The Crucifixion of the Warrior God

Boyd, Gegory A The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volume 1 and 2 Fortress Press, April 17, 2017

This mammoth contribution by Greg Boyd of over 1400 pages attempts to make sense of the violent portraits of God in the Bible by introducing a "cruciform hermeneutic" that helps reconcile the character of Jesus with the war like behaviour of God in the Old Testament. It is by far the most compelling argument that I have read for interpreting the biblical narratives of a war like God in our Scriptures.

In the first volume, Boyd presents the compelling cruciform hermeneutic that filters the violent portrait narratives of God in the Old Testament [OT] through the direct revelation of Jesus on the cross. Not forgoing a conservative hermeneutic of the Bible as the inspired word of God, Boyd takes his fellow Evangelicals to task for their inconsistency in holding up the character of Jesus - and particularly Jesus crucified - as the revelation by which the OT God as Father is assessed in the portrayals of the Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] OT writers. He [rightly in my opinion] criticizes the double tone of most Evangelicals who preach the love and mercy of the crucified Jesus and the holy vindictive and wrathful character of the OT God.

In the hermeneutical choices available to us, Boyd points out that there are three options he feels are not viable:

• We can all become Marcionites and completely ignore the OT Scriptures and its caricature of an angry God that cannot be reconciled with the peace loving merciful Jesus. 
• We can do what Peter Enns and others are doing by arbitrarily declaring  violent portrait narratives as not inspired or authoritative and so mess around with inspiration altogether. 
• Go on living with the tension of a wrathful God in the OT and a loving merciful expression of God in Jesus in the NT. 

Boyd says none of these three alternatives are appealing and so offers a fourth approach whereby the focal point of the Biblical narrative and the focus of the historical church becomes the working hermeneutic that helps make sense of each violent portrait narrative.  This focus is the direct revelation of Jesus who shows us the face of the Father and His overarching character of love through His suffering on the cross for the sin of humanity.  When we approach the violent narratives, this cruciform hermeneutic along with a continuing conservative hermeneutic of divinely inspired Scriptures, causes us to ask what is actually going on in these portraits and how can we reconcile them with the cruciform character of Jesus - the direct revelation of the Father. 

In this sense, Boyd sets up a canon within the canon paradigm of Jesus the Son of God as the measure by which all other inspired portraits of God are interpreted. A closer look at this reveals that the ANE OT writers were indirectly speaking of God [His actions and character] based on the knowledge of how ANE tribal gods behaved. In fact, by using these tribal descriptions and characteristics, they interpret events in their history identifying God as the cause and agent of suffering among Israel and the surrounding nations. They also associate the destructive behaviour of creation around them to the character of God Himself as their ANE counterparts did. 

Boyd points out that the evidence for this canon within a canon cruciform hermeneutic is the way the NT writers speak of Jesus and His communication of the Father and the character of the Father as contrary to the way He is portrayed in some of the OT scriptures - especially those of the violent portrait narrative type. Case in point is the calling down of fire by Jesus' disciples on a town where they were not well received, like Elijah did in the OT narrative, only to be chastised by Jesus for even considering that the Father do such a thing. Jesus informs them that this is outside the character of the Father. Such evidence as this in the NT narrative cause us to believe that what we read in the OT violent portraits of God are not accurately reflecting God's character as much as they reveal the understanding of the writers themselves. 

Drawing on hermeneutical approaches from early Church Fathers such as Origen, Boyd encourages the reader to consider that maybe what we are reading from these ANE OT writers is more allegorical than concrete depictions of what actually happened. He reminds us that allegory in ANE literature has an underlying truth to it that is derived by reconsidering at face value what is written for a search of a much deeper meaning. It is this aspect of interpretation that Boyd says we should consider borrowing in using the cruciform hermeneutic to interpret the behaviour of God in the OT. 

As he mentions toward the end of his second volume, the one worthy to open the scroll - as John the Revelator writes - is Jesus - the lamb who suffered and was slain for the sin of mankind. Only He can unlock the mystery by which the biblical story speaks of God. Refusing to let Jesus open the truth within the indirect revelations of the OT concerning God and his character is to forgo Jesus as the direct revelation of God to us. He says this in his summative pages at the end of the second volume: 

"Indeed, if we fail to fully trust the revelation of the crucified Christ and thereby credit ancient authors who depicted God in violent ways with getting it right, we are essentially trading the unclouded revelation of the Son, who alone is 'the radiance of God's glory' and 'the exact representation of God's being (Heb. 1:3), for the cloudy perspective of ancient authors who could only catch 'glimpses of the truth' (Heb. 1:1 Phillips). And among the many unfortunate consequences of this tragic exchange is that we now cannot discern how these authors' cloudy portraits of God bear witness to the crucified Christ, as Jesus taught that all Scripture is supposed to do."  p. 1252. 

In the second volume, Boyd unveils four working principles of God's behaviour and character as the working elements that appear when the cruciform hermeneutic and conservative view of Scripture's inspiration is applied to interpreting the violent OT portraits of God. The first is the principle of Divine Accommodation. Like a "non coercive heavenly missionary who accommodates to the primitive understanding of his people's fallen cultural condition," so God is willing to accommodate to Israel's distorted views of Him in order to be in relationship with them so that over time they may come to know who He truly is. God accommodates to the inaccurate sinful fallen imagery Israel has of him so that he can continue remaining connected and over time teach them about who He truly is. 

The second principle is that of Redemptive Withdrawal, where God has done all he can to draw people to him but to no avail as his efforts are met with further alienation. In this context, God withdraws his presence and involvement with the hope that by further alienation Israel will actually return to Him as they feel the full brunt of evil without God's protection or intervention. The third principle tends to work in tandem with the second as it is clear that there is a Cosmic Conflict that God is involved in that predates creation and humanity whereby He has been involved in a war versus other heavenly beings, some who have rebelled and others that haven't made up their mind yet and are in a neutral position as to where their allegiance is. God, from the beginning of time, has been keeping evil at bay - subduing the chaotic forces of this fallen world and bringing peace and calm. God is a controlling force in the creation where He keeps evil forces restrained from reeking havoc on the creation. His non-coercive and un-constricted power uses what Boyd calls an "Aikido like" warfare of non-violence that actually causes evil to implode on itself. This is seen in how Jesus conquers evil by suffering and dying on the cross and so causing the anger of evil to undermine itself through the violence it lashes out on Jesus. That very violence becomes the means by which evil itself is defeated. There are moments in the OT narrative where God actually withdraws His restraining of evil and its activity in the creation to allow evil to lash out punishment on itself. Like God who tamed the chaotic forces of the sea actually lets those forces loose and by doing so allows those very forces to defeat the Egyptian army that was pursuing the Hebrew people in order to reroute Israel's escape from Egypt. 

The fourth principle is that of Semi autonomous Power whereby God lends his power to people and artifacts so that they can independently make decisions on how to use such power. This principle makes sense of the narratives that speak of human agents of God using His power in violent ways such as Elijah's cloak used by Elijah and Elisha for lashing out violently or when the Ark of the Covenant is taken captive and misused and so incurring injury and death to those that attempted to use it contrary to God's own will and so inconsistent with His loving and protective character.  It's like the power of God that resided in Moses' staff and how Moses took that power hostage and used it to reflect his own personal anger when he struck the rock so that Israel could drink fresh water. 

These four principles help make sense of why sometimes God is portrayed as being very violent by ANE OT writers. In an analogy that is very helpful, Boyd speaks of a hypothetical encounter of having seen his wife slap a homeless man on the street as he watched the scene unfold from the other side of the street. It is completely out of character to what he knows about his wife and it forces him to consider that there must be some other logical explanation as to why she behaved that way even though the behaviour is contrary to what he knows about his wife. Later he finds out that she was involved in an undercover operation to uncover the evil plot of a terrorist cell posing as homeless men on the street. The visual cue for his wife to give FBI agents was to slap the man in the face whom she knew was not actually a homeless man even though he was acting like one outside the shelter where she volunteered hundreds of hours helping the homeless in their city. 

Boyd points out that we have to approach God the same way he approached that event he witnessed his wife in. Knowing that God's character is directly revealed to us through what we know of Jesus in his crucifixion, we need to discover what the underlying truth is to the event that on the surface seems rather cruel and violent. Taking the cruciform hermeneutic and conservative view of Scripture's inspiration, Boyd presents what I think is a very viable approach to actually bringing a continuity to the biblical narrative through the controlling hermeneutic of the person and mission of Jesus and applying it to the violent portraits of God accounted for in the OT to make sense of them in Jesus rather than strictly through the indirect notions and interpretations of the OT writers themselves. For Boyd, this does not diminish inspiration but actually sets it in its proper context as God has chosen the Scriptures to come to us. In my scholarly career, I have yet to read anyone else who has given us as viable a picture as Boyd has in making sense of the violence of God in the Biblical narrative. Do yourself a favour and take the time to read these two volumes for yourself and decide after that whether to consider the proposal in its pages a viable alternative. 

James K. Smith Thinking in Tongues

James K Smith Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy Eerdmans, 2010

In this uniquely titled and intriguing look at Pentecostal practise and experience, James K. Smith ventures to build a case for the reality of a Pentecostal philosophy that proposes another real way that people look out on life in matters of faith and worldview. Using the encouraging challenge of Alvin Plantinga in daring to construct a Christian philosophy, Smith vies for the same challenge in constructing a Pentecostal philosophy that gives a framework for how to understand the world around us related to what we know and experience over against other competing philosophies.

The valuable contribution to pentecostal perspectives in this volume is how Smith outlines an overview of what a Pentecostal philosophy holds as its main belief markers. Rather than centering it on the evidence of glossolalia that historically Pentecostals themselves have used to define their unique existence and contribution, Smith offers the broader markers within which glossolalia is but a part:

• Radical openness to God
• An 'enchanted' theology of creation and culture [the Spirit's work in the world]
• A non dualistic affirmation of embodiment and materiality [seen in emphasis on physical healing]
• An affective, narrative epistemology [akin to the early church]
• An eschatological orientation to mission and justice (page 12)

This framework is woven from personal stories of Pentecostals that Smith has witnessed. These stories provide a launching point to build a case for the legitimacy of each philosophical belief marker and its viability in offering an alternative explanation to the common structures that interpret the phenomena around us. Of particular note is Smith's insistence that Pentecostals do not so much believe that God by His Spirit intrudes onto our natural existence but is very much a part of our present world both involved through sustaining and transforming in keeping with the initial divine intent. Moments of what others call "supernatural" are actually common occurrences of the Spirit's acceleration of His involvement in the lives of people in the natural order. (page 101) Rather than other philosophical perspectives that vie for the autonomy of nature, Smith emphasizes that a Pentecostal philosophy sees nature as dependent on the divine and so God involved as a participant along with humanity in the natural order. 

Smith also challenges philosophies that have drawn on a rational Cartesian focused understanding of the world by pointing out that a Pentecostal philosophy reminds the world that experience and interaction with the world also brings a sense of meaning and importance to it. This brings a more balanced anthropological involvement that is both rational and experiential and so expanding epistemology into a much broader perspective. Pentecostals expand their understanding beyond simple propositions understanding that their communal experience of God broadens their daily understanding. Akin to how the worship of the early believing communities encouraged the shaping of doctrine, Smith points out that in a Pentecostal philosophy doctrine is subsequent to worship and the experience of God in everyday life. (page 111)

Looking at Pentecostal experience as a "pre-canonical" understanding, Smith focuses on the tacit evidence of experiencing and knowing God and the world in ways that can't be necessarily articulated but are definitely resident in the participant and drawn out by the Spirit. [glossolalia being evidence that there is more going on than one knows in the immediate]  In this sense, a Pentecostal philosophy challenges the common notions of belief systems and canonical-theism in that the awareness of God is experienced prior to a full blown understanding. The focus here is to hint at more going on in the phenomena of experience than other philosophies realize or can articulate. This is something that Plantinga himself alludes to as an a-priori understanding resident in humanity. (page 120) This is also shades of the work that Michael Polanyi has done in his book Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy that T.F. Torrance draws on in his important work on The Ground and Grammar of Theology. Whether Smith is aware of these works, which I would be surprised if he wasn't, these are both worth the read to gain a broader view of what Smith mentions here. Torrance focuses on the need to use all references in our world, including language, numbers, art, poetry, symbols, and expressions to make sense of God and our experience of Him and the creation. 

Smith's final chapter focuses in on how glossolalia and xenolalia are the evidence - if not the key evidence - that there is more to our world than what we know and see. This phenomena in Pentecostal experience critiques the stagnant structures in a post-modern way that encourages a real reflection on truer paradigms that explain our reality. This "foreign speech of a coming kingdom" is reminding us that our world is not coming to an end but rather moving toward a better, fuller existence that honors the creation that is dependent on the divine. The foreign language gives us glimpses of more and so builds anticipation for more both now and in the future. 

As a Pentecostal, I appreciate the larger picture that Smith gives - the cartoon as he describes it - that gives the beginning of thinking about our reality and experience beyond the evidence toward a full blown cosmology that places us in a posture of looking toward the future in the experience of today. At the center of this Pentecostal philosophy is the understanding that God is integrally participant and involved in the shape and character of our world as it moves forward by His intent and desire. 

Letters from a Skeptic

Gregory Boyd; Ed Boyd Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this great collection of correspondence between a Christian son and his skeptic father. It was both an emotional and an extremely informative read. Letting us into their two years of correspondence, Greg and Ed Boyd share an intimate conversation over the truth of Christianity.

Ed, in his 70th year and Greg his son tackle the crucial questions that challenge Christian belief. In what at times seems unrelenting, Ed Boyd drives question after question regarding God, the Bible, the truth about Jesus and the Gospels, heaven and hell and everything in between. With a skillful and loving heart, Greg rebuttals his father's questions with thorough responses that leave the reader confident that Christianity can be believed with certainty. Both men are honest with both their questions and responses. The result leaves the reader satisfied that belief in Jesus is not a risk but a necessity given the evidence of what truthfully lies within the pages of the Bible.

I highly recommend this read to every believer as a necessary primer for living among doubters in our everyday world. Greg gives solid responses to the common questions that skeptics as that will cause you to go dig deeper and see things for what they are. Every theology student should read this book as an example of how to connect with unbelievers so that the conversation and friendship leads to conversion. There is nothing short of the Spirit working through this correspondence, bringing Ed closer and closer to faith with every question and response. The effectiveness lies in the already present relationship of respect and friendship, something that is necessary for the result that occurred.

Please give this book priority in your reading. You will be informed, encouraged, and equipped to share Christianity with others. There is even a study guide at the end to help you should you want to work with a group on the discussions found in the book.

Justification by N.T Wright

Wright N.T. Justification IVP Academic 2009.

After finally getting some time to read, I had the much anticipated experience of reading through Tom Wright's response to John Piper's critique of Wright's view on Justification. My reaction as I read the last page of the book was, "thanks Tom for your faithfulness, scholarship, insight, and care as a pastor and scholar, a true doctor of the church, in bringing, as you always do, a bigger picture to the issue of justification in Paul's letters."

Drawing on so much of his other work, Wright confirms once again [and yes you have been clear Tom] the Hebraic narratival background to Paul's theological point of view in relation to the appearance, life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. In particular, Wright points out repeatedly that to not read the Hebrew narrative [Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 30, Daniel 7 and 9, Isaiah 40ff] in the background of Paul's letters is to miss entirely what his intent is in the use of justification in building his arguments for the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. What one can appreciate is not only Wright's perspective on Paul, but also his perspective on the Gospels and the message inherent in them that gets a detailed explanation in the letter's of Paul.

Wright adamantly encourages us to see that justification and righteousness in Paul's writing is more than just [and Tom does not use this "just" lightly but with anticipation that as great as this is its part of something much greater] forgiveness of our sins so that we can get to heaven but God's cosmic plan for the rescue of His creation. Jesus is the Messiah of Old Testament narrative who fulfills God's plan-through-Israel-for-the-world. Solving the sin issue is part of this much larger goal of the Father. Having missed their calling as God's light to the nations, Israel has tried to wear Torah as their badge of belonging to God's people. Because of rebellion and disobedience [sin] Israel could not fulfill this belonging by its Torah observance [of which Wright points out is not keeping Torah perfectly but keeping Torah so as to qualify for membership in God's family]. By not fulfilling Torah they were also unable to be the light that shone God's purpose to the rest of humanity.

The sin issue of which many old perspective Reformed Scholars make as the primary issue, is solved by God the Father in the person of his Son who comes and is the true Israel - light to the nations - drawing humanity to the Father. Jesus' sacrifice provides forgiveness and justification [both present and future] so that both Israel and the other nations can now belong to God's family according to faith. This faith is encouraged and inspired in humanity by the Spirit working through declaration of the Good News to draw others to God. What was sin and death in the effort to keep Torah in order to belong [which by the way Wright points out was alienation both of Jew and Gentile given God's plan was to reach Gentiles through Jews]is now a "law of faith" as Paul puts it in Romans chapter eight, where the Spirit empowers humanity to fulfill Torah and belong to God's community.

Wright does not particularly fight for new perspective over old perspective but continually points out in the book examples in Paul's letters of how both old and new perspective theological implications come together in Paul [a clear example being Ephesians chapter two]. The focus is on covenant, which is affirmed through the verdict [lawcourt] of righteousness [covenant language, not moral merit language] based on Christology [the person of Jesus and His work] that produces a Soteriology that confirms the Eschatological Jewish hope renewed and expanded through the appearance of Jesus [and so Christology again]. This produces a robust and purposeful Eccliesology where the Spirit empowers the emerging new community of God's family to be the reconstituted Israel through whom God is reaching out as a light to the rest of humanity. The Eschatology also includes the recovery and renewal of the creation as well which is so clearly laid out by Paul in Romans chapter eight and Ephesians chapter two.

Wright points out what many have come to conclude: that the Reformers viewed Paul through their own personal experience of which they then read into Paul's letters and forged a paradigm that caused those who followed to see only what they saw. These blinders have been challenged over the years, not least by those in Jesus scholarship of the New Quest for Jesus where attention was returned to the Hebraic context of 1st century Palestine to make sense of the purpose of Jesus and his coming. This trickled through to Pauline studies as well and slowly began to challenge the reformed view of justification by faith alone as scholars used the Reformation slogan of semper reformanda [pg. 233] to look at Scripture with fresh eyes and let what the Spirit reveals to cause the reader to revisit theological constructs. Wright points out that this is not a "denying tradition" its place and importance in faith and practice but rather letting Scripture take an even more important role of evaluating our tradition as the Spirit allows us to grow in both our understanding and perspective.

For far too long, what Wright calls "some would-be Reformation theology" has been insufficiently trinitarian, creational and Israel-focused. [pg. 239] The creation of an "imputed righteousness" construct among old perspective scholars has diminished emphasis and focus in Paul's letters of the Spirit's role in helping humanity achieve a morality and obedience consistent with being in relationship with God. Anselm's soteriological construct of penal substitution behind the Reformers construction of their explanation of the significance of Christ's atonement has also, for far too long, been clouding our ability to see Paul for Paul. Wright also "rightly" [no pun intended] points out Augustine's shift from a relational based understanding of Trinity to a morally based foundation of relationship with God as another major shift that has affected and solidified the Reformed blinders to the greater construct Paul is sharing regarding God's goal for humanity.

In the style that is akin to his book The Climax of the Covenant, Wright takes a detailed journey once again through the pertinent passages in Paul that help to clarify what Paul is on about in regard to the significance of Christ and God's goal for the human race. Every student, pastor and scholar of Scripture must read this very important book that clarifies the perspective of Pauline theology that is both old and new and especially, as Wright puts it, the only way to read Paul so that all the jig-saw pieces come together in the puzzle of what Paul is communicating through his letters to his intended audience.

Love Wins

Rob Bell Love Wins Harper One, 2011

There was a lot of buzz these past few weeks surrounding the book by Rob Bell that supposedly caused some in our Evangelical community to right him off from our community. It strikes me as interesting to think that there are some in our Evangelical community who feel that they have the right and power to speak for all of us and right off someone like Rob Bell based on the notion that Rob has turned Universalist or has been a closet Universalist all along and now has publicly made it official with the release of his latest book, Love Wins.  For those self-proclaimed watch dogs, my request is, "Would you kindly speak for yourself and let me make my own decision about Rob and his book!"

Typical to my expectations when I pick up a book or audio book by Rob Bell, I know I'm going to find a well thought out and challenging presentation of Christianity.  Love Wins does not disappoint the reader. Bell has layed out some very crucial questions about heaven, hell, what Jesus has accomplished and God's expectations of the future outcome of our world based on His involvement in it. Chapter one [Here is the New There] Bell quickly shows us what has continuously been so contagious about his approach: he actually reads the Bible by honouring what is actually there and trying not to read too much of our present culture into it. He does this with the concept of "eternal" and "forever" and challenges us to consider that how these terms are used in the Bible is much more important than what context we bring to them as the reader. He rightly points out that the concept of "age" and "time" [aion] is fashioned not in scientific calculated terms of eschatological charts that littered Bibles at the turn of the 20th century, but rather focuses on an existence that is marked by different circumstances and specific relationships with God and each other that we are both looking forward to in the future and working toward right now.

In his chapter on heaven, Bell rightly points out that the New Testament perspective is built on the Jewish concept of heaven and earth combining together to create a "new age" that will result in the redemption and renewal of all creation and humanity. All the indicators about heaven are built on the Jewish Hebraic notion of God restoring what is lost in the present and not the Greek Platonic notion of heaven as a destination away from the present creation that will be an existence of "disembodied bliss." [I use the words of N.T. Wright as I feel he describes it best]  I was not surprised to have noted that Bell has actually read the end of the book! The last two chapters of Revelation point out that the final destination for creation and humanity is in a renewed earth where heaven and earth [the realms of existence] will be united to coexist together in a context void of evil and filled with redeemed relationship and restored creation.

Some may balk at the level of openness that Rob Bell shares in terms of how he depicts God's intent toward the human race. In not breaching any orthodox beliefs [a comment that Eugene Peterson makes on his endorsement on the back cover] Bell points out that there were several Church Fathers and believing communities throughout history that took a Universalist stance on the outcome of God's plan for creation and humanity.  Yet, most of all, Bell reminds us that in attempting to answer the question of whether everyone makes it in the end its important to remember:

Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires. [page 115]

In fact Bell reminds us that Jesus points out to the Jews and Religious Leaders of his day that they will be surprised concerning who will be "in heaven" in the end and who will not.  Lest we get pre-occupied about the level of commitment and destination of others, we are reminded by Jesus to be concerned about our level of commitment and destination in the end.

Particularly in the chapter called "Does God Get What He Wants?" Bell points out that the one thing God will not do is breach our freedom to choose to engage with His love. In keeping with Isaiah type imagery, God will give us what we want. Bell states it very well in the following paragraph:

If we want isolation, despair, and the right to be our own god, God graciously grants us the option. If we insist on using our God-given power and strength to make the world in our image, God allows us that freedom; we have the kind of license to that. If we want nothing to do with light, hope, love, grace and peace, God respects that desire on our part, and we are given a life free from any of those realities. The more we want nothing to do with all God is, the more distance and space are created. If we want nothing to do with love, we are given a reality free from love. [page 117]

Bell points out that we do have the freedom to choose such distance and so create our own personal hell that betrays our humanity and God's gift of redemption and renewal. In fact, he points out that there are but only 11 instances biblically that deal with Hell and in those instances there is no mention of a place that resides at the core of the earth populated by beings who dress in red suits and wield three pronged pitch forks. Bell describes Hell to be much more sinister than that. It is an existence of living a "less than human" life and suffering the alienation that is created through dishonouring others and promoting evil that undermines God's creation. Some begin their "hellish" existence now only to perpetuate it later. 

Bell hopes that after this life there is another plan, a hope, a strategy to pry those who are lost out of the clutches of evil. He mentions the interesting notion in Revelation 21:25 in the new heaven and new earth that the gates to this territory will be opened each day. Could it be that the imagery is giving us a notion that God will still be hoping and still strategizing a way for those in the clutches of evil to find their way back? We can hope and we can count on God's character of love to continue being consistent even though biblically there is no final answer on this. He rejects all notions of salvation theories that cause us to portray a schizophrenic God where Jesus [the good God] is protecting us from the anger of the Father [the bad God]. Rather he reminds us that the legal imageries of salvation in the bible are one among many imageries such as adoption, redemption, renewal, inheritance etc that try to explain the grandeur of something that is much greater and much larger than we have imagined. In fact Bell points out that it will take imagination to see the breadth of God's love through His offer of salvation in Christ.

In terms of how we have communicated the story of salvation, Bell rightfully states that what we read in the Bible is even "better than that." It's not a one way ticket to heaven bypassing the lake of fire. Its no less than God coming down and restoring his creation by defeating evil that has undermined it and establishing His rule and reign in it. All the biblical imagery points to the nations and all people coming to the knowledge of God as the Creator, Redeemer God who judges evil and recovers creation.  How that will play out remains to be seen but one thing we do know without a doubt is that God's mission of love wins in the end.

Bell does not address everything in this book. He does not go into detail on what we know to have been a rebellion in heaven prior to the creation. He does not go into great detail about what "eternal punishment" describes as he says in the book. There are several other concepts that need addressing. This is not a systematic theology that tackles every poignant piece of theology related to this discussion. What it is though is the beginning of a long overdue dialogue in our Evangelical community about evaluating what we have been saying so long about things like heaven, hell, salvation, eternal life. By evaluating them we need to assess if we are being true to how these concepts come to us in Scripture. Based on the change in our theological landscape concerning our new perspectives on Jesus and Paul, the ongoing Trinitarian dialogue of the past 20 years that has caused us to recover this concept again and our attention gravitating back to Hebraic roots to understand our "newer" testament, we owe it to ourselves to revisit how we have been telling the biblical story for the last 500 years and see if the Spirit has actually taught us and we have grown in our understanding of God and in our perspective as a community.
Before you let someone speak for you, please do read this very important book that I believe will foster more important dialogue and get us going back to the bible and reading it afresh with our imagination and within the context of the Hebrew story to see what God is truly up to in our world for today and the future!

Are You the One who is to Come?

Michael F. Bird. Are You the One Who is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. Baker Academic, 2009

This is the second volume of Michael Bird's that I have read and it does not disappoint. Bird shows his extensive theological background and writing as he delves into the question of what Jesus actually knew in terms of his own identity and vocation. In particular, Bird asks whether Jesus was aware he was the Messiah and whether there were definite claims made by him in regard to this title.

Bird's thesis points out that whether or not Jesus did self-disclose his role as Messiah, one cannot ignore how his actions [his vocation as Tom Wright references it] pointed toward his being associated with the Messianic identity that was anticipated by Jews in the 1st century. In his first chapter, Bird reviews all the Jewish related literature of the Old Testament and intertestamental period to show how the concept of Messiah was related to the office of Israel's king and to a developing "messianism" that evolved into an understanding of God communicating an eschatological hope to Israel identified in the roles of individuals proclaimed and identified, not so much in title but in vocation, as messiah figures who would lead Israel to its future eschatological hope of liberation and restoration of land.

Secondly, Bird reviews scholarship that debates whether Jesus actually identified himself as Messiah or referenced Messianic titles as explanation of his role and mission. Entering into the dialogue of references to the Q document, Bird does a through job of rebutting the notion that Jesus' refusal of the mention of him as Messiah and squashing any mention of this reference by his disciples and followers indicates his rejection of the title. He mentions that by necessity, given that leaders of the empire used the Christos reference and given the heightened tension of insurrectionists proclaiming to be Messiahs, Jesus asked his followers to keep his identity as Messiah under wraps lest they suffer the wrath of the Empire in shutting down what Jesus was doing. Bird also points out that if there was absolutely no Messianic claim to Jesus then why, after his crucifixion, do the disciples continue to refer to him as Messianic given the continuing danger of doing so unless he proclaimed to be Messiah and their understanding of his death and resurrection proved a redefinition of this title. No disciple would make up such a story and endure the persecution of identifying the risen Jesus with an empirical title of Christos.

Bird points out that, " Ultimately the Old Testament seems to have formed the interpretative grid through which the story of Jesus' passion was interpreted, rather than comprising the creative pool from which the story was created." [page 75] Along these lines, he also points out that if scholars feel that the disciples created the concept of Messiah as reference to Jesus then why don't they also apply the same logic to their having created the identity of Jesus outright?

In the following chapters, Bird builds the argument of Jesus himself redefining the role of Old Testament messianism but taking on the title of "Son of Man" from Daniel 7 and attaching it to the title of King of Israel and so intertwining the two and drawing on Isaianic references to the suffering servant as outlined in the Markan gospel to show that Jesus does draw on Old Testament references - particularly the Zechariah 9 passage, to model to the Jews his identity and purpose in terms of mission and vocation. The purpose here is to demonstrate that not all Christian construction of Christology is anachronistic or read back into the gospels. Bird mentions that:

Christians certainly did interpret Jesus' actions to suit their own theological and sociological interests. Even so, that interpretative act sometimes consisted of making explicit what was already implicit in the story line, and the triumphal entry is a good example of exactly that ... [page 124]

Nearing the end of the book, Bird proclaims strongly that in reviewing the gospels and the intertestamental period literature, there is strong evidence that, "...Jesus deliberate attempt to act out a messianic vocation is the smoking gun that explains the messianic testimony of the early church ..." [page 158]

Although very dense and requiring a very close reading and understanding of the extant material available, Bird's work is well worth the serious read of those who want to understand the theological and scholarly debate on the identity of Jesus and Jesus' own self-disclosure as messiah.

Introducing Paul

Michael F. Bird Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message Intervarsity Press, 2008

I've had the recent pleasure of a friend introducing me to the writings of Michael Bird. I am quite pleased at this very first book I've read by him on Paul. It is a great primer for students and a great refresher for seasoned ministry leaders. In this volume Bird is more concerned about the reader apprehending who Paul is and how he thinks, than the burden of proving his own academic ability to write on Paul.[By the way he shows plenty of foundation in terms of supportive material - some volumes he references I will follow up and read as well]

Bird begins the volume at the event of Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. He argues that this is the most pivotal moment in the life of Paul the man. It is here where his life is turned upside down and redefined in terms of his view of God, Israel, the world and people. Understanding what changes Paul then catapults the reader into the stories Paul lives out of that help him make sense of the overall story of God's mission of recovery and renewal. Bird gives a brief overview of the biblical stories that Paul lives out of that frame the way he views Jesus and his mission in driving the church forward to the future God has for it.

A quick overview of all Paul's letters are great vignettes of the main theme in each of them and give the reader a taste of each letter in anticipation of reading them again with the vignette in mind. Bird reminds the reader that reading Paul's letters is like reading someone Else's mail and the burden of the reader is to reconstruct the conversation that prompted the writing. Several times in the book, Bird makes reference to the fact that "Paul wrote the letters to people and for us." This principle gives the reader an understanding of the letters in a way that encourages primary attention to the original people that Paul wrote to and the understanding that in many ways Paul was also writing - in a second sense - to people at large and other generations in general.

Bird points out the counter-cultural message of the good news that Paul proclaims in a climate of Roman rule where the leaders of the empire used the same royal titles referenced by Jesus for themselves. The gospel Paul proclaimed carried with it a great deal of risk of which Paul himself suffered persecution in light of it. He reminds the reader that the faith of the early church was expressed as a counter-cultural view that set them at odds with those in the empire. Along these lines, Bird also points out the breakdown of sexuality and sexual relationships charactistic of the 1st century and how Paul addresses this head on pointing a counter-cultural view of sexuality set within its biblical context of marriage as opposed to the promiscuity encouraged both culturally and through pagan religious practice.

What kept the early believers assured of the future was the message of the return of Jesus to inaugurate the Kingdom of God which was already in their hearts and was coming to physical fulfillment in the future. It is in this climate that Paul starts churches and nurtures believers in their faith. Bird points out the strong ethical side to Paul's letters encourage believers to walk in faith honouring people and reaching out with God's love as servants of others. Believers were encouraged by Paul to orient themselves to the coming Kingdom. To those who were self-serving in sharing the good news, Paul has harsh words of judgment and a reminder to live a life worthy of the calling of Jesus Christ.

There is, although, a twofold disappointment in the book. One is Bird's strong affirmation of the crux of the gospel based on Paul's dictum of "justification by faith." I do not share this with Bird, as much as I appreciate the majority of what he says. I see a very strong reformed tradition in his approach to verifying the centre of the gospel proclaimed by Paul. Using the book of Romans as his reference point, Bird continues to establish the strong reformed belief in Paul's view of justification by faith and the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement as the key to explaining Paul's view of the gospel.

The other is virtually no references to Ephesians except to say the regular references so often made to Ephesians chapter 4 on the demeanor and identity of the Christian community. Unlike Bird, I do believe Ephesians to be the key to Paul's thinking. Rather than justification by faith as the chief focus, [of which I clearly believe is only one of the aspects of Paul's explanation of the gospel - only one of many analogies and expressions] in Ephesians, Paul identifies 'adoption' as the primary analogy explaining God's cosmic plan of rescue for the world and the human race. In a letter where Paul shares his big picture view of God's plan for the world, what Paul mentions in the first two chapters and then elaborates on in the remaining four is tantamount to his view of what God is up to in our world. I have to appreciate this approach, although new, as much more in keeping with recognizing the nature of the letters that Paul wrote [not that Luther and others of the reformed period read] that give us insight into Paul and his thinking. If I were to re-write Bird's chapter on "The Crux of the Gospel" I would start with adoption and then follow with righteousness. This better explains the rationale to God's righteousness and the reason why Jesus goes to the cross and gives his life 'as a ransom for many.' [Bird does a great job in denoting the weight of the term "righteousness" in Paul's letters] I know I may be "splitting hairs" but I believe that for Paul the passion of God's heart is to bring us back into communion and relationship with Him and this is what drives Him to go to the lengths of giving His Son. The act of sacrifice which accomplishes justification is driven by God's deep desire to "adopt" us. In keeping with the great picture Paul paints in Ephesians chapter 1, Paul describes adoption as what determined well before the foundation of the earth was formed, choosing us in Christ to be holy and blameless.

I do appreciate the fact that Bird does emphasize how Paul delineates the scope of Jesus work for humanity and creation by emphasizing the greater impact of the resurrection on humanity and the world. He rightly criticizes the evangelical focus on resurrection as simply proof of Jesus' divinity and proof of the efficacy of the cross to us. Rather, in the resurrection is bound up all creation which is renewed in Christ and set on a course of complete renewal in the future.

Above all, I am seriously contemplating having my 2ND year students read this book as part of their assignment in the course as it is a great introduction to Paul and to his thinking as well as a great primer to Paul's letters and the insight Paul gives to faith in light of his relationship with 1st century believers.