The Marcion Option

Still reconnoitering the book I was struck by this in the intro to chapter 3 (93-4), I find it difficult to see how he can defend the claim whilst reading passages like Mat 5:17ff. or Luke 16:14ff.:

[T]he NT as a whole understands Jesus to be the supreme revelation of God that culminates and supersedes all others.

The word “supersedes” seems to me Marcionite, and in direct contradiction to what Boyd has argued elsewhere. I’ll have to see what he really means when I look closer. (On similar grounds to claims that when Paul appears to deny women’s teaching ministry in church settings he cannot mean this as it contradicts his practice elsewhere, I will need to look for other ways to understand what Boyd is saying…

Marcion redivivus?

I begin to understand why Boyd has been accused of Marcionism when I read at the start of chapter 8:

The problem of relating the Old and New Testaments is as old as the church itself, and the incongruity of the OT’s violent divine portraits with the nonviolent, self-sacrificial, enemy-embracing agape-love of God revealed in the crucified Christ represents the apex of this challenge.

Gregory A. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2. Fortress Press, 2017, 335.
Though his subsequent remarks make clear how far such is from his intention. Such thoughts, as I continue my initial reconnaissance of the books, are beginning both to shape some questions for my review to try to answer, and yet at the same time make me impatient to see (in book two I assume) more details of his approach to a solution.

The experience of reviewing ‘The Crucifixion of the Warrior God’


Gregory A. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2. Fortress Press, 2017.

This is not a book review. I will be writing a review of The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, but this is not it. This post will reflect on the experience of reviewing this work, it is a sort of meta-review. Any that follow it may continue this reflection, or may address my responses to aspects of Boyd’s argument that interest me. I do not expect either of these things will appear in the review when I write it.

The book is enormous, two volumes nearly 1500 pages, seven sections six of which are themselves the size of small books. The work also addresses what is evidently one of the key “conundrums” for early 21st century Christians. Reconciling the texts of terror that appear to depict God as delighting in or commanding indiscriminate violence with the way of love revealed supremely in Christ. Extreme ‘solutions’ are sometimes proposed (at least on Facebook, but sometimes in more rarefied academic circles). Some suggest removing chunks of the Bible (most simply, but in the end not effectively, the Marcionite one Testament Bible). 1 Not effective since the NT also contains its own texts of terror. Others harmonise Scripture with their theology by the claim that, since God is God, whatever God commands is right and just. 2 Whether this is true or not, it is not helpful. Since it risks replacing a God who is wrong with one who is a monster.

The book has powerful claims made for it before we reach the contents list. A large number of prominent biblical scholars and theologians (mainly from the Evangelical end of the scholarly spectrum) endorse Boyd’s work as ground-breaking, insightful and revolutionary.

My review will probably need to offer less than one word per page, so I will not be able to give much of an overview. Better scholars than me have evaluated it as important even seminal, so my review will not be evaluative. I think what I can realistically, and I hope helpfully, aim for is to assists people to decide if this is a book they should invest the time to address. 3 It only costs US$60, so the per page or per inch of shelf-space cost is very low! But at 1445 pages 1250 if you leave off the appendices, and perhaps only some 700 if you overlook the footnotes ;) it demands a considerable investment of time. 

Notes   [ + ]

1. Not effective since the NT also contains its own texts of terror.
2. Whether this is true or not, it is not helpful. Since it risks replacing a God who is wrong with one who is a monster.
3. It only costs US$60, so the per page or per inch of shelf-space cost is very low! But at 1445 pages 1250 if you leave off the appendices, and perhaps only some 700 if you overlook the footnotes ;) it demands a considerable investment of time. 

Learn Hebrew or Greek at home

The indefatigable Jim West is offering private tuition in Hebrew and/or Greek to anyone who is interested in learning to read the Bible (and probably lots of hard work – learning languages is fun, useful and inspiring, but always hard work.

Jim is thoroughly non-accredited and does not offer any diploma or certificate so only those who want to learn need apply!

Marshall, Vanhoozer, and the Canaanite genocide

Genocide memorial by Scott Chacon

Near the heart of Marshall’s plea, for a principled way to “go beyond the Bible” biblically, is the issue of genocide. The apparent approval (or even command) from Yahweh of genocide seems incompatible with divinity. Like Marshall, many/most/all(?) who think about this issue from a time after the attempted genocides of the 20th Century, feel genocide would make the godhead a demon. The Turkish massacres of Armenians, German attempts to eradicate “the Jewish problem”, Idi Amin’s cleansing of Uganda of Asians, the frighteningly human brutality in Rwanda, the mass graves of the Balkans, the killing fields of Cambodia and other sometimes less reported horrors have sensitised us to these stories in ways which our ancestors in the Faith did not find so troublesome.

This is a key point that Vanhoozer attacks in his response to Marshall. This issue was the third Marshall raised in making his plea:

…where teaching is given, particularly in the Old Testament, that seems more like “cruder notions” to be abandoned than “the foundation for later revelation.” The divine approval (expressed or tacit) of genocide in certain situations is an obvious and disturbing example. 1 I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 30.

Vanhoozer’s critique is sharp and pointed:

Marshall wants Christians to get beyond genocide. So do I. But I’m not prepared to say that God’s judgement of the world, or of nations, is “intrinsically wrong” if it involves killing people. Marshall is doing more than “reconsidering”, it seems to me, when he says that we “can no longer think of God in that way”. Unless we are prepared to jettison significant portions of the Old Testament (or to revise their meaning in the light of contemporary sensitivities), this way of going beyond Scripture has more of Marcion than of Marshall about it. For it really is not about numbers. If Marshall is to be consistent, he should say that God does not have the right to take a single life. After all that is unacceptable human behaviour, and we cannot justify God “by saying that he is free to act differently from believers”. On the contrary, I think we must say that God is indeed free to act differently from believers. The Creator is bound not by the laws that he has imposed upon creation, but by his own nature… Finally, if we are shocked by images of judgement, what are we to make of the Cross? 2 Ibid, 85.

It seems to me that Vanhoozer’s neat sidestep here (which also seems typical of “divine command” theorists) will not work. The issue is not whether God should be held to the same standards we would use for believers, though that issue may be less cut and dried than it might seem. Rather the issue is genocide. By its nature genocide attempts (even when unsuccessful and bungled) indiscriminate killing. Or rather, it discriminates, but only on grounds of race, ethnicity, or geographical proximity, and not on any moral criterion.

The question Vanhoozer ought to be addressing is not: may God commit acts that are rightly forbidden to creatures, but rather is indiscriminate killing an attribute of Godhead. In particular (since this discussion is among Christian believers) is indiscriminate killing an attribute consistent with the godhead revealed in Christ crucified.

Notes   [ + ]

1.  I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 30.
2.  Ibid, 85.

Beyond the Bible: Biblical principles

Living in new circumstances means going beyond the Bible, biblically.

In his first two lectures Marshall set the scene for the need and possibility of “going beyond the Bible”. In particular he established that we have in fact felt the need to go beyond Scripture, and so showed the need for principled and understood ways of doing this. He also showed that there is within the Bible a development of doctrine in differing contexts.

In the third lecture he begins to really get to grips with how we may biblically go beyond the Bible. Here he shows that when doctrine develops within Scripture we can identify not merely “diversity” but also “greater maturity” 1 For this language see notably his conclusion, I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 78. (though he resists equating this as an evolution in which later texts are always more advanced).

He also shows that Scripture is in some ways “incomplete” both because the teaching is occasional (that is addressed to specific circumstances) and because far future circumstances are not directly addressed. In showing this he also shows that there is continuity in these changes. Thus, speaking of change and of continuity in change, he is very close to the metaphor of a trajectory (which requires both change and continuity). Marshall uses this metaphor in describing the development of Christology into the Pastoral Epistles as an example of such development within Scripture. 2 Ibid, 73.

Finally he claims that “[d]evelopments in doctrine and new understandings after the closing of the canon are inevitable.” 3 Ibid, 78. But in order to affirm the authority of Scripture these must be in continuity with teaching in the Bible and must be discerned in accordance with “the mind of Christ”.

Notes   [ + ]

1. For this language see notably his conclusion, I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 78.
2. Ibid, 73.
3. Ibid, 78.

Act Four

Yet another interesting Vanhoozer quote. Here he makes very helpful corrections to N.T. Wright’s much quoted five act play (in which the fifth act is missing):

[E]ach of the five acts of the theodrama [is] set in motion by a divine act. Hence: creation, election of Israel, Christ, Pentecost and the church, consummation. On my dramatic reckoning, the church does not have to work out the ending so much as to live in its light.

Kevin Vanhoozer in Gary T. Meadors, Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. Harper Collins, 2009, 174.

Disciples of the Way performing the script: Vanhoozer again

When disciples find themselves in strange new territory, they Will spontaneously extend the pattern. It is but a small step from the notions of performing the world implied by the text and extending the pattern of Jesus Christ to that of improvising with a script.

Kevin Vanhoozer in Gary T. Meadors, Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. Harper Collins, 2009, 172.

Vanhoozer is rapidly convincing me that his performing the text metaphor, when mixed creatively with his disciples on the Way metaphor, captures much of what is best about talk of trajectories while (perhaps) avoiding the problems with that metaphor, and also (largely) avoiding the knee-jerk responses talk of trajectories seems to provoke.

More on Vanhoozer and metaphors of the hermeneutic task

Vanhoozer and dramatic interpretation

I confess. Around the turn of the century I used Kevin Vanhoozer’s brilliant Is There a Meaning in this Text? as a textbook in teaching a postgraduate course on hermeneutics. The book addresses complex ideas, but is written in such complex language that it is almost impossible to read. I have not paid the attention I should to his more recent work. (My excuse is that I have not taught hermeneutics at that level since that time.)

Yesterday I posted a brilliant two sentence quote. It not only shows that he has available a totally different writing style, but really resonates with me. As Jerry Shepherd  pointed out on Facebook Vanhoozer uses the quoted sentences in introducing his preferred metaphor, interpretation as the performance of a drama. This is a powerful and useful metaphor. Like all metaphors it fails as a complete analogy. It captures the communal nature of interpretation well, so long as each of us accepts being an actor and not the director! It also reflects the given nature of the text. It expresses really well the way in which faithful; interpretation in the 21stC must be different from a performance in the “author’s day”. However, on my early reading it fails to capture one essential aspect of faithful biblical interpretation.

Community and individuality

Faithful reading of the Bible is (almost) never an individual pursuit. Vanhoozer’s performance of a drama gives this powerful play, suggesting the distinct contribution to the whole each player is called to make. In doing this it also suggests a model for recognising when one player’s performance has become too different from the overall interpretation offered by the company that that player is failing.

The metaphor of a play, suggests also that only one performance is ‘correct’ for this company of players. This pictures nicely our experience of a Church divided (the Presbyterians form a different company from the Baptists…). Yet it suggests such companies of players are competitors.

The metaphor of the pilgrimage

Vanhoozer, at least in the little introduction focused on going ‘beyond the Bible’ 1 Gary T. Meadors, Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. Harper Collins, 2009. also used (in passing) the metaphor of a pilgrimage. I cited yesterday two sentences in which he encapsulates this understanding.

Having talked of the early description of the church as ‘followers of the way’, he wrote

The process of biblical interpretation is itself a means of discipleship. One cannot follow the way without following the way the words go.

This pilgrimage image has similar, but different, affordances. On a pilgrimage each group of pilgrims must follow a particular route. There may however be different routes that lead to the same destination. Just as there are different performances that are true to both play and the players’ context. On a pilgrimage there are routes that lead away from the destination, one should not follow these. Just as there are performances that are not true to the script-writer’s intentions. Though notice that in the drama model the standard is the script, while in the pilgrimage model the standard is the destination.

Notes   [ + ]

1. Gary T. Meadors, Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. Harper Collins, 2009.