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.

jericho

Reading the Bible “by Faith”

The cruciform approach to reading the Bible—and specifically the culturally-conditioned and sin-stained portraits of God—requires faith on the part of the reader, which I argue in Crucifixion of the Warrior God. On one level we can discern by faith that often times God broke through the limitations and sin of the ancient authors, for we find divine portraits that, to one degree or another, reflect the character of God revealed in Christ. On another level we must discern by faith that God appropriated the limitations and sin of the authors God “breathed” through, for we find divine portraits that, to one degree or another, anticipate the ugliness of the sin-bearing, God-forsaken criminal on the cross. Of course, I am painting with broad brush strokes. In reality, most portraits in the Old Testament are Christ-like to a certain extent and reflect the culturally conditioned and sin-stained humanity of their authors to a certain extent.

To the extent that a divine portrait reflects the character of Christ, it may be regarded as a direct revelation of God’s character. For as with the teachings and actions of Christ, the content of this type of divine portrait directly reflects God’s true, Christ-like character. Conversely, to the extent that a divine portrait conflicts with the character of Christ, it must be regarded as an indirect revelation of God. This calls for a different kind of faith. For as with Christ when he bore our sins and took on the semblance of a guilty, God-forsaken criminal, the content of this type of divine portrait reflects the limitations and sin of God’s covenantal people more than it does his true character.

Along the same lines, as with the sin-bearing Christ on the cross, the indirect revelatory content of this type of divine portrait must be located not at the level of appearances, but in what happened behind these appearances, in what could be called the “meta-dimension” of these appearances. To put the matter in slightly different terms, we only discern the character of God on Calvary when, by faith, we look through the grotesque appearance of this guilty criminal and discern in the depth of this event the unfathomably merciful God stooping to this unthinkable level. We can discern the true character of God in OT divine portraits that look like standard ANE portraits of warrior deities when we, by faith, look through the barbaric appearances to discern the unfathomably merciful God stooping to this unthinkable level.

As such, to the extent that any OT portraits reflects the limited and sinful humanity of God’s people, and insofar as we discern the limited and sinful humanity of God’s people in any other aspect of Scripture, we may discern a harbinger and type of the cross. The same faith that enables us to discern the self-sacrificial God in the depth dimension of the limited and fallen “criminal” who hung on the cross is the faith that enables us to discern the self-sacrificial God in the depth dimension of Scripture’s violent portraits of Yahweh, as well as every other aspect of Scripture that reflects the limited and sinful humanity of its authors. And all of this, I submit, bears witness to the unfailing covenantal love of God.

Image: Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Ms-5211 réserve, fol. 69v.

Related Reading

Podcast: Would a Loving God Create a Box that Killed Anyone Who Touched It?

Greg discusses the Ark of the Covenant and it’s strange and violent nature.  http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0266.mp3

Why a “Christocentric” View of God is Inadequate: God’s Self-Portrait, Part 5

I’m currently working through a series of blogs that will flesh out the theology of the ReKnew Manifesto, and I’m starting with our picture of God, since it is the foundation of everything else. So far I’ve established that Jesus is the one true portrait of God (See: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).…

Modern Theologians and the Centrality of Christ

During the twentieth century the development of a Christocentric reading of the Scriptures—which is crucial to understanding what I argue in Crucifixion of the Warrior God—surged in the wake of Karl Barth’s publication of his Romans commentary in 1916. It was justifiably described as a “bombshell” that fell “on the playground of the theologians,” demolishing…

How do you respond to Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus”?

Question: I just read Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus and it’s sort of rocked my world. How can we believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word when we don’t even know what the original Bible said? Answer: I actually went to graduate school with Bart Ehrman (at Princeton). We used to smoke pipes together up…

Changing Beliefs

Stephen Mattson is a follower of ReKnew and a member of Woodland Hills Church who posted a piece on Sojourners titled Christians: It’s NOT a Sin to Change Your Beliefs. He points out that doubt and questions are a natural and needed part of any Christian’s life, and our community needs to change the ways we…

Crucifixion of the Warrior God (Official Trailer)

Video by Rex Harsin