What do you think?
Rate this book
Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance Its Divine Authority
In Inspired Imperfection, Gregory A. Boyd adds another counterintuitive and provocative thesis to his corpus. While conservative scholars and pastors have struggled for years to show that the Bible is without errors, Boyd considers this a fool's errand. Instead, he says, we should embrace the mistakes and contradictions in Scripture, for they show that God chose to use fallible humans to communicate timeless truths. Just as God ultimately came to save humanity in the form of a human, God chose to impart truth through the imperfect medium of human writing. Instead of the Bible's imperfections being a reason to attack its veracity, these "problems" actually support the trustworthiness of Christian Scripture. Inspired Imperfection is required reading for anyone who's questioned the Bible because of its contradictions.
216 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 7, 2020
74 people are currently reading
283 people want to read
About the author
Gregory A. Boyd
94 books350 followersGregory A. Boyd is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and founder and president of ReKnew. He was a professor of theology at Bethel College (St. Paul, Minn.) for sixteen years where he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
January 7, 2020
5 of 2020. Gregory Boyd has a complicated relationship with scripture. He became a believer in a denomination that not only believed in the inerrancy of scripture, but also associated that inerrancy with a particular literal interpretation of that scripture. Them, when confronted with other ideas about scripture, he found his faith cane crashing down. Over time, he rebuilt that faith with an entirely new understanding of the role of scripture and and acceptance of its errancy. Boyd wrote this book for those interested in the inerrancy debate to both share his story and to explain why a scripture with errors is a good thing.
I found the personal story of Boyd’s journey with scripture to be fascinating. His journey mirrors mine at times and reminds me of the important role that questioning (and even at times deconstructing) plays in our faith journey. He also reminds readers that our worship and authority is determined by a savior and not by a book. His discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of Barth’s theories of Scripture are probably worth the price of the book on their own.
That is not to say that this is a book without weaknesses though. He fails to give adequate evidence that the Bible is authoritative. While he discusses its historical reliability, he appears to make a leap of faith from historically reliability to divine inspiration.
Boyd also espouses an extreme form of Arminianism known as open theism. Some of his ideas of synergism, while nicely drawn and theorized, just are without strong biblical support. For Boyd, an errant Bible is one that shows the product of partnership between God and man that additionally provides support for the synergism Boyd is seeking to establish.
He also provides evidence for progressive revelation that some Christians may find offensive, including the idea that Jesus shows the errancy of the Hebrew Scriptures by reinterpreting them and giving new commands for his followers.
I read this book because I have been obsessively reading books about the doctrine of scripture since writing on it for a systematic theology class last summer. Boyd described his book as building on the work of Peter Enns in a more constructive way in an appearance on the Theology in the Raw podcast. He deconstructs further than Enns and reconstructs more than Enns, so that statement is a promise fulfilled.
I found this book to be a thoughtful book. I marked many pages and have many things to go back and re-investigate on the basis of reading it. I really liked this book and believe it will stick with me as I continue my investigation in the doctrine of scripture.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I found the personal story of Boyd’s journey with scripture to be fascinating. His journey mirrors mine at times and reminds me of the important role that questioning (and even at times deconstructing) plays in our faith journey. He also reminds readers that our worship and authority is determined by a savior and not by a book. His discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of Barth’s theories of Scripture are probably worth the price of the book on their own.
That is not to say that this is a book without weaknesses though. He fails to give adequate evidence that the Bible is authoritative. While he discusses its historical reliability, he appears to make a leap of faith from historically reliability to divine inspiration.
Boyd also espouses an extreme form of Arminianism known as open theism. Some of his ideas of synergism, while nicely drawn and theorized, just are without strong biblical support. For Boyd, an errant Bible is one that shows the product of partnership between God and man that additionally provides support for the synergism Boyd is seeking to establish.
He also provides evidence for progressive revelation that some Christians may find offensive, including the idea that Jesus shows the errancy of the Hebrew Scriptures by reinterpreting them and giving new commands for his followers.
I read this book because I have been obsessively reading books about the doctrine of scripture since writing on it for a systematic theology class last summer. Boyd described his book as building on the work of Peter Enns in a more constructive way in an appearance on the Theology in the Raw podcast. He deconstructs further than Enns and reconstructs more than Enns, so that statement is a promise fulfilled.
I found this book to be a thoughtful book. I marked many pages and have many things to go back and re-investigate on the basis of reading it. I really liked this book and believe it will stick with me as I continue my investigation in the doctrine of scripture.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
October 10, 2024
Overall, I think this is a very important contribution to the discussion of the inspiration of scripture. His central claim is that the morally questionable depictions of God, contradictions, and historical inaccuracies found within scripture are made sense of in light of the cross. The summary of the book on Goodreads may be a little misleading if you try to read between the lines. Though it is true that Boyd rejects the language of “inerrancy,” he is essentially just an advocate of progressive revelation, which he sees as contrary to inerrancy positions. I have three main issues with his claim.
1) In anchoring his argument in the cross, his understanding of the inspiration of scripture is fundamentally tied to atonement theory. Namely, the key issue is whether or not God united God’s self to human sin on the cross. He uses this argument to claim that, in the making of scripture, God has “accommodated” human sin and errancy in the same way in which he does so on the cross. My pushback is that forgiving is NOT the same as accommodating. I feel it is a slippery slope when we begin to base doctrine on the hotly contested concept of Jesus’ union with the Father being broken. I much prefer the analogy to the hypostatic union in which God and humanity both dwell in fullness, yet without the taint of sin because of God’s sanctifying presence. There is mystery in the incarnation, and there is mystery in the cross. The more we try to scientifically parse these out, the more we miss the point.
2) this leads to my second issue: for all his critique of evangelicals for “asking modern questions of an ancient text,” Boyd seemingly does the same exact thing. I deeply appreciate his testimony of his journey on this issue, but I fear he still holds a very western and modern conception of reality. He claims we “obviously know that genesis 1 is not real given modern science” (paraphrasing) yet I believe we can fully affirm that Genesis 1 IS an accurate depiction of the REAL cosmos regardless of what the scientific method reveals. I for one, largely trust the scientific consensus on the age of the earth for example, yet the ancients were not seeking to answer scientific queries. The cosmos can quite literally be upheld by God, the sky waters pulled back from the seas, as well as quite literally being formed and governed by natural observable laws. Because reality is bigger than BOTH the natural and supernatural, seen and unseen. For this reason, I feel that Boyd places too much trust in “reason” as an objectively discerning window into reality. If that didn’t make sense then ignore my ramblings…
3) this leads to the final issue: Boyd claims that any text in scripture that doesn’t align with the enemy-loving, others-centered, pacifist Jesus displayed on the Cross is tainted by the sin of the author, but that it is this very aspect that bears witness to the same character of the God who so graciously accommodates himself to human foolishness. I see what he’s getting at, but I feel that we can arrive at a similar conclusion without sacrificing an understanding of inerrancy. We must ask the question, why is it that Boyd’s, and our own for that matter, conception of God is SO appealing to a post-Christian west. In fact, if God’s character has no sharp edges that make us grimace in our “modern liberal sensibilities” then we might be making God more in our own image. I actually largely AGREE with the conception of God that Boyd puts forward, but I also deeply believe that God is bigger than my understanding of “good.” Ultimately, it seems that Boyd’s argument smacks of chronological snobbery, and he would do well to heed CS Lewis’ introduction to “on the incarnation.” I say this not to say that I disagree with his conception of God per say, but rather to draw attention to the fact that his conception of God leaves no room for his modern outlook to be biased or misguided.
I for one, am satisfied enough by the evidence I have seen outside of this book for different ways to interpret the so called “problem” passages in scripture. Though Boyd’s model is compelling and most chapters contain great insights and truths about what scripture is, I am satisfied to continue to use the term inerrant when referring to scripture, given the qualification that the passage is inerrant only in its original meaning, intent, and scope. He hardly even acknowledges the complexity of literature which I hold as one of the most important interpretative tools to help reconcile the surface level problem passages. Thus, 4 stars because it was a good book and I appreciate a ton of what he said, even if I remain unconvinced to fully adopt his model myself.
1) In anchoring his argument in the cross, his understanding of the inspiration of scripture is fundamentally tied to atonement theory. Namely, the key issue is whether or not God united God’s self to human sin on the cross. He uses this argument to claim that, in the making of scripture, God has “accommodated” human sin and errancy in the same way in which he does so on the cross. My pushback is that forgiving is NOT the same as accommodating. I feel it is a slippery slope when we begin to base doctrine on the hotly contested concept of Jesus’ union with the Father being broken. I much prefer the analogy to the hypostatic union in which God and humanity both dwell in fullness, yet without the taint of sin because of God’s sanctifying presence. There is mystery in the incarnation, and there is mystery in the cross. The more we try to scientifically parse these out, the more we miss the point.
2) this leads to my second issue: for all his critique of evangelicals for “asking modern questions of an ancient text,” Boyd seemingly does the same exact thing. I deeply appreciate his testimony of his journey on this issue, but I fear he still holds a very western and modern conception of reality. He claims we “obviously know that genesis 1 is not real given modern science” (paraphrasing) yet I believe we can fully affirm that Genesis 1 IS an accurate depiction of the REAL cosmos regardless of what the scientific method reveals. I for one, largely trust the scientific consensus on the age of the earth for example, yet the ancients were not seeking to answer scientific queries. The cosmos can quite literally be upheld by God, the sky waters pulled back from the seas, as well as quite literally being formed and governed by natural observable laws. Because reality is bigger than BOTH the natural and supernatural, seen and unseen. For this reason, I feel that Boyd places too much trust in “reason” as an objectively discerning window into reality. If that didn’t make sense then ignore my ramblings…
3) this leads to the final issue: Boyd claims that any text in scripture that doesn’t align with the enemy-loving, others-centered, pacifist Jesus displayed on the Cross is tainted by the sin of the author, but that it is this very aspect that bears witness to the same character of the God who so graciously accommodates himself to human foolishness. I see what he’s getting at, but I feel that we can arrive at a similar conclusion without sacrificing an understanding of inerrancy. We must ask the question, why is it that Boyd’s, and our own for that matter, conception of God is SO appealing to a post-Christian west. In fact, if God’s character has no sharp edges that make us grimace in our “modern liberal sensibilities” then we might be making God more in our own image. I actually largely AGREE with the conception of God that Boyd puts forward, but I also deeply believe that God is bigger than my understanding of “good.” Ultimately, it seems that Boyd’s argument smacks of chronological snobbery, and he would do well to heed CS Lewis’ introduction to “on the incarnation.” I say this not to say that I disagree with his conception of God per say, but rather to draw attention to the fact that his conception of God leaves no room for his modern outlook to be biased or misguided.
I for one, am satisfied enough by the evidence I have seen outside of this book for different ways to interpret the so called “problem” passages in scripture. Though Boyd’s model is compelling and most chapters contain great insights and truths about what scripture is, I am satisfied to continue to use the term inerrant when referring to scripture, given the qualification that the passage is inerrant only in its original meaning, intent, and scope. He hardly even acknowledges the complexity of literature which I hold as one of the most important interpretative tools to help reconcile the surface level problem passages. Thus, 4 stars because it was a good book and I appreciate a ton of what he said, even if I remain unconvinced to fully adopt his model myself.
May 7, 2021
We start with one of those oddly lamentable cases: a smart and talented author writing a pile of junk. In this case, it’s Boyd, who in Inspired Imperfections puts forward a defense of the Bible’s many manifest errors are, in fact, proof of Divine inspiration - a laughably unfalsifiable dodge that would have got its author good and properly roasted at a stake in the 15th century and is every bit as ridiculous today.
February 18, 2023
I would like to give 5 stars, but the middle got a little redundant and repetitive. I highly recommend the introduction and the last chapter and the postscript. If you don't trust what he says in these chapters, you can read the rest of the book for resources and proof. If you're already familiar with the idea of the Cruciform Model -- filtering everything through the lens of Jesus' sacrificial love on the Cross -- then this will be an easy read for you. If you're not, it might challenge a lot of your presuppositions. I feel that the most compelling and logical arguments to apply the Cruciform Model of interpretation to the doctrine of Biblical inspiration came from Jesus' own words, so read Chapter 15 at least!
July 24, 2021
I don’t have time to go through everything with this one. What I will say is that Boyd is clever enough to ask good questions: really good questions. And good questions need even better answers, which this book fails to provide.
December 6, 2020
Rated two stars for having wrong assumptions, a self-defeating system, some agreement in some conclusions, but the prior two things overshadow whatever tidbits one can lift.
Assumptions of the book:
Assumption that the Bible is wrong
Assumption that the scientists and historians are right
Assumption that contradictions are actual contradictions, not mutually true paradoxes
Assumption of complete open theism (and I am a modified open theist)
Assumption you have to go to the original context (ANE) to read the Bible, and even the original context is deficient and wrong
Assumption that his own morality is correct and that other belief is incorrect (in my own subjective opinion, the morality is very deficient)
Argument of the book
Incarnation is not inspiration, Christ became sin for us, the Bible became sin for us, that is Cruciform inspiration
Jesus the Word is not Scripture, God is not Scripture
Conclusion of the book
Inspiration and interpretation must be Christocentric, but also crucicentric
My agreement with the book
Inspiration is dynamic, not static
Inspiration is dependent on humans
God is more dynamic than we think
The Bible can be improved upon (however, in Greg’s case, throwing away which parts he doesn’t like is what is improved, in my case, translation improves upon the originals)
Criticism of the book
Assuming all the on the face contradictions are contradictions and still apply today
Applying the Indiana Jones illustration based on his presumptions. The correct assumption would be the correct cup would be the King James, and the incorrect cup a modern version
Conflating sin, imperfection, incompleteness, contradictions, falsity
Ignoring Christ’s depictions as a warrior God BEFORE and AFTER His crucifixion and resurrection, ie Christ bringing a sword, and Christ in Revelation (this is the error of any crucicentric theology is that God stays on the cross, when the Bible says CURSED IS THE MAN THAT HANGETH ON A TREE)
^
This is not brought up when the author says defenders of classic inerrancy have the greatest objection to this. In other words, the author has a Jesus that he made up as a model. So how can we even falsify that if the Bible itself is error filled? As if we are trying to confirm the author’s view of Jesus and removing everything the Bible says that doesn’t fit with his Christology as “indirect” revelation.
Assuming God in the OT was becoming sin for us before Christ actually did, by allowing things like sacrifices
Seeming inconsistency with open theism and believing God doesn’t change select things, rather He reveals slowly
If God inspired the Bible but it isn’t inerrant, how do we know He didn’t inspire the Quran, Book of Mormon, or such the same way? Why did He not do that for other error filled books? Why don’t the other books exhibit the same cruciform inspiration?
If God’s Bible isn’t inerrant but still inspired, then how do we get around the fact the only time God speaks truth directly to us is during the crucifixion and not at any time other than the crucifixion?
Counter arguments against the book
God is bound by the Bible
The Bible is Christ
The more the crux of the matter is, this is inherently unstable.
Greg Boyd’s open theism says God acts contradictory to His nature and basically lies, an end justifies the means type morality, He then slowly brings up the person, for the future’s sake. Lying for the future
My open theism is that God is holy, His scripture is holy, and is in line with His nature, and has always told truth, and the truth He said at that moment is 100% truth for that time. Whatever form He takes in response to us is 100% holy. Sacrifices were 100% God’s when He said He would have them, there is no deeper contradiction there, as a response to Abraham’s Isaac faith. Building to the future
Resurrection is a better centerpoint than the crucifixion
The prophecy is the Father
The writing inspiration is the Son
The Bible is seven times purified in the furnace of the earth, hell
Resurrection and translation is being caught up
So we have a perfect Bible today
Kingly Bible, because our Bible has resurrected now, not anymore dead, God is the living, not the dead
The originals writings (not prophecy) were not perfect were born in human likeness, the flesh as grass, skins and papyrus were dead, the sin is in the originals or original writers?
Romans 7:7-11
King James Version
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Originals were destroyed by fire, the furnace of the earth(?)
Sin was in the Alexandria
The transmission were not by by holy men (as we see Christ’s line), translation by holy men though inspire, the mystery of holiness is by holy men
Quotes from the book:
“Thus far Paul sounds confident, perhaps even a little proud, that he baptized next to no one at Corinth. But then Paul suddenly realizes that his claim to have only baptized Crispus and Gaius is mistaken. (So much for inerrancy!) Upon reflection, Paul has to acknowledge that he “did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” However, Paul apparently realized that even this corrected memory was probably incomplete, for he immediately adds, “beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else”
(Editor: Memory lapses aren’t sin, as they are spiritual reality (that baptism is not the emphasis!), but also implies that Paul’s holy forgetfulness has lessened baptism to its correct level of emphasis, God saw how holiness imbued itself in the flesh of man, and made it reality, both physical and spiritual reality)
“Both Naaman and Elisha know that bowing before an idol, if only to save your own skin, is not ideal, which is why Naaman feels the need to ask for Elisha’s forgiveness. But while this action misses the mark of God’s ideal, it apparently was the best Elijah surmised he could hope for from Naaman. After all, by committing himself to worshipping and sacrifice to no other god but Yahweh, Naaman had already undergone a monumental faith-paradigm shift. And he had demonstrated his sincerity by preparing to haul a ton of Israeli dirt back to Aram in order to carry out this worship and sacrifice. To demand more than this, I suspect Elisha thought, would be too much.”
(Editor: the sign of Christ was Namaan, and this shows the Gentile dispensation of loving God above all!)
“Defenders of biblical inerrancy who also embrace the concept of progressive revelation try to argue that God’s revelation gets clearer and clearer throughout the biblical narrative, but they insist that earlier revelations were nevertheless perfectly accurate, so far as they went. Hence, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that “revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive” while denying “that later revelation” ever contradicts earlier revelations.[27] In this view, in other words, progressive revelation happens by God adding more truth to previous true conceptions, but never by God correcting previous misconceptions. To be frank, I strongly suspect that this is a case of defenders of inerrancy wanting to have their progressive revelation cake while eating their doctrine of inerrancy too. It simply doesn’t work. To the degree that people don’t have a clear conception of God, they by definition have a foggy conception of God. And the only way to give people a clearer and more accurate conception of God is to help them abandon their foggier and less accurate conceptions of God.
If you affirm progressive revelation—and most theologians do—then I see no way for you to avoid accepting that certain portraits of God in Scripture are accommodations that to one degree or another do not accurately reflect God’s true will and nature.”
(Editor: the revelation was correct and true and real for their time. But not for today. There was “no correcting misconceptions”. They are 100% true for their time and how they manifested in their time, but not for today
In other words, God the Son changed! God the Father is the static perfection, but God the Son isn’t. This quote also self-contradicts the author’s open theism because it assumes a non-changing God yet still says there is a wrong perception of God. So only that part of God does not change in open theism?)
“Now, the very fact that everybody in the ANE sacrificed animals (and, all too often, children) long before the Hebrews came along proves that this practice did not originate with Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh at one point told the Israelites they were to “no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons” but were instead to sacrifice animals to Yahweh alone.[30] This suggests that the Israelites had already adopted the ANE practice of sacrificing animals to goat demons from their ANE neighbors, so Yahweh apparently decided that, since the Israelites weren’t ready to let go of this barbaric ritual, it was better to have them making sacrifices to God than to demons. In the words of the fourth century theologian, Gregory of Nazianzus, God “cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices.””
(Editor: Now this does reek of, by the hardness of your heart Moses did allow divorce, is it something like this?
The author is wrong here, because animal sacrifice will be instituted again in the future, and in the prior example of divorce, there is a beginning referent in Adam and Eve, and there is a beginning referent in sacrifice, Abel)
“The strongest confirmation of the accommodating nature of these sacrifices, however, is that later authors make it perfectly clear that Yahweh actually despised them! “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings,” the author of Hebrews states.[32] So too, in a passage that Jesus would later quote, Hosea says that Yahweh “desires mercy, and not sacrifice.”[33] And in Isaiah we read, I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. (Isa 1:11) And a few verses later Yahweh adds, Stop bringing meaningless offerings! They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. (Isa 1:13) Later authors were clearly capable of receiving truths that earlier authors were not, and one of these truths was that Yahweh is actually not at all pleased with the aroma of burning animal carcasses. These later depictions don’t merely add to earlier less complete depictions: they correct them.
* * *
This doesn’t mean that the earlier mistaken depictions of Yahweh commanding animal sacrifices and enjoying their aroma are any less fully God-breathed than the later depictions. It simply means that in breathing these earlier depictions, the cruciform God had to stoop to accommodate the fallen and culturally conditioned views and practices of God’s people at the time. The depictions of Yahweh enjoying animal sacrifices, together with all the other sub-Christ-like portraits of God in Scripture, bear witness to the truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”[34] God has always been doing, if in penultimate ways, what God does in an ultimate way on the cross: stooping to bear the sin of God’s people and to thereby take on an appearance that reflects the ugliness of that sin. More specifically, these portraits testify that God always been a noncoercive relational God who humbly enters into solidarity with God’s covenant partners, including with their fallen and culturally conditioned views of God, despite the fact that doing so conditions-for-the-worse how God appears in the story of God.”
(Editor: Refer to the future prophecy above. We know in context God despised the offerings because they were rendered meaningless, NOT because they were always meaningless. The author is pushing a narrative not found in the immediate context or other referent passages.)
“Although Elijah is generally depicted as a hero of the faith in Scripture, and although the fire that fell from the sky was clearly supernatural, Jesus rebuked his disciples for wanting to follow Elijah’s example. Some early manuscripts add that Jesus suggested that James and John were of a “different spirit” than he. If this reading is accepted, as I’m inclined to think it should be, Jesus was suggesting that Elijah’s destructive miracle had a demonic quality to it.[22]”
(Editor: Except Jesus refers to John the Baptist who was in Elias/Elijah as greatest born of all women. Again, ignoring that in fact, Jesus will do this in Revelation Himself. It simply wasn’t time, according to when Jesus read Isaiah in Luke, the day of vengeance was FUTURE. NOT that was it was inherently contradictory to Himself. )
“Except Jesus omitted the second half of the last line of his Isaiah quote! And what made this omission particularly significant is that waiting for God’s vengeance to fall on Israel’s enemies was a central feature of his audience’s messianic hope. For his hometown audience, Jesus had just omitted the punch line of this passage! Jesus then had the audacity to add, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing?” How could this passage possibly be “fulfilled,” his audience would have been thinking, if its punch line was missing? And besides, they wondered, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”[25] They were basically asking, “Who does this son of a local carpenter think it is?””
(Editor: Okay, that point is brought up. But the author ASSUMES it’s because Christ didn’t regard the day of vengeance as scripture to be truly fulfilled, rather, than simply that Jesus wasn’t going to do that now, He would do that in the FUTURE. )
“The first thing I’d say in response to this argument is that the very fact that Jesus repudiated and broke certain OT laws and taught people to do the same, as we’ve just seen, means that, when Jesus claimed that Scripture cannot be “broken,” he couldn’t have meant that every passage of Scripture must be adhered to, believed, and obeyed.”
(Editor: For every instance Jesus broke the law, another Scripture was used. For example, the sabbath breaking, David eating shewbread was used. So this is a self-defeating prospect. Scripture trumped scripture. It wasn’t non-Scripture trumping Scripture. Only Scripture can trump Scripture in a meta manner! Only God can trump God! No one else.)
Assumptions of the book:
Assumption that the Bible is wrong
Assumption that the scientists and historians are right
Assumption that contradictions are actual contradictions, not mutually true paradoxes
Assumption of complete open theism (and I am a modified open theist)
Assumption you have to go to the original context (ANE) to read the Bible, and even the original context is deficient and wrong
Assumption that his own morality is correct and that other belief is incorrect (in my own subjective opinion, the morality is very deficient)
Argument of the book
Incarnation is not inspiration, Christ became sin for us, the Bible became sin for us, that is Cruciform inspiration
Jesus the Word is not Scripture, God is not Scripture
Conclusion of the book
Inspiration and interpretation must be Christocentric, but also crucicentric
My agreement with the book
Inspiration is dynamic, not static
Inspiration is dependent on humans
God is more dynamic than we think
The Bible can be improved upon (however, in Greg’s case, throwing away which parts he doesn’t like is what is improved, in my case, translation improves upon the originals)
Criticism of the book
Assuming all the on the face contradictions are contradictions and still apply today
Applying the Indiana Jones illustration based on his presumptions. The correct assumption would be the correct cup would be the King James, and the incorrect cup a modern version
Conflating sin, imperfection, incompleteness, contradictions, falsity
Ignoring Christ’s depictions as a warrior God BEFORE and AFTER His crucifixion and resurrection, ie Christ bringing a sword, and Christ in Revelation (this is the error of any crucicentric theology is that God stays on the cross, when the Bible says CURSED IS THE MAN THAT HANGETH ON A TREE)
^
This is not brought up when the author says defenders of classic inerrancy have the greatest objection to this. In other words, the author has a Jesus that he made up as a model. So how can we even falsify that if the Bible itself is error filled? As if we are trying to confirm the author’s view of Jesus and removing everything the Bible says that doesn’t fit with his Christology as “indirect” revelation.
Assuming God in the OT was becoming sin for us before Christ actually did, by allowing things like sacrifices
Seeming inconsistency with open theism and believing God doesn’t change select things, rather He reveals slowly
If God inspired the Bible but it isn’t inerrant, how do we know He didn’t inspire the Quran, Book of Mormon, or such the same way? Why did He not do that for other error filled books? Why don’t the other books exhibit the same cruciform inspiration?
If God’s Bible isn’t inerrant but still inspired, then how do we get around the fact the only time God speaks truth directly to us is during the crucifixion and not at any time other than the crucifixion?
Counter arguments against the book
God is bound by the Bible
The Bible is Christ
The more the crux of the matter is, this is inherently unstable.
Greg Boyd’s open theism says God acts contradictory to His nature and basically lies, an end justifies the means type morality, He then slowly brings up the person, for the future’s sake. Lying for the future
My open theism is that God is holy, His scripture is holy, and is in line with His nature, and has always told truth, and the truth He said at that moment is 100% truth for that time. Whatever form He takes in response to us is 100% holy. Sacrifices were 100% God’s when He said He would have them, there is no deeper contradiction there, as a response to Abraham’s Isaac faith. Building to the future
Resurrection is a better centerpoint than the crucifixion
The prophecy is the Father
The writing inspiration is the Son
The Bible is seven times purified in the furnace of the earth, hell
Resurrection and translation is being caught up
So we have a perfect Bible today
Kingly Bible, because our Bible has resurrected now, not anymore dead, God is the living, not the dead
The originals writings (not prophecy) were not perfect were born in human likeness, the flesh as grass, skins and papyrus were dead, the sin is in the originals or original writers?
Romans 7:7-11
King James Version
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Originals were destroyed by fire, the furnace of the earth(?)
Sin was in the Alexandria
The transmission were not by by holy men (as we see Christ’s line), translation by holy men though inspire, the mystery of holiness is by holy men
Quotes from the book:
“Thus far Paul sounds confident, perhaps even a little proud, that he baptized next to no one at Corinth. But then Paul suddenly realizes that his claim to have only baptized Crispus and Gaius is mistaken. (So much for inerrancy!) Upon reflection, Paul has to acknowledge that he “did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” However, Paul apparently realized that even this corrected memory was probably incomplete, for he immediately adds, “beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else”
(Editor: Memory lapses aren’t sin, as they are spiritual reality (that baptism is not the emphasis!), but also implies that Paul’s holy forgetfulness has lessened baptism to its correct level of emphasis, God saw how holiness imbued itself in the flesh of man, and made it reality, both physical and spiritual reality)
“Both Naaman and Elisha know that bowing before an idol, if only to save your own skin, is not ideal, which is why Naaman feels the need to ask for Elisha’s forgiveness. But while this action misses the mark of God’s ideal, it apparently was the best Elijah surmised he could hope for from Naaman. After all, by committing himself to worshipping and sacrifice to no other god but Yahweh, Naaman had already undergone a monumental faith-paradigm shift. And he had demonstrated his sincerity by preparing to haul a ton of Israeli dirt back to Aram in order to carry out this worship and sacrifice. To demand more than this, I suspect Elisha thought, would be too much.”
(Editor: the sign of Christ was Namaan, and this shows the Gentile dispensation of loving God above all!)
“Defenders of biblical inerrancy who also embrace the concept of progressive revelation try to argue that God’s revelation gets clearer and clearer throughout the biblical narrative, but they insist that earlier revelations were nevertheless perfectly accurate, so far as they went. Hence, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that “revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive” while denying “that later revelation” ever contradicts earlier revelations.[27] In this view, in other words, progressive revelation happens by God adding more truth to previous true conceptions, but never by God correcting previous misconceptions. To be frank, I strongly suspect that this is a case of defenders of inerrancy wanting to have their progressive revelation cake while eating their doctrine of inerrancy too. It simply doesn’t work. To the degree that people don’t have a clear conception of God, they by definition have a foggy conception of God. And the only way to give people a clearer and more accurate conception of God is to help them abandon their foggier and less accurate conceptions of God.
If you affirm progressive revelation—and most theologians do—then I see no way for you to avoid accepting that certain portraits of God in Scripture are accommodations that to one degree or another do not accurately reflect God’s true will and nature.”
(Editor: the revelation was correct and true and real for their time. But not for today. There was “no correcting misconceptions”. They are 100% true for their time and how they manifested in their time, but not for today
In other words, God the Son changed! God the Father is the static perfection, but God the Son isn’t. This quote also self-contradicts the author’s open theism because it assumes a non-changing God yet still says there is a wrong perception of God. So only that part of God does not change in open theism?)
“Now, the very fact that everybody in the ANE sacrificed animals (and, all too often, children) long before the Hebrews came along proves that this practice did not originate with Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh at one point told the Israelites they were to “no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons” but were instead to sacrifice animals to Yahweh alone.[30] This suggests that the Israelites had already adopted the ANE practice of sacrificing animals to goat demons from their ANE neighbors, so Yahweh apparently decided that, since the Israelites weren’t ready to let go of this barbaric ritual, it was better to have them making sacrifices to God than to demons. In the words of the fourth century theologian, Gregory of Nazianzus, God “cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices.””
(Editor: Now this does reek of, by the hardness of your heart Moses did allow divorce, is it something like this?
The author is wrong here, because animal sacrifice will be instituted again in the future, and in the prior example of divorce, there is a beginning referent in Adam and Eve, and there is a beginning referent in sacrifice, Abel)
“The strongest confirmation of the accommodating nature of these sacrifices, however, is that later authors make it perfectly clear that Yahweh actually despised them! “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings,” the author of Hebrews states.[32] So too, in a passage that Jesus would later quote, Hosea says that Yahweh “desires mercy, and not sacrifice.”[33] And in Isaiah we read, I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. (Isa 1:11) And a few verses later Yahweh adds, Stop bringing meaningless offerings! They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. (Isa 1:13) Later authors were clearly capable of receiving truths that earlier authors were not, and one of these truths was that Yahweh is actually not at all pleased with the aroma of burning animal carcasses. These later depictions don’t merely add to earlier less complete depictions: they correct them.
* * *
This doesn’t mean that the earlier mistaken depictions of Yahweh commanding animal sacrifices and enjoying their aroma are any less fully God-breathed than the later depictions. It simply means that in breathing these earlier depictions, the cruciform God had to stoop to accommodate the fallen and culturally conditioned views and practices of God’s people at the time. The depictions of Yahweh enjoying animal sacrifices, together with all the other sub-Christ-like portraits of God in Scripture, bear witness to the truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”[34] God has always been doing, if in penultimate ways, what God does in an ultimate way on the cross: stooping to bear the sin of God’s people and to thereby take on an appearance that reflects the ugliness of that sin. More specifically, these portraits testify that God always been a noncoercive relational God who humbly enters into solidarity with God’s covenant partners, including with their fallen and culturally conditioned views of God, despite the fact that doing so conditions-for-the-worse how God appears in the story of God.”
(Editor: Refer to the future prophecy above. We know in context God despised the offerings because they were rendered meaningless, NOT because they were always meaningless. The author is pushing a narrative not found in the immediate context or other referent passages.)
“Although Elijah is generally depicted as a hero of the faith in Scripture, and although the fire that fell from the sky was clearly supernatural, Jesus rebuked his disciples for wanting to follow Elijah’s example. Some early manuscripts add that Jesus suggested that James and John were of a “different spirit” than he. If this reading is accepted, as I’m inclined to think it should be, Jesus was suggesting that Elijah’s destructive miracle had a demonic quality to it.[22]”
(Editor: Except Jesus refers to John the Baptist who was in Elias/Elijah as greatest born of all women. Again, ignoring that in fact, Jesus will do this in Revelation Himself. It simply wasn’t time, according to when Jesus read Isaiah in Luke, the day of vengeance was FUTURE. NOT that was it was inherently contradictory to Himself. )
“Except Jesus omitted the second half of the last line of his Isaiah quote! And what made this omission particularly significant is that waiting for God’s vengeance to fall on Israel’s enemies was a central feature of his audience’s messianic hope. For his hometown audience, Jesus had just omitted the punch line of this passage! Jesus then had the audacity to add, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing?” How could this passage possibly be “fulfilled,” his audience would have been thinking, if its punch line was missing? And besides, they wondered, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”[25] They were basically asking, “Who does this son of a local carpenter think it is?””
(Editor: Okay, that point is brought up. But the author ASSUMES it’s because Christ didn’t regard the day of vengeance as scripture to be truly fulfilled, rather, than simply that Jesus wasn’t going to do that now, He would do that in the FUTURE. )
“The first thing I’d say in response to this argument is that the very fact that Jesus repudiated and broke certain OT laws and taught people to do the same, as we’ve just seen, means that, when Jesus claimed that Scripture cannot be “broken,” he couldn’t have meant that every passage of Scripture must be adhered to, believed, and obeyed.”
(Editor: For every instance Jesus broke the law, another Scripture was used. For example, the sabbath breaking, David eating shewbread was used. So this is a self-defeating prospect. Scripture trumped scripture. It wasn’t non-Scripture trumping Scripture. Only Scripture can trump Scripture in a meta manner! Only God can trump God! No one else.)
January 7, 2020
The Bible itself is difficult enough given its literary, historical, and cultural challenges but when you add theological categories like authority, infallibility, or inspiration it all becomes downright unbearable. I long ago dealt with my inerrantist roots and often feel the pull of thinking about the Bible as a wholly human document. While Boyd’s book seems more geared to challenging the inerrantist than the progressive, the book is clearly good medicine for both.
Boyd’s thesis is that the Bible can still rightly be understood as inspired and authoritative even though it contains inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and morally disturbing teaching. It is not simply that the Bible can be inspired in spite of these problems, no, Boyd doubles down and argues that these actual problems point towards the Bible’s divine inspiration. As Boyd rhetorically asks, “What if God inspired them to function as assets, not problems?” Key to Boyd’s argument is what he calls a “cruciform model of inspiration.” Just as God used the ugliness of the cross bring about healing God is using the problems of the Bible to reveal God’s story—a story that points to the cross.
This was not a book I would have normally read, but I am quite happy I did. It has challenged me to keep thinking about “inspiration” and how God can use broken, mistaken, and imperfect vessels. While this book has not solved the “problem of divine inspiration” for me (assuming it is even solvable) it has given much to consider and I am sure I will return to particular chapters again and again.
This is not your typical stogy book of theology. The book is very readable and is a nice mix of personal story, argument, and humor. There is a helpful glossary for those less familiar with theological terminology. I recommend this book for anyone wishing to think more carefully about their beliefs about the Bible and I highly recommend it for college undergraduates being exposed to biblical errors and problems for the first time.
Boyd’s thesis is that the Bible can still rightly be understood as inspired and authoritative even though it contains inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and morally disturbing teaching. It is not simply that the Bible can be inspired in spite of these problems, no, Boyd doubles down and argues that these actual problems point towards the Bible’s divine inspiration. As Boyd rhetorically asks, “What if God inspired them to function as assets, not problems?” Key to Boyd’s argument is what he calls a “cruciform model of inspiration.” Just as God used the ugliness of the cross bring about healing God is using the problems of the Bible to reveal God’s story—a story that points to the cross.
This was not a book I would have normally read, but I am quite happy I did. It has challenged me to keep thinking about “inspiration” and how God can use broken, mistaken, and imperfect vessels. While this book has not solved the “problem of divine inspiration” for me (assuming it is even solvable) it has given much to consider and I am sure I will return to particular chapters again and again.
This is not your typical stogy book of theology. The book is very readable and is a nice mix of personal story, argument, and humor. There is a helpful glossary for those less familiar with theological terminology. I recommend this book for anyone wishing to think more carefully about their beliefs about the Bible and I highly recommend it for college undergraduates being exposed to biblical errors and problems for the first time.
April 13, 2020
Excellent, as expected.
In this book, Greg expands the project of his previous book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God (and its popular version “Cross Vision”) to apply his cruciform hermeneutic beyond the particular issue of violence in the Bible. Here, he attempts to apply the model to ALL of the problematic and questionable material in the Bible, including factual errors, contradictions between Gospels and depictions of God’s character which are (or seem) at odds with the God revealed in Christ. The upshot is that, in my view, the model simply works, so long as you are comfortable with the leaps required by his interpretive approach. (This echoes the feeling I had at the end of his other recent volumes, which were also excellent).
The first large section of the book is more autobiographical, describing how he came to this view, particularly after encountering the works of C.S. Lewis (whose work recovered his failed faith) and Karl Barth (who gave him a theological approach to sustain it). Barth gets the spotlight here, his neo-Orthodox approach to the Bible being something which Boyd has adopted almost wholesale. Being in the same boat myself, and finding great harmony with Boyd (he is probably my favourite theologian, as much for his approach as his conclusions), I found both his agreements and disagreements with Barth lucid and fair.
At the base of many of Boyd’s arguments is the concept of divine accommodation; that God‘s love for and solidarity with humanity are so great that he is willing to stoop to a staggering extent in order to meet us where we are, and call us forward. Boyd sees this as being most explicitly depicted at the cross, where God became the curse for us (as Jesus). In order to bring about his good purposes, he is willing to put on ugly masks whenever necessary in order to bring about beautiful outcomes. This does not, however, become an excuse for God to do abominable things, as in other models. In situations when God is depicted in sub-Christlike ways, Boyd suggests that something else is often going on: God is so committed to his relational project within humanity that the human contribution (the telling of the story) is allowed to be flawed as a kind of evidence for his abundant paternal generosity. As another author puts it, he is no helicopter parent, and happily lets his children tell the story (perfectly or otherwise!)
Despite the fact that this approach admits and even embraces imperfections in the Bible, the full inspiration of the text is upheld. If that sounds like a stretch, this is exactly the kind of book that you should read! It is, it turns out, very possible to hold to the full inspirational of the narratives without holding to the popular Evangelical view called “inerrancy”.
Some will find the lack of continuity between the Testaments too difficult to accept on this view (they would likely feel the same about Barth). However, I would submit that we must set our priorities in order if we are more worried about this continuity than we are about having a Christ-shaped image of God, which the New Testament goes to great pains to encourage us towards. The total harmony of the three persons of God is bedrock Christian theology, not the harmony of the two testaments, so if our God doesn’t look like Jesus (who is the “exact representation of God’s being” - Heb 1:3), then we still have work to do, and some of that work might be uncomfortable if we’ve been raised to read the Bible another way. Fortunately, courageous scholars like Boyd have done much of the work for us.
Lastly, I would say that Boyd gets many bonus points for continuously calling the Evangelical church forward in its approach to the Bible, rather than throwing Evangelicals out altogether (which, if you know his story, he has every reason to do). There is a growing line of progressive theologians who seem more interested in proving how clever they are and how silly Evangelicals are. Rather than assuming an arrogant contrarian approach, Boyd focuses on building something better as a partner in the work of the kingdom, refusing to cut himself off from those who have often cut him off. For that, I applaud him, and thank him for setting such a great example for others, myself included.
In this book, Greg expands the project of his previous book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God (and its popular version “Cross Vision”) to apply his cruciform hermeneutic beyond the particular issue of violence in the Bible. Here, he attempts to apply the model to ALL of the problematic and questionable material in the Bible, including factual errors, contradictions between Gospels and depictions of God’s character which are (or seem) at odds with the God revealed in Christ. The upshot is that, in my view, the model simply works, so long as you are comfortable with the leaps required by his interpretive approach. (This echoes the feeling I had at the end of his other recent volumes, which were also excellent).
The first large section of the book is more autobiographical, describing how he came to this view, particularly after encountering the works of C.S. Lewis (whose work recovered his failed faith) and Karl Barth (who gave him a theological approach to sustain it). Barth gets the spotlight here, his neo-Orthodox approach to the Bible being something which Boyd has adopted almost wholesale. Being in the same boat myself, and finding great harmony with Boyd (he is probably my favourite theologian, as much for his approach as his conclusions), I found both his agreements and disagreements with Barth lucid and fair.
At the base of many of Boyd’s arguments is the concept of divine accommodation; that God‘s love for and solidarity with humanity are so great that he is willing to stoop to a staggering extent in order to meet us where we are, and call us forward. Boyd sees this as being most explicitly depicted at the cross, where God became the curse for us (as Jesus). In order to bring about his good purposes, he is willing to put on ugly masks whenever necessary in order to bring about beautiful outcomes. This does not, however, become an excuse for God to do abominable things, as in other models. In situations when God is depicted in sub-Christlike ways, Boyd suggests that something else is often going on: God is so committed to his relational project within humanity that the human contribution (the telling of the story) is allowed to be flawed as a kind of evidence for his abundant paternal generosity. As another author puts it, he is no helicopter parent, and happily lets his children tell the story (perfectly or otherwise!)
Despite the fact that this approach admits and even embraces imperfections in the Bible, the full inspiration of the text is upheld. If that sounds like a stretch, this is exactly the kind of book that you should read! It is, it turns out, very possible to hold to the full inspirational of the narratives without holding to the popular Evangelical view called “inerrancy”.
Some will find the lack of continuity between the Testaments too difficult to accept on this view (they would likely feel the same about Barth). However, I would submit that we must set our priorities in order if we are more worried about this continuity than we are about having a Christ-shaped image of God, which the New Testament goes to great pains to encourage us towards. The total harmony of the three persons of God is bedrock Christian theology, not the harmony of the two testaments, so if our God doesn’t look like Jesus (who is the “exact representation of God’s being” - Heb 1:3), then we still have work to do, and some of that work might be uncomfortable if we’ve been raised to read the Bible another way. Fortunately, courageous scholars like Boyd have done much of the work for us.
Lastly, I would say that Boyd gets many bonus points for continuously calling the Evangelical church forward in its approach to the Bible, rather than throwing Evangelicals out altogether (which, if you know his story, he has every reason to do). There is a growing line of progressive theologians who seem more interested in proving how clever they are and how silly Evangelicals are. Rather than assuming an arrogant contrarian approach, Boyd focuses on building something better as a partner in the work of the kingdom, refusing to cut himself off from those who have often cut him off. For that, I applaud him, and thank him for setting such a great example for others, myself included.
August 5, 2023
An Important Read
The Bible is a complex, confusing, ancient book with thousands of stories and millions of interpretations. To read it well, you need a proper guide. Boyd offer us a well thought out book to help us with the many complications we run into, and guides us toward cruciform love as our primary answer for interpretation. Any lover of the Bible would do well to read this book.
The Bible is a complex, confusing, ancient book with thousands of stories and millions of interpretations. To read it well, you need a proper guide. Boyd offer us a well thought out book to help us with the many complications we run into, and guides us toward cruciform love as our primary answer for interpretation. Any lover of the Bible would do well to read this book.
March 26, 2023
Progressive theology is impressive, I'll give you that, but there are way too many loopholes that Boyd failed to address. While there are places where it is clear progressives have either misunderstood traditionalists or paraphrased the same things again (as though it hasn't been done in the first place by traditionalists), I did learn many things from this book and of progressive interpretations of the Cross.
Ugh, where do I even begin *facepalm*
Instead of reconciling Scripture with Scripture, Boyd has complied various authors and came up with his own variant of "exegesis" that would require reading of his other books. He promotes the Christus Victor model of atonement as the most biblical, where Christ conquers sin and death.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christus...
The problem with Christus Victor is it ironically denies (or doesn't mention) that Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God. But that is clearly what Scripture teaches! Propitiation isnt it? Something had to be appeased, there is a demand for it! There is substantial evidence, widely documented, that Penal Substitution is not only pervasively biblical but was affirmed by the early church fathers. This is not solely an idea that stemmed from modern systems or legal procedures of the Western world, it is in fact profoundly biblical.
It should be noted that Christus Victor is not mutually exclusive from Penal Substitution. Boyd states that he does not understand how Christ's temporary hanging on the cross can redeem us from an eternal consequence of sin against God. Well, isn't that precisely because Jesus Christ is God in the flesh? Only God is able to do something extraordinary like that (no normal human no matter how blessed he/she is able to replicate or come close to what He did)
Boyd's proposal of Cruciform Model of Inspiration is kind of going the same route of what the traditional view of Scripture is: everything culminates at the Cross. That I wholeheartedly agree, because that is exactly what He teaches in Scripture innit? But also not forgetting there is yet a time of judgement to come.
Another thing consistent with progressives is that they really dislike the "inhumane violence" committed by God and His chosen people esp in the OT. I would humbly argue that those were not "inhumane" but God had countlessly given chances upon chances for affected parties to repent and turn back to Him! If you read through the Prophets you can see much anguish and pain it caused God to destroy His people, God does not enjoy deleting His image-bearers (though marred by effects of sin) (Ezekiel 18:32; Ezekiel 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9; Titus 2:11)
Now clearly God chose that his Son would be killed. Isaiah 53:10 says, “It was the will of the Lord to crush him [or bruise him]; he has put him to grief.” What is not clear is that the Hebrew word will (chafetz) is translated most often with “delight” or “take pleasure” or “enjoy” or “be glad” or “be the good pleasure of.” In other words, nobody twisted God’s arm to send his Son to die. The death of the Son of God, in one sense, pleased God: it was a good and right and hard thing to do. In fact, Ephesians 5:2 says that Christ “gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” And you want to stop and say: Fragrant offering? Like to whom was it such a good smell? And the answer is: God.
And yet Romans 8:32 says, “[God] did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all.” Now that word “did not spare” (epheisato) is intended to communicate to us that this was not easy. This was his only Son. This was his much-loved Son. This was emotionally difficult in one sense for God to do. He loved his Son. He did not relish the thought of the pain that would come to His Son, or the darkness that would spread over his Son. And yet, in another sense, He did.
This is one "paradox" we ought to struggle with, as with many "paradoxes" that God reveals to us. You will understand that these aren't paradoxes because it fully describes God's character.
Ugh, where do I even begin *facepalm*
Instead of reconciling Scripture with Scripture, Boyd has complied various authors and came up with his own variant of "exegesis" that would require reading of his other books. He promotes the Christus Victor model of atonement as the most biblical, where Christ conquers sin and death.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christus...
The problem with Christus Victor is it ironically denies (or doesn't mention) that Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God. But that is clearly what Scripture teaches! Propitiation isnt it? Something had to be appeased, there is a demand for it! There is substantial evidence, widely documented, that Penal Substitution is not only pervasively biblical but was affirmed by the early church fathers. This is not solely an idea that stemmed from modern systems or legal procedures of the Western world, it is in fact profoundly biblical.
It should be noted that Christus Victor is not mutually exclusive from Penal Substitution. Boyd states that he does not understand how Christ's temporary hanging on the cross can redeem us from an eternal consequence of sin against God. Well, isn't that precisely because Jesus Christ is God in the flesh? Only God is able to do something extraordinary like that (no normal human no matter how blessed he/she is able to replicate or come close to what He did)
Boyd's proposal of Cruciform Model of Inspiration is kind of going the same route of what the traditional view of Scripture is: everything culminates at the Cross. That I wholeheartedly agree, because that is exactly what He teaches in Scripture innit? But also not forgetting there is yet a time of judgement to come.
Another thing consistent with progressives is that they really dislike the "inhumane violence" committed by God and His chosen people esp in the OT. I would humbly argue that those were not "inhumane" but God had countlessly given chances upon chances for affected parties to repent and turn back to Him! If you read through the Prophets you can see much anguish and pain it caused God to destroy His people, God does not enjoy deleting His image-bearers (though marred by effects of sin) (Ezekiel 18:32; Ezekiel 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9; Titus 2:11)
Now clearly God chose that his Son would be killed. Isaiah 53:10 says, “It was the will of the Lord to crush him [or bruise him]; he has put him to grief.” What is not clear is that the Hebrew word will (chafetz) is translated most often with “delight” or “take pleasure” or “enjoy” or “be glad” or “be the good pleasure of.” In other words, nobody twisted God’s arm to send his Son to die. The death of the Son of God, in one sense, pleased God: it was a good and right and hard thing to do. In fact, Ephesians 5:2 says that Christ “gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” And you want to stop and say: Fragrant offering? Like to whom was it such a good smell? And the answer is: God.
And yet Romans 8:32 says, “[God] did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all.” Now that word “did not spare” (epheisato) is intended to communicate to us that this was not easy. This was his only Son. This was his much-loved Son. This was emotionally difficult in one sense for God to do. He loved his Son. He did not relish the thought of the pain that would come to His Son, or the darkness that would spread over his Son. And yet, in another sense, He did.
This is one "paradox" we ought to struggle with, as with many "paradoxes" that God reveals to us. You will understand that these aren't paradoxes because it fully describes God's character.
September 27, 2024
This book settled so many issues of conscience for me with regard to how to view the Bible’s God-breathed-ness through human authorship. The traditional view of God inspiring a host of human authors to write a perfect manuscript had begun to sour to me, so this was timely and welcomed input that satiated my appetite by engaging with scripture and theology throughout history. It was peace-making for my own heart.
Boyd’s thesis repeated in various forms throughout, taken here from p 170, is that “The fault-lines in Scripture tell the story of a faithful God who has always been willing to stoop as low as necessary to accommodate the weakness and sin of God’s people in order to remain in covenant solidarity with them, and to continue to further God’s purposes through them.”
At first it seemed condescending to think of God as stooping, until Boyd demonstrates that it is God condescending to us in incredible love that’s displayed on the cross. If this thesis statement is unsettling, read the book to hear his argument before throwing the idea away.
Boyd presents then engages with Karl Barth’s christocentric theology to agree with him as well as push further to cross-centredness, wherein we find the epicenter of God stooping to enter into solidarity with sinful, weak humans. This I found particularly compelling: that if the cross is offensive and appears weak and foolish to the world, as the Apostle Paul says, then why should it bother us that the Bible appear offensive, weak and foolish because God chose to partner with human authors. It is this foolishness that turns out to shame the wise, and apparent weakness that shames human strength as the Spirit works through it.
I find one or two places where Boyd does some logic jumps, but when I went back to consider what was missing in the progression of arguments, I found that he had made applicable arguments elsewhere and simply not included them in those paragraphs.
Fans of Rene Girard will find this book compelling as it connects with Girard’s thinking on scapegoats. Boyd lightly engages with Girard in other venues and doesn’t appear to have come to his conclusions in this book via Girard but rather through his own experience and the influence of Karl Barth. Boyd’s story-telling throughout makes his ideas far easier to engage with than Girard.
Boyd’s thesis repeated in various forms throughout, taken here from p 170, is that “The fault-lines in Scripture tell the story of a faithful God who has always been willing to stoop as low as necessary to accommodate the weakness and sin of God’s people in order to remain in covenant solidarity with them, and to continue to further God’s purposes through them.”
At first it seemed condescending to think of God as stooping, until Boyd demonstrates that it is God condescending to us in incredible love that’s displayed on the cross. If this thesis statement is unsettling, read the book to hear his argument before throwing the idea away.
Boyd presents then engages with Karl Barth’s christocentric theology to agree with him as well as push further to cross-centredness, wherein we find the epicenter of God stooping to enter into solidarity with sinful, weak humans. This I found particularly compelling: that if the cross is offensive and appears weak and foolish to the world, as the Apostle Paul says, then why should it bother us that the Bible appear offensive, weak and foolish because God chose to partner with human authors. It is this foolishness that turns out to shame the wise, and apparent weakness that shames human strength as the Spirit works through it.
I find one or two places where Boyd does some logic jumps, but when I went back to consider what was missing in the progression of arguments, I found that he had made applicable arguments elsewhere and simply not included them in those paragraphs.
Fans of Rene Girard will find this book compelling as it connects with Girard’s thinking on scapegoats. Boyd lightly engages with Girard in other venues and doesn’t appear to have come to his conclusions in this book via Girard but rather through his own experience and the influence of Karl Barth. Boyd’s story-telling throughout makes his ideas far easier to engage with than Girard.
April 19, 2022
I admire Gregory Boyd’s efforts to both remain Evangelical and overcome some of the Evangelical language and doctrines that no longer work for a lot of us. If anything, Boyd does not go far enough in this book, still holding to the “Plenary (whole) Inspiration of Scripture,” the doctrine that all Scripture is “inspired,” and equally inspired. For me, the claim that even the errancy of the Bible is inspired is problematic, and creates bibliolatry.
Also, claiming Jesus as the Word of God over and above the Bible is a good start, but somewhat circular reasoning as we learn about Jesus through the Scriptures. Similar circular reasoning is created in calling the Bible “inspired” in the first place, which comes from one verse in the New Testament. Boyd also claims that Jesus had a high view of Scripture which may very well be true, although again we learn about Jesus’ through the Bible.
Even in the concept of kenosis, I thought Barth could have gone farther, as I hold more to views like Thomas Jay Oord that kenosis is essential, i.e. God could not have done otherwise while remaining a God of love.
Boyd found support for his theology of the Bible through Karl Barth, but also critiques Barth on a number of points, as do I. For me, Barth’s Calvinism gets in the way of what might have been a good theology.
Boyd puts all his emphasis on the cross as “the definitive revelation of God.” Indeed, Boyd calls his theory “The Cruciform Model of Inspiration.” I prefer thinking such as Richard Rohr’s that incarnation is already redemption.
What I liked: Boyd’s repudiation of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, support of progressive revelation, acceptance of open theism, and refusal to use patriarchal language. With respect to the PSA, Boyd’s comments on forgiveness are spot on: the PSA “doesn’t allow God to ever really forgive people. Forgiveness is about releasing a debit, not collecting it from someone else.” In all his writing, Boyd rejects an angry, violent, warrior God.
Boyd is bright and engaging in his writing, and parts of the book are quite dense theologically and philosophically. I think it is an important book for those still Evangelical and struggling with the Bible’s “errors, mistakes, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material,” written by “fallen, fallible, culturally conditioned” authors. For some of us, that ship has long sailed.
Also, claiming Jesus as the Word of God over and above the Bible is a good start, but somewhat circular reasoning as we learn about Jesus through the Scriptures. Similar circular reasoning is created in calling the Bible “inspired” in the first place, which comes from one verse in the New Testament. Boyd also claims that Jesus had a high view of Scripture which may very well be true, although again we learn about Jesus’ through the Bible.
Even in the concept of kenosis, I thought Barth could have gone farther, as I hold more to views like Thomas Jay Oord that kenosis is essential, i.e. God could not have done otherwise while remaining a God of love.
Boyd found support for his theology of the Bible through Karl Barth, but also critiques Barth on a number of points, as do I. For me, Barth’s Calvinism gets in the way of what might have been a good theology.
Boyd puts all his emphasis on the cross as “the definitive revelation of God.” Indeed, Boyd calls his theory “The Cruciform Model of Inspiration.” I prefer thinking such as Richard Rohr’s that incarnation is already redemption.
What I liked: Boyd’s repudiation of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, support of progressive revelation, acceptance of open theism, and refusal to use patriarchal language. With respect to the PSA, Boyd’s comments on forgiveness are spot on: the PSA “doesn’t allow God to ever really forgive people. Forgiveness is about releasing a debit, not collecting it from someone else.” In all his writing, Boyd rejects an angry, violent, warrior God.
Boyd is bright and engaging in his writing, and parts of the book are quite dense theologically and philosophically. I think it is an important book for those still Evangelical and struggling with the Bible’s “errors, mistakes, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material,” written by “fallen, fallible, culturally conditioned” authors. For some of us, that ship has long sailed.
March 11, 2020
This is a book in which Greg Boyd lays out his journey of coming to terms with the Bible's imperfections, a process that took many years and a lot of searching and studying. So, it's somewhat memoir (a very little bit). The first part, Wrestling with Problems, started at a place I could grab onto and comprehend easily, but near the middle/end of it, I had a difficult time keeping up (the chapters about Karl Barth), and I basically didn't "need" those to get the meat of the book, although some readers may feel they do. It weighed me down; I felt it was above my understanding in this section.
The second half, Cruciform Inspiration brought a breath of fresh air to my reading. In some ways, I felt like I could have started there. On page 145, I feel like Greg provides a great synopsis: "Since the cross reveals what God has always been like, and since all Scripture is God-breathed for the ultimate purpose of pointing us to the cross, I submit that we should read Scripture with the awareness that God sometimes reveals God's beauty by stooping to bear the ugliness, foolishness, and fallibility of God's people. More specifically, we should read Scripture with the awareness that sometimes the surface meaning of the passage will not reflect what God is truly like; it will rather reflect the way God's fallen and culturally conditioned ancient people view God, this is the sin that God is stooping to bear."
Sometimes he repeats himself even a couple of paragraphs later, and I wondered if I had forgotten to turn the page. This seems like an editing issue; there were also a number of typos.
This was an important book for me to read. I found it helpful to read in conjunction with books by Peter Enns and Brad Jersak.
The second half, Cruciform Inspiration brought a breath of fresh air to my reading. In some ways, I felt like I could have started there. On page 145, I feel like Greg provides a great synopsis: "Since the cross reveals what God has always been like, and since all Scripture is God-breathed for the ultimate purpose of pointing us to the cross, I submit that we should read Scripture with the awareness that God sometimes reveals God's beauty by stooping to bear the ugliness, foolishness, and fallibility of God's people. More specifically, we should read Scripture with the awareness that sometimes the surface meaning of the passage will not reflect what God is truly like; it will rather reflect the way God's fallen and culturally conditioned ancient people view God, this is the sin that God is stooping to bear."
Sometimes he repeats himself even a couple of paragraphs later, and I wondered if I had forgotten to turn the page. This seems like an editing issue; there were also a number of typos.
This was an important book for me to read. I found it helpful to read in conjunction with books by Peter Enns and Brad Jersak.
January 28, 2020
With confident humility, Greg Boyd uses his own journey of struggling with the problems and questionable issues of Scripture. He challenges those one the left, with their loose handle, on God’s inspiring and authoritative words. He also challenges the right, with their clenching, on perfect and safe inerrant inspiration. Carefully, Greg shows how these scriptures bare witness to a God who gets His hands dirty in our mess, restores us by bearing it himself, and then uses fallen creatures to tell the story. Greg convincingly shows Yahweh is not about doing things perfect and shiny. He uses us, broken and fallible, to write His love story to us. Greg writes, “I suspect Jesus retained those scars because they forever tell the story of his costly love for us, and this is a beautiful story that ought never stop being told. While Jesus’s scars must of been ugly, considered by themselves, they contribute to the beauty of the resurrected Christ once we understand the story they tell.” Read this book, you will not read the scriptures the same.
February 4, 2020
As people read the Bible, some will see errors, some will see contradictions--big and small. Folks have researched, explained and wrestled with these for years. For some people, they gave up and turned away. Others have chalked it up to their limited understanding. Greg Boyd challenges us to look at it differently. What if the errors and/or contradictions force us to look to God? What if the point is that the Bible ISN’T equal to God and was never meant to be as perfect as God?
What I appreciate most in this book is Boyd’s transparency in showing us his journey from Christian, to atheist, and back to Christian. He reveals his thought process and struggles.
I recommend this book to those who have struggled with errors and/or contradictions they have discovered as they read the Bible. I also recommend this book to those who believe the Bible was intended to be as perfect as God.
I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased opinion.
What I appreciate most in this book is Boyd’s transparency in showing us his journey from Christian, to atheist, and back to Christian. He reveals his thought process and struggles.
I recommend this book to those who have struggled with errors and/or contradictions they have discovered as they read the Bible. I also recommend this book to those who believe the Bible was intended to be as perfect as God.
I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased opinion.
January 28, 2025
This book was so refreshing and a great place to start when thinking about how we handle the problems we have in scripture. I appreciate his call to not put our faith in the Bible, but in Jesus. He holds the Bible in high regard while also being able to wrestle with it in a beautiful way. I have always struggled with how we reconcile the god breathed nature of the Bible with all of its problems, and he does an excellent job offering a solution through his cruciform model. He spent a LONG time talking about Karl Barth, which got a little long, but I learned some stuff about him I didn’t know! All in all, I I couldn’t put it down. Once again G Boyd changed my life through his excellent scholarship and pastoral, heart-driven words.
January 22, 2021
Is the Bible without error? Greg Boyd says no (and I agree). What todo then? Throw out the error bits? Greg says no, ALL scripture is God breathed! So how then to read/ understand the text. He builds the case that we need to read using a Cruciform view (Jesus on the cross). He suggests that God stoops (accommodates) to our level to let biblical authors express God as they understand him but we need to apply a correction but Jesus on the cross fully reveals God’s character. This view is compatible IMO with Pete Enns “God let’s his children tell the story”.
February 22, 2021
I struggled with this one. At some level, I actually agree with much of Boyd's approach to scripture. But chapter after chapter, I felt like he pushed things a bit farther than I am comfortable with. I also checked on most of the footnotes throughout my read as well, and I often felt like Boyd would stretch the interpretation of a verse, and state his interpretation as undisputed fact.
Overall, it was a frustrating read. I found myself wanting to agree with Boyd, but disagreeing with how he was supporting his conclusions.
Overall, it was a frustrating read. I found myself wanting to agree with Boyd, but disagreeing with how he was supporting his conclusions.
January 30, 2025
Very thought-provoking book that offers a valuable perspective for interpreting the OT and NT. Specifically, looking at all scripture through the lens of the crucifixion enables us to better deal with what the modern mind might consider offensive. If the King of the Universe is most trimphant in his moment of greatest humility, of course we should expect a bible that is less than what we would expect divine scripture to be. I would have liked for there to be more specific examples of problematic areas in the bible and how exactly the lens of the crucifixion resolves those problems.
July 15, 2020
A lot to consider. I deeply appreciated the approach of the author and the humility displayed in how he wrote this book. The irony of arrogance slipping into theological writing is almost comical. I have long struggled with the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture so this was a great starting place for considering other alternatives without "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so-to-speak.
May 4, 2021
Contains some interesting and thought provoking ideas that are unfortunately overshadowed by the unbelievable amount of typos, especially in the first three-quarters of this book. Some can probably overlook that, but it's hard for me to take an author's ideas seriously when it seems rather obvious the editing process was not taken seriously. I don't mean to harp, but it is truly the most typos I have ever encountered in a completed book. 2.5 stars
March 2, 2022
What a great book! I found the "Cruciform Model of Inspiration" enlightening and very helpful (especially as a way of thinking about some of the more problematic passages in the Bible). The image of the cracked vase and the Kingsugi way of repairing without hiding the cracks and in fact highlighting the cracks, offers such a beautiful way to view the Bible, and the world. So glad I read this.
December 22, 2024
This book has helped me have a new appreciation for the Old Testament and has answered many of the questions about things that happened in the Old Testament. The book really gave me a great perspective on why people in the Old Testament acted in such violent ways on behalf of want they thought God wanted. Greg Boyd has provided another book that has made me love and appreciate our God more. This is why I love Greg’s books.
August 7, 2023
Greg Boyd’s Cruciform hermeneutic is one of the most important contributions (or rediscoveries) of modern theology. In Inspired Imperfection, Boyd defends the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, OT and NT, beating against the progressive liberalism at one extreme, and the fundamentalist inerrancy at the other. A gem of a book.
October 10, 2025
This is a really interesting book that I didn't know I needed. The argument is well written and makes some fair movements throughout while not forgetting that a pastoral stance is also helpful for this conversation.
I need to reread soon to have a better grasp, but even the first read felt like I managed to get lots of new insights!
I need to reread soon to have a better grasp, but even the first read felt like I managed to get lots of new insights!
February 17, 2020
Things Greg Boyd's books never fail to do:
1) Make me think he's crazy (at first...and then only a little at the end)
2) Wear out an entire highlighting pen
3) Turn my theology upside down
4) Leave me wanting more
1) Make me think he's crazy (at first...and then only a little at the end)
2) Wear out an entire highlighting pen
3) Turn my theology upside down
4) Leave me wanting more
December 24, 2021
This is a very important read. There are contradictions in the Protestant Canon and it has lead to either denial or loss of faith. It doesn’t have to be either. It should strengthen our faith as God moves and shines through.
September 5, 2024
~3.5
"If God perfectly revealed Godself in history through a man who bore the sin of the entire human race, why should we for a moment think it a problem for God to reveal Godself through a book that reflects the fallenness and fallibility of its human authors?"
"If God perfectly revealed Godself in history through a man who bore the sin of the entire human race, why should we for a moment think it a problem for God to reveal Godself through a book that reflects the fallenness and fallibility of its human authors?"
February 9, 2020
I think this is a good introduction into Boyd’s Cruciform Hermeneutics. Readable, concise.
July 1, 2020
Helpful description of how Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic applies to understanding the authority of Scripture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews