Abstract
In this two-volume work, Boyd offers a strategy for interpreting violent portraits of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. Boyd problematizes these images because: (1) Boyd believes God has forbidden violence; and (2) Boyd believes God inspired the Bible, including the passages in which God is depicted as violent. Thus, the obvious tension is the seeming incongruity between God requiring pacifism, and God also being depicted as violent in God-inspired texts. Boyd’s solution is his ‘Cruciform Hermeneutic’ and ‘Cruciform Thesis’, which are covered in Volume 1 and Volume 2 respectively.
The Cruciform Hermeneutic is Boyd’s method of interpretation. This interpretive method filters all violent portraits of God through the lens of the crucifixion. Boyd argues that the cross ‘gives us a perspective of God’s character that is superior to what the people in the OT had’ (p. xxxiv) and, therefore, with the crucifixion as a filter, one has a better understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than even the authors of those same texts. Boyd develops this argument in three parts: in part one, he provides evidence to support his claim that the cross is the ‘ultimate criterion’ for biblical interpretation. In part two, Boyd explores others’ approaches to the problem of violence in the Hebrew Scriptures. And finally, in part three, Boyd gives further nuance to his Cruciform Hermeneutic, and situates his interpretive method within the larger historical context of Christian theological reflection.
Then, in Volume 2, Boyd develops the Cruciform Thesis, which, in Boyd’s words, ‘is simply my label for what we find when we read the OT with this [cruciform] hermeneutic’ (p. xxxviii). The thesis can be summarized as follows: Boyd believes that there is ‘something else going on’ behind the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and this ‘something else’ can explain the violent images of God without conceding that God is ever violent. This thesis is divided into four principles: the Principle of Cruciform Accommodation; the Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal; the Principle of Cosmic Conflict; and the Principle of Semiautonomous Power. Boyd concludes that, when taken together, these four principles equip readers to reinterpret violent pictures of God through the cross and to discover the ‘something else going on’ behind the text.
While these volumes were thought-provoking, and while Boyd probes some interesting questions, I have a number of concerns about this text; I will mention three here.
My first concern is Boyd’s failure to clearly define ‘violence’ or explore theories of violence. In such an expansive text on violence, it would have been wise to allocate at least one chapter to this topic. Unfortunately, Boyd never clarifies what constitutes violence, and he gives attention only to selected forms of physical violence; the implication of this is that violence is always physical aggression. This raises questions. For example, when Yoder, who is positively referenced throughout this work, sexually abused women for decades, were the non-physical aspects of Yoder’s abuse not violence? If one of the women resisted Yoder in a physical way, would that have been violence? Again, Boyd’s failure to explore what constitutes ‘violence’ and his exclusive attention to physical violence obscures the many ways in which violence is experienced. To his credit, Boyd provides a brief footnote stating that Yoder had ‘moral failures’ that Boyd does not affirm. But, instead of a vague footnote, this could have been the ideal moment to explore the complexity of violence, rather than citing Yoder as one who is ‘on the mark’ for stating that the ‘ancient Hebrew model’ of a violent God produces violent people. Yoder’s own violence discredits this point.
A second concern is this text’s potential for supporting supersessionism. Boyd does address supersessionism in his appendix, and states that he is opposed to anti-Semitism. However, many statements in the body of this text present the ancient Jews as violent, ridiculous and ill equipped to interpret their own texts and their own faith. Additionally, many statements seem to assert the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. Having a short section in the appendix on supersessionism did not balance this.
A third concern is Boyd’s inconsistency in applying various hermeneutical principles for the sake of being sensational. For example, he states, ‘how can we possibly reconcile the God revealed in Christ, who expressed profound love for children…with the OT portrait of God bringing judgment on his people by having parents cannibalize their own children (Lev 26:28–29; Jer 19:7, 9; Lam 2:20; Ezek 5:9–10)?’ (p. xxviii). Even a cursory reading of those referenced passages in context reveals that Boyd’s description here is grossly misleading. No attention is given to genre, historical setting, culture, literary context, authorial intent, literary devices, or any other hermeneutical considerations. However, at other points Boyd spends significant space meticulously exegeting other texts; an example is his exegesis of Job in Volume 2. Boyd’s ability to do this with Job demonstrates that he is capable of complex exegetical work, which leads me to believe that the other kinds of instances are merely for sensationalism rather than due to ignorance. This selective treatment of the text is frustrating and disappointing.
Overall, Boyd raises some interesting questions in this work, but I did not find it compelling.