We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Yahweh as the Dark Knight

Yahweh as the Dark Knight

I recently received an interesting analogy for The Crucifixion of the Warrior God from Aaron Reini. Thank you Aaron!

In the final scene of “The Dark Knight,” Batman and Commissioner Gordon are standing over Harvey Dent, whom everyone in Gotham City looks up to as a hero, but whom the Joker had turned into a secret villain appropriately named “Two Face.” Batman and Gordon have just learned that Dent is responsible for a trail of destruction and the death of five citizens. Yet, if the citizens of Gotham discover the tragic truth about Dent’s villainous identity, it will unravel all the good work that had been done in his name and could have dire consequences for the city.

Then Batman has an idea. Watch the scene above.

Awesome, heh? Because Batman sees that the citizens of Gotham City need to believe Dent was a hero, and because he is willing to appear to be “whatever Gotham needs me to be,” Batman, who is Gotham City’s real hero, is willing to take on the appearance of the villain who carried out the atrocities that Dent brought about. In short, Batman’s love for his people leads him to appear guilty of Dent’s crimes and to thus become Gotham City’s Dark Knight.

The analogy of course isn’t perfect (analogies never are), but it captures an important aspect of my thesis in Crucifixion of the Warrior God. Like Batman, the cross reveals a God who has always been willing to appear to be whatever his fallen people need him to be. His love for his people, and his refusal to coerce people into embracing true conceptions of him, frequently led God to appear guilty of crimes that were actually committed by other human or angelic agents.

For example, when his fallen and culturally conditioned people needed to believe Yahweh demanded and enjoyed animal sacrifices, Yahweh humbly stooped to allow them to view him this way, which is why he takes on the appearance of a typical ANE sacrifice-demanding deity within the biblical narrative.

So too, when his people proved incapable of trusting a God who could accomplish his goals non-violently and needed to instead believe Yahweh was a more ferocious violent warrior god than the gods of the other nations, Yahweh humbly stooped to take on the appearance of a rather typical ANE warrior deity who commands and engages in violence. All the violence that OT authors ascribe to Yahweh was actually carried out by human or angelic agents, as their own writings usually make clear. But his ancient people weren’t yet in a place where Yahweh could free them from their assumption that attributing violence to God is the highest form of praise. And so God bears their sinful conception of him and thus takes on an appearance that reflects the ugliness of this sin.

In short, the cross is the quintessential expression of God as our dark knight. To be the loving knight who watches over us and saves us, he must, like Batman, be willing to take on appearances that are acclimated to our darkness.

Ps. If you have other good movie or literary analogies that illustrate the thesis of Crucifixion of the Warrior God, I appreciate seeing them. Please send them to editor@reknew.org. At some point down the road I’d like to compile them into a single resource for people to view.

Pss. Nanny McPhee is already taken. ;-)

Related Reading

A Cross-Centered Evaluation of Responses to Tragedy

I’d like to pick up where I left off on my previous post about Draper’s article entitled “Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief.” Toward the end of his article, Draper reports on an informal survey conducted by Stephen Prothero on his CNN Blog. Prothero simply asks people to respond to the question: “Where…

Did God Give Violent Laws? A Response to Paul Copan (#13)

In his critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in November, Paul Copan takes issue with my contention that the violent dimension of OT laws reflects God accommodating the fallen and culturally conditioned perspectives of his people at this time. In my view, God was stooping to…

Podcast: How Do You Teach a Cruciform Hermeneutic from the Pulpit?

Greg talks about infallibility and inerrancy.  http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0281.mp3

The Heavenly Missionary

In his second sermon introducing the ideas in Crucifixion of the Warrior God, Greg suggests a metaphor to help us frame the things we encounter in the Old Testament that seem at odds with the God we find in the life and death of Jesus. God is a heavenly missionary who stoops to accommodate our…

Is the Bible History?

Even though I argued for interpreting the final form of the biblical canon as opposed to using the history behind the text in my post yesterday, I am not endorsing the radical post-modern view that biblical texts possess “semantic autonomy” and thus lack any historical referentiality. While I have no problem whatsoever accepting that God used folklore and myth…

The Starting Point for “Knowing God”

While it makes sense that Hellenistic philosophers embraced knowledge of God as the simple, necessary and immutable One in an attempt to explain the ever-changing, composite, contingent world (see post here for what this means), it is misguided for Christian theology to do so. By defining knowledge of God’s essence over-and-against creation, we are defining God’s essence…