okay," the Father says, "I got it wrong before, so you correct it now, Son." Not working for me. I have a problem with it when Jesus said, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:19). God was wrong in the past and now He has figured out the right way. He is not immutable (removing any confidence that He won't change again in the future or any suggestion that He is perfect).
I handled that "genocide" question already. It's called "Justice". If you understand the command of Jesus to "love your enemies" as a nullification of God's justice, then you are a universalist, right?
The odd thing is that the longer we discuss this stuff, the farther apart we are. I believe in historical, orthodox Christianity. God has certain characteristics like Omniscience, Sovereignty, Immutability, and so on, all characteristics that you dispute. The problem between God and Man is Justice, a characteristic that you dispute. And now you are arguing against the doctrine of Original Sin. After awhile I begin to wonder what of historical Christian orthodoxy you do hold to.
David,
Did you even read the texts? These are the words of God or prophets writing about God. I am sure you are right that God condemns these things, but there it is in writing that he is commanding it as well. What do you do with that?
Stan,
By immutable you mean God never changes, and you interpret that to mean his commandments would always be the same. I believe that God never changes, but his unchanging nature could require him to change his response based on other things that have changed. (An example being that we, as Christians, are now part of the Kingdom of God that is not of this earth. We are called to act differently than when God was using the Jewish people and Israel as His earthly nation. God still uses earthly nations to exact justice, but this is not something his Kingdom people are called to take part in.)
I do not dispute the characteristics of God, I just define them differently than you. When have I argued against original sin? Is it because I think infanticide is wrong and unjust?
I don't know what David does with that, but when I read a command of God that violates my sense of right and wrong, I have to adjust my sense of right and wrong, not adjust God.
And I agree that God's course through history (either long term or just in my days) wavers about (appears to change), but I hold that He doesn't change because 1) He is already perfect and 2) He is actually Omniscient so the "changes" are simply in my perception, not in His plans or, more importantly, in His principles or nature.
And what I said was not that you deny the character of God, but that you deny the longstanding understanding of God's people through the history of the Church about that character.
Oh, and if you believe in Original Sin, then the notion that children are sinners, too, is a given. I believe that when David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies," (Psa 58:3), he meant it, and having had children of my own, I've seen it myself. So to me the idea that God would order the deaths of children isn't surprising in view of the horror of sin and the perfection of His justice. The surprising part is that anyone still lives.
I don't know what David does with that, but when I read a command of God that violates my sense of right and wrong, I have to adjust my sense of right and wrong, not adjust God.
And I agree that God's course through history (either long term or just in my days) wavers about (appears to change), but I hold that He doesn't change because 1) He is already perfect and 2) He is actually Omniscient so the "changes" are simply in my perception, not in His plans or, more importantly, in His principles or nature.
And what I said was not that you deny the character of God, but that you deny the longstanding understanding of God's people through the history of the Church about that character.
Oh, and if you believe in Original Sin, then the notion that children are sinners, too, is a given. I believe that when David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies," (Psa 58:3), he meant it, and having had children of my own, I've seen it myself. So to me the idea that God would order the deaths of children isn't surprising in view of the horror of sin and the perfection of His justice. The surprising part is that anyone still lives.
Judges 11 not a command from God, 1 Sam 15 command for punishment, Isaiah 13 not a command, but a promise for punishment
Hosea 13 again not a command but promise of punishment. 1 Sam 13 doors not conflict with love your neighbor because nations aren't commanded to love their neighbors, individuals are. Nations are God's tool for earthly justice. The command to kill those people wasn't anger or hatred or some other emotion, it was punishment for their sins.
David, God commanded Israel to carry out His judgment on the Amalekites. "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Sam 15:2-3).
God's command for judgment and justice does not violate any "love thy neighbor" command any more than God's other punishments for sin do.
Not a disagreement, but a clarification.
Josh, I'll tell you what's somewhat frightening to me in all this. You're willing to stand back and say, "God was wrong when He ..." That really scares me. That takes an arrogance I can't fathom. My standard response is either, "Well, I guess I can see why ..." or "I'm not really clear why, but it must have been a good reason", never "He was wrong." You can go there. I can't. Let alone "and Jesus straightened Him out."
I am not saying "God was wrong..." I am saying, through the revelation of Christ, what God appeared to be doing/commanding/promising must have been misunderstood.
Here is an analogy. A missionary might move into a culture that is accustomed to the brutal tradition of female circumcision. In order that they can build relationships with the people in this culture, and bring them closer to Christ, they may not immediately speak out against this practice. From the outsider's perspective it may seem like they are agreeing that the practice is appropriate, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. In time, when the truth is revealed, the outsider could see the intentions behind their actions.
Christ reveals the truth behind God's actions in the OT. His plan from all time has been to reconcile the world to himself, and set up his Kingdom through the redemptive work of our King Jesus Christ.
I suppose that's a nice approach, Josh, but it doesn't quite work. We have the Bible saying that God commanded Saul to wipe out a particular group of Amalekites as an act of God's retribution. Men, women, children, goats, everything. You say this is wrong, bad, evil. And Jesus offers a correction. You can't say, "God was not wrong" and we're just under a misconception ... unless you say the text was wrong. "God didn't actually command anything like it. The Old Testament is not a reliable document."
In which case the corrective applied by Christ is indeed to nullify the Old Testament as a faulty document.
And, of course, if "His plan from all time has been to reconcile the world to himself", has He failed? Because while He reconciles some, He hasn't reconciled all. And if His plan to reconcile all and Jesus claimed some would be sent to eternal torment, is God evil for that? Because based on your position it looks like you have to claim He would be or hold to universal salvation.
So, God is a missionary and is too afraid of us rejecting Him to tell us the truth outright, and humanity was way worse 6000 years ago compared to today? You're off the mind that people have more interaction with Good now than they did then? Somehow we are better able to understand God at the time of Christ than we were at the time of Creation? Sorry, I do not hold to the "everyone is basically good" philosophy. Without God, we are always wicked. If anything, we are more wicked now than we were 2000 years ago. I mean, even 50 years ago you always hear about how families were able to leave their house unlocked at night. If we were getting "better" we would be more safe, not less.
Post a Comment