Greg Boyd on OT relationship to NT

[mattrose]

Anyone have an hour to listen and want to dialogue on this?

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermo ... w-activity

[christopher]

Hi Matt,

Funny you brought this up. I listened to this last week.

I'm still processing some of what Boyd said, but like many things I hear it's quickly fading from my memory.

I can agree with the aspect of God slowly revealing Himself to humanity over the course of history. I think that's pretty plainly seen as you read the NT and look back to the OT through that lens.

However, the general idea of God as "missionary" that Boyd was suggesting seemed just a bit of a stretch to me. The analogy of the African missionaries he used does not fit very well IMO because God was not just tolerating some of the practices of humanity as He slowly revealed a more excellent way (as Boyd suggests), He was taking the position of a sovereign King and commanding them in many cases (violence, sacrifices, etc).

I realize the cognitive dissonance that is often created in people when juxtaposing the OT and the NT, and it seemed like this sermon was Boyd wrestling with this.

I like Greg Boyd. I listen to his sermons every week. But in this case, I don't quite follow his conclusion. Maybe I just need a little more convincing.

What were your impressions?

[mattrose]

I would have basically identical thoughts as you have expressed...

I look forward to reading the book when it comes out so that I can give it a fuller hearing

[RickC]

So . . . I haven't been posting here much in a while . . . .
But I'm a daily "View Active Topics" reviewer.

Like Christopher, I'm something of a Boyd Fan. His view on Open Theism is, basically, my position (on all that sort of thing). Anyways . . . I'm off-topic.

To The Topic
I looked up Col 2:17 in Greek.
Revelation!
Yet one more instance where translators have departed from the actual text!!!

At least NET had the translation note:
2 tn Grk “but the body of Christ.” The term body here, when used in contrast to shadow (σκιά, skia) indicates the opposite meaning, i.e., the reality or substance itself.

NET offers their interpretation, which seems a possible meaning. However, is this what Paul was really trying to convey?

The only correct translation I've found: @ Col 2:16-17 (YLT):
16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the *body* [is] of the Christ (italics mine);
*'body*, Gk, soma
=======================

I had never realized how wrong virtually all translations are on Col 2:17! <--- That alone, made this thread well worth it (thx, Matt)!

In the meantime I wonder . . . .
Paul might be saying that those who viewed God (in the, then, present tense) from an Old Covenant perspective were looking at God from within a shadow of Jesus. In other words, Jesus was 'behind the shadow'. But Him, they couldn't actually see (as He had not been revealed, for one thing). Another possible angle on this would be that they were in the 'darkness of the shadow' and, while not exactly or necessarily being 'blinded', their viewpoint was clouded.

I'm sure other possibilities exist on what Paul was driving at. But I work nites & am sleepy. In any event, I'll need to re-watch the vid to comment more in-depth.

While I think Greg is doing an excellent job of thinking out loud (and especially so 'in a church'), and what with the actual Greek staring at me now(!); I'm relatively sure that "the reality is in Christ" somehow misses the mark of Paul's meaning. Not saying Greg's sinning or anything.

Just saying . . . .
Any feedback on the Greek?

I'll try to get back later, y'all take care!

[christopher]

While I think Greg is doing an excellent job of thinking out loud (and especially so 'in a church')

I should say that I really appreciate when preachers are brave and honest enough to do this.

[mattrose]

I thought the 'jump' in the sermon was his insistence on defining a shadow as a 'negative' image

I understand the sense that it is a 'negative'... but he was launching off of that term, it seems, to make his case that even things God commanded in the OT are to be viewed as 'negative' (bad) things. The point to Christ only insofar as they reveal how far God is willing to stoop to our level (as He primarily did through Christ).

I definitely appreciate the attempt to deal with this issue. And I'm not casting it aside as worthless (I'm actually quite sure that there's a lot of truth in it). Just maybe not the full removal of the tension.

[kaufmannphillips]

I did not listen to the Boyd sermon, but Paul may have been alluding to this chestnut directly, or at least drawing upon it to some extent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave; http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html.