Why did Jesus stop reading?

[mattrose]

Hi Matt,

It seems to me the overall point, the reason for Boyd's view, is that he can not believe that God's character would allow Him to directly send the flood on man; he says sin is self punishing.

I want to make a small point in response to this... I don't think Boyd's starting point is that he simply 'can not believe that God's character would allow Him to directly send the flood on man.' That would be, perhaps, a theologically liberal starting point (This MUST not be so, therefore...). Boyd is no theological liberal. I think his starting point (I'll take him at his word because he says this repeatedly) is that since Jesus is the fullest revelation of God's character that we have... all other Scripture should be interpreted in light of Him. So the question becomes, what is the best way to read the story of the flood in light of Jesus.

What is there in the story of the flood that would support this?

Well, Boyd directly stated what aspects of the story support this. In Genesis 6:3 God seems to directly state that in 120 years His Spirit will withdraw from humanity.

Of course, we also have aspects of the story that seemingly state that God directly caused the flood. In 6:7 God says "I will wipe mankind whom I have created from the face of the earth." In 6:13 He states that "I am going to put an end to all people.... I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." In 6:17 He says "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life". In 7:4 He says "I will send rain... I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature." All of these statements are made before the actually flood happens.

So prior to the flood we have 1 verse that seems to support the 'indirect judgment (withdrawal)' theory and 4 verses that seem to support the 'direct judgment' theory. When the account of the actual flood is recorded, the evidence seems to be neutral:

7:6 "The floodwaters came"
7:10 "The floodwaters came"
7:11 "The springs of the great deep burst forth"
7:11 "The floodgates of the heavens were opened"
7:17 "The flood kept coming on the earth"
7:18 "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth"
7:19 "They rose greatly on the earth"
7:20 "The waters rose"
7:23 "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out"

Missing from any of these phrases (during the actual event of the flood) is reiteration of God's direct role. All these statements are statements of nature. And it's not that God isn't mentioned at all in the section. He does actively and directly do 1 thing. God 'shut him [Noah] in". So the only thing God is said to directly do DURING the event of the flood is a saving act (securing Noah and his family in the ark).

Not only that, but the very first thing we read is that after 150 days of the waters flooding the earth "God remembered Noah". Without imagining that this means God had 'forgotten' Noah, we can at least suggest that this use of 'remember' could point in the direction of God having not been directly involved in the events of the flood. For NOW, at this point, we see God directly working with nature.

8:1 "He sent the wind over the earth and the waters receded"

So it seems God directly initiated the receding of the waters (another saving act).

Later, we see more evidence that might most easily be interpreted as supporting the 'direct judgment' position. After the flood, God says "Never again will I destroy all living creatures" (8:21, though throughout chapter 9 the language goes back to neutral).

It seems to me, then, that there are strands of support for both the 'direct' and 'indirect' interpretations of the judgment of the flood. If I'm being honest, I'd say the text itself lends itself MORE to the 'direct judgment' interpretation. But if I'm being honest again, when I apply what I know about the character of Christ the scales seem to be at least balanced.

The question, for me, becomes 'Is there another way to understand the direct judgment sounding statements?' I think there is. I believe that God is willing to take responsibility for what happens in His creation. Since God created and sustains the earth, when He chooses to withdraw from it (in some sense), He is in some ways responsible for what happens next. If God brought and brings order to creation, then His withdrawal will mean disorder/chaos. Weather patterns, for instance, will go wonky. If it was God's decision to withdraw, then I could see how God will be content to inspire the human author of the account to credit the floodwaters to Him even thought, more directly, the floodwaters were the result of the either nature moving back to non-order or Satan bringing non-order.

In sum, I think there is evidence for both the 'direct' and 'indirect' interpretations of the judgment of the flood. When I study other judgments in Scripture (where it seems to be the norm that God accepts responsibility but judgment actually comes through the form of nature of a human army), the scale seems to tip (at least for me) toward indirect judgment.

I am not grasping the significance of God not directly being the agent causing the flood. And if God caused the flood by simply withdrawing, what difference would it make? If a father normally cares for his children and wakes up during the night to find the house on fire, and walks out the door to leave them to their fate, is he any less guilty than if he started the fire himself?

Well I think your analogy is flawed here.

In your analogy, the father 'wakes up during the night to find the house on fire'. This makes God out to be a half-asleep and ignorant Father who then does the cowardly thing of running to save Himself. That isn't at all what Boyd is saying, as I'm sure you know. Of course, what Boyd is saying is that God knew exactly what would happen if He withdrew (hence it IS a judgment). But He doesn't withdraw to save Himself. He withdraws to save Humanity.

A better analogy might be the story of the prodigal son. The son rebels against his father and runs away. Wouldn't a wise father most likely know that the story was not going to play out well for the boy? Maybe he could have even guessed that he'd end up a beggar. Does his knowledge of what would happen make him a bad father for letting the boy go? He knew the boys life would become more chaotic, but he let him go anyways. It seems to me that this story shows us the heart of our heavenly Father.

In both the flood story and the prodigal son story, God is depicted as emotionally grieving, not angry. He is depicted as looking for a way to ultimately save rather than ultimately reject.

[Candlepower]

Murray said

Jesus is not a child-killer! A child-thriller yes! But a child-killer NEVER!

It is impossible that Murray is ignorant of 2 Samuel 12:12-15, where we read that:

1. Nathan prophesied David's child would die,
2. the Lord struck the child and it became ill,
3. the child died.

This syllogism follows:

1. God killed the baby.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus killed the baby.

To deny Point #1, Murray would have to believe that the Biblical text is wrong -- that the writer meant Satan or some other force, but certainly not the Lord (NEVER!), "struck the child."

To deny Points #2 & 3, Murray would have to believe that

1. Jesus is not "The mighty God, The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6)
2. Jesus is not "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)

Like Augustine and Calvin, Murray constrains God with the presuppositions of his particular theological construction. For God to fit into his systems, he must modify and deny what we're told by scripture, the only literary revelation we have from God.

By the way, what's a child thriller? Where's that in Scripture? I suspect Murray chose that word not because it's profound, but because it cutely rhymes with killer.

[Paidion]

Yes I read it but may have misunderstood his point. I thought he was saying the Jews believed this but Jesus showed their idea to be false. Apparently you and he believe it true - that Satan was God's agent in "acts of violence and killing".

Again I ask, and never get an answer, what difference do you think it makes whether God directly kills or does it through an agent? If I hire a "hit man" to kill someone am I a better person than if I do it myself? And I assure you that I believe that God caused the flood and His righteousness is in no way lessened by doing so.

No. Neither Richard Murray nor I believe that Satan was God's agent in acts of violence and killing. So I think you still don't get the point. Murray is explaining the sense in which he believes Moses to have stated that God did these things. So for Moses, your second paragraph applies. And I'm sure (if Murray is right) that Moses would agree with you that it's the same thing. So that even though it was Satan who directly did it, Moses says it was God. But Murray says that Jesus interpreted Moses differently without ascribing these acts of violence to God, but to Satan, who in fact, acts independently of God.

Perhaps the following explains it better:

So, the culprit in the world-wide flood is, according to Jewish thought, Satan. And they are RIGHT about THAT----- Satan's fingerprints are the ONLY ones found on the Genesis flood. But what the Jews, both ancient and modern, are WRONG about is their
belief that Satan is an obedient angel merely doing what God expressly tells him to do.

In the New Testament, we get a significantly different picture. While Hebrews 2:14-15 confirms that Satan, as "the devil," does indeed have "the power of death," Jesus' purpose in bearing the cross was to "deliver them who through fear of death were all
their lifetime subject to bondage." Put even more bluntly in this passage, Jesus ascended the cross in order to "destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Jesus came to destroy the works of the destroyer. 1 John 3:8. But Jesus destroyed
them not with His "alleged" counter-wrath, but with His sacrificial love. Jesus came to reveal that all forms of "death" and "violence" were enemies of God and never a part of His divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 defines the dynamic of "death" as an "enemy"of God to be "put under His feet" until it's "destroyed."

So, if the Old Testament saints were confused and not able to differentiate the purposes of Satan and God, what does this imply about their ability to distinguish between the voices of God and the devil? Well, it allows for the absolute mother of all mistaken
identities--- confusing the voices of God and Satan--- or, just as tragic, mistakenly combining their TWO voices into ONE bipolar voice. Like a high static radio, which sometimes receives two different signals at once, the Old Testament saints were hearing from both Yahweh and Satan, sometimes alternatively, and sometimes simultaneously. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, they could not distinguish between both voices, again just like a radio receiving two different stations although the dial is only on one setting. The Old Testament saints assumed both voices were from God, that both WERE God.

But, Jesus came to correct all misunderstandings about His Father. We have the anointing BECAUSE of Jesus to go back and properly divide Scripture, just like He did in Matthew 5:38-48. Jesus came to reveal His Father's light and Satan's darkness,
something the Old Testament saints were clueless about. John 1:18. So, in regard to the flood, what role did Satan play and what role did God play? Satan did the killing-- all of it. Why do we know this? Hebrews 2:14-15 says Satan has "the power of death," not God. God is not a killer-- period. He could not have sent the flood because the New Testament says He doesn't kill. But, Satan sure does. And I'm sure we agree that Satan was not off somewhere twiddling his thumbs in the Old Testament while God was wiping out the whole earth's population save one family. If God is the killer of evil men, who needs Satan? Jesus called Satan the "murderer from thebeginning," not His heavenly Father.

Yet, what exact role did God play in the process? I believe the event transpired as follows: Men continually sowed wickedness in the earth until their thoughts and imaginations were purely evil (Gen. 6:5). God foreknew their expanding unbelief and that Satan would have greater and greater access to afflict and destroy all evil men in 120 years. This was because they were continually quenching and "pressuring away" the Lord's protective Spirit by increasingly giving their hearts over to the devil (Gen. 6:3). God warned His righteous Noah to build a protective Ark for Noah and his family to avoid the Satanic wrath to come. (Gen. 6:8-22). Satan continued to "accuse" God that He should repent of ever making mankind and that they had to be wiped out (Gen. 6:6-7). God responded that His righteous Noah would not fail and that his righteous seed would be preserved (Gen. 6:8). Satan released his killer flood and the wicked perished (Gen. 7:10-24). God's protective spirit contracted down to the size of Noah's ark and brought them through the flood and blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen. 9:1).

I freely admit to excavating, renovating and elevating Moses's version of the flood to comply with the New Testament understanding of God's role in the world. This is the only reading that keeps God from being clearly guilty of death, disaster and destruction.

[Paidion]

To deny Point #1, Murray would have to believe that the Biblical text is wrong -- that the writer meant Satan or some other force, but certainly not the Lord (NEVER!), "struck the child."

No. Murray does not believe the Biblical text is wrong. In the quotes of Murray that I offered, it is clear that what he thinks is that the writer meant God, all right, because the Hebrews at that time (and even to this day) believed that Satan was an agent of God. Thus if Satan did a thing, one might as well say that God did it, since Satan could not act without the permission of God. But Murray believes that Jesus and the apostles understood that Satan acts independently of God. Therefore, in reality (according to Murray) though Nathan prophesied that the child would die, it was Satan who killed it.

Another thing that modern people often say, is that if God "allows" a thing, when He could have prevented it, it must be God's will for the thing to happen. For example, God "allows" (in the sense of seldom doing anything to prevent them) all the tortures, rapes, and murders that are continuously occurring in the world. Therefore it is God's will that they occur. Murray vehemently denies this. He believes that God never allows evil. However, I think that by saying that, he means that God never gives permission for evil acts, or else that though God doesn't always prevent them, He doesn't restrain Himself from doing so in order to fulfill a deeper purpose.

However if by "allow" we mean "does nothing to prevent," then Murray would have to admit that God allows evil in that sense, since He usually does nothing to prevent it, at least throughout the history of mankind until the present.

[Paidion]

If this strikes you as a strong rebuttal to my points, Paidion, then I will leave it with the abilities of readers to assess arguments to reach their own conclusions.

There seems to be wisdom in that stance.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Before I say much more, could you clarify some things regarding your (and Murray's) ideas?

You wrote:

But Murray says that Jesus interpreted Moses differently without ascribing these acts of violence to God, but to Satan, who in fact, acts independently of God.

When you say Satan acts independently of God do you mean he is at liberty to kill people whenever he pleases? Are all deaths attributable to Satan?

You quoted Murray:

In the New Testament, we get a significantly different picture. While Hebrews 2:14-15 confirms that Satan, as "the devil," does indeed have "the power of death," Jesus' purpose in bearing the cross was to "deliver them who through fear of death were all
their lifetime subject to bondage." Put even more bluntly in this passage, Jesus ascended the cross in order to "destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Jesus came to destroy the works of the destroyer. 1 John 3:8. But Jesus destroyed
them not with His "alleged" counter-wrath, but with His sacrificial love. Jesus came to reveal that all forms of "death" and "violence" were enemies of God and never a part of His divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 defines the dynamic of "death" as an "enemy"of God to be "put under His feet" until it's "destroyed."

Since the article "the" is in the Greek that would appear to indicate that, whatever "the power of death" refers to, Satan possessed it and God did not. Was this power indirect through sin of which is the ultimate cause of death? Or is it the state of death? Since Jesus came to "destroy the works of the destroyer" if "putting to death" is (or was) Satan's prerogative, did Christ terminate that by the cross and resurrection?

It seems to me this "power of death" is an indirect power that Satan has through sin and which is overcome through Christ's resurrection (past) and our future resurrection. It seems to me Murray, and yourself, are misapplying scripture to make an unrelated point.

[Paidion]

It is hard for a paradigm different from yours to come across in a post or two. I am still in the process of reading his book, and so would like to do that before answering questions. Perhaps if you read his book, your questions would be answered...and much more! He has made the book free as a pdf file, and it can be downloaded directly his website. Go to the website indicated below. Then click on "Books" and finally on the book entitled "God Versus Evil."

http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/file/God-Vs-Evil

Richard Murray makes a statement on page 24 with which I agree. I have also read a similar statement from one of George MacDonald's writings.

We must let the character of God define Scripture RATHER than allowing the Scripture to define God's character.

[Homer]

Richard Murray wrote:
We must let the character of God define Scripture RATHER than allowing the Scripture to define God's character.

But the only knowledge we have of God's character is from what He has revealed to us through scripture. We can see something of God, and perceive there must be a God, through nature. But nature does not inform us whether God loves us or no. In fact, nature can be cruel and might lead us to think God hates us.

[steve7150]

Richard Murray wrote:
We must let the character of God define Scripture RATHER than allowing the Scripture to define God's character.





In another book with the same theme "Don't Blame God" by Mark H Graeser,John A Lynn, John W Schoenheit , it says Adam had dominion of the world ,"But Adam by disobeying God relinquished his authority to Satan who since that day has been "the god of this age." Satan has the legal authority over the world, including all the decendants of Adam who are born as citizens of his "evil empire."
Also they claim that many references to God in the OT actually refer to Satan by use of several literary methods including the use of "Metonymy." They say "Metonymy" is a common figure of speech with a wide variety of usages. "The White House said today" is one contemporary example in which the President and his staff are represented by a building.
They say, One kind of Metonymy is the exchange of one noun for another related noun. For the most part our use of this figure of speech is so natural that we do not even realize we are using it.

[Candlepower]

Richard Murray wrote:
We must let the character of God define Scripture RATHER than allowing the Scripture to define God's character.

At first glance, Murray's is a silly and superficial statement that sounds like it has more depth than it actually does. It reminds me of a cheap sentiment popular years ago: "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Having said that, nothing has been said, really. But Murray's statement is much worse than cute and vacuous; it is misleading. Murray clearly means that Scripture does a poor job of defining God's character. Heaven forbid that we "allow" the Scripture to define God's character! What kind of twisted reasoning is that? There is no conflict between God and His Word. God's Word perfectly defines God. Murray apparently thinks he can do a better job. The conflict is between Murray's word and God's.

If we can't trust God's Word to define God's character, who can we trust? Perhaps Murray's conjectures? His visions? His philosophy? His eisegesis? Ahhh, there's the answer! He obviously sees himself as more qualified than God to define God.

But the only knowledge we have of God's character is from what He has revealed to us through scripture. We can see something of God, and perceive there must be a God, through nature. But nature does not inform us whether God loves us or no. In fact, nature can be cruel and might lead us to think God hates us.

Good point, Homer.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!!