{"id":46721,"date":"2017-11-07T08:00:56","date_gmt":"2017-11-07T16:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/redeeminggod.com\/?p=46721"},"modified":"2017-11-12T09:18:23","modified_gmt":"2017-11-12T17:18:23","slug":"greg-boyd-review-nothing-but-the-blood-of-jesus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redeeminggod.com\/greg-boyd-review-nothing-but-the-blood-of-jesus\/","title":{"rendered":"Greg Boyd reviews “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and I Respond"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"GregIn one of his recent email newsletters (which you can read here<\/a>), pastor and world-renowned theologian Greg Boyd included a review of my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus<\/a>.<\/em> Below is his review, interspersed with my comments and responses.<\/p>\n

Before we get started however, let me state a critique of Greg\u2019s critique. The vast majority of Greg\u2019s critique of my book is focused on one-fifth of the book, namely, the two chapters on scapegoating. Yet the ideas in these two chapters were built on the ideas from the previous six chapters (two each on sin, law, and sacrifice). And as I read Greg\u2019s critique of what I wrote about scapegoating, I gained the distinct impression that he had not seriously read the previous six chapters, where many of his concerns are addressed.<\/p>\n

Even then, as I read Boyd\u2019s critiques of scapegoating, I once again had the distinct impression that what I wrote was being misunderstood and misrepresented. For example, some of what Greg says I wrote about Achan in Joshua 7 is not actually found in my book. Yes, if certain statements are read out of context, I could see how Greg could get his ideas from what I wrote.<\/p>\n

I feel that if Greg had let go of some of his presuppositions and had considered the five themes of my book as a whole, some of his critiques below would not exist.<\/p>\n

All authors deal with this. Greg has said the exact same thing to me about my critiques of his cruciform thesis. In response, I have tried to listen more closely and read his books more deeply so that I might better understand. I also appreciate him taking the time to engage with me in dialogue.<\/p>\n

So here is his review with my responses. His review is in the blockquotes.<\/p>\n

I met Jeremy Myers at the ReKnew Cross Vision Conference and he graciously gave me a copy of his book, Nothing But the Blood of Jesus<\/em>. I had read Jeremy\u2019s review of my book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God<\/em> (CWG) as well as other reflections of his on a Facebook page dedicated to discussing this book, so I was aware that our views overlap on certain points and diverge sharply at others. Reading Nothing But the Blood of Jesus<\/em> clarified these points of agreement and disagreement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It was great meeting Greg. I especially enjoyed meeting many of the other people who attended the conference, some of whom already knew me from my books and podcast.<\/p>\n

Greg mentions the Facebook group, which he also mentioned at the conference in the Saturday morning session where he and I talked on stage for a couple minutes. At that time, I think he said the group was vitriolic. I never saw any vitriol there, but that might be due to the fact that I was not really active in this group. I never once made a post, and I commented a grand total of 12 times. So I find it strange that Greg associates me with the group. I hope he doesn’t think I am vitriolic. <\/p>\n

\"Crucifixion<\/a>He probably associates me with the group because someone in the group created a post which contained my review of Greg’s book. They pulled the review from my site at RedeemingGod.com, which can be found here<\/a>. I reviewed the follow-up summary volume, Cross Vision <\/em>here.<\/a><\/p>\n

Anyway, it\u2019s not a big deal, but I was surprised at the conference (and here again) that I am associated with a Facebook group in which I had almost no involvement. Still, it’s a great group, and if you want to discuss the themes of Greg’s book, or non-violence in general, you can go request to join the group here.<\/a> If you join, just don’t be vitriolic! Ha!<\/p>\n

The central thesis of Jeremy\u2019s work is that \u201cthe blood of Jesus\u201d is the solution to the problem of sin not because it placates the Father\u2019s wrath or somehow magically washes away our sin, but because Jesus\u2019 death on the cross exposes the true nature of sin and calls us to live free from it. But before we can understand, let alone critique, Jeremy\u2019s thesis, we need to know something about Ren\u00e9 Girard (1923-2015), a French historian and philosopher of social science whose work has proven increasingly influential in Western theological circles over the last several decades. The reason we need to first understand Girard is because Jeremy\u2019s thesis is heavily reliant on the work of Girard.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t know if \u201cheavily reliant\u201d is the right term. As any honest theologian will admit, my ideas are built on the shoulders of numerous scholars and authors who have influenced my thinking over my years of study and research. So, for example, at various places in the book, I give credit to Fleming Rutledge<\/a>, John Sailhamer<\/a>, Mark Biddle<\/a>, and several others.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, while Girardian thought did indeed influence my thinking on some areas, it is not actually his books that influenced me most, but the books of several other Girardian scholars, such as Mark Heim<\/a>, Robert Hamerton-Kelly,<\/a> and Gil Bailie<\/a>. But regardless, I fully admit that Girardian insights into anthropology and sociology have influenced my thinking about life and Scripture, as have the views of Greg Boyd<\/a>, C. S. Lewis<\/a>, N. T. Wright<\/a>, Sharon Baker<\/a>, Robert Farrar Capon<\/a>, Zane Hodges<\/a>, Brian Zahnd<\/a>, Brad Jersak<\/a>, and numerous others. (Reading these people’s books will transform your life and theology!)<\/p>\n

As Jeremy makes clear in his book (155-64), the core of Girard\u2019s theory is that humans are by nature imitators. We thus find ourselves desiring what others desire, which leads to rivalry and, inevitably, to violence. Since everybody is subject to this process, all social groups would eventually descent into total anarchy were there not some mechanism for channeling our violence away from the group toward another. Girard argues that throughout history social groups have survived by placing the blame for the group\u2019s inner conflict on a \u201cscapegoat,\u201d which typically is a person or group that is vulnerable and \u201cdifferent\u201d from the majority within the group (164).<\/p>\n

The inner conflicts of the group are overcome as they unite against this common enemy and punish them for their alleged crimes, usually by killing them. What they are actually doing, however, is projecting their own guilt onto this scapegoat and punishing this scapegoat as a means of saving themselves. One dies so that the others may live. This scapegoating process, argues Girard, is most frequently justified by claiming it reflects God\u2019s (or a god\u2019s) will, and the fact that the death of the scapegoat succeeds in temporarily restoring peace to the group is interpreted as a confirmation this conviction.<\/p>\n

Jeremy shows how imitative (or mimetic) rivalry led to the first act of violence recorded in the Bible, when Cain killed Able (Gen 4). Jeremy finds it highly significant that this episode also happens to contain the first mention of \u201csin\u201d in the Bible (42). For this and other reasons, Jeremy argues that mimetic rivalry and the violence and scapegoating that follows it is the \u201cfoundational sin\u201d of the Bible (217), and it expresses the essence of sin throughout Scripture. Indeed, Jeremy claims that \u201c[e]verything in Scripture is focused on revealing this one truth to us,\u201d namely, that throughout history humans have \u201cengaged in rivalry, accusation, and violence\u201d (119, cf. 152, 179). In Jeremy\u2019s view,<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is why the Bible contains more violence than any other ancient religious text. The Bible places so much emphasis on war, violence, bloodshed, and sacrifice because God wants to reveal the true source of violence and sacrifice, and in so doing, put a stop to it. The Bible emphasizes sacred violence, not because God is violent, but because we are\u201d (121).<\/p>\n

As is true for Girard, Jeremy holds that Jesus is God\u2019s solution to this foundational sin. God became a human and died as an innocent scapegoat on the cross to expose the lie that our scapegoating reflects God\u2019s will. \u201cHe died to take away and bring an end to sacrifice\u2026by revealing through His own sacrifice at the hands of men that God does not want sacrifice; we do\u201d (151). Since \u201cthe sin of scapegoating is the primary sin of humanity since the foundation of the world\u2026the primary task of Jesus [is] to deliver us from our slavery to this sin by both exposing it to us and showing us how to live differently\u201d (197). Hence, Jeremy argues, Jesus \u201cis the perfect revelation about the truth of scapegoating\u201d (173).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>Overall, this is not a bad summary \u2026 of about one-fifth of the book. The two chapters on scapegoating in the book are heavily dependent upon the six chapters about sin, law, and sacrifice, which are barely mentioned above. But as I well know, a book review cannot include every detail lest it become a book itself. <\/p>\n

However, I feel that most of Greg\u2019s criticisms below could have been avoided if the 40 pages he summarizes above were read in light of the other 220 pages.<\/p>\n

There is a great deal to praise about this insightful work. The conviction that God\u2019s nature is love and, therefore, that God is opposed to all forms of violence is beautifully expressed throughout this work. Related to this, Jeremy insightfully expresses the understanding that Scripture\u2019s violent portraits of God are the result of people projecting their own sin (including their fallen conceptions of God) onto God. In the process of making a scapegoat out of others, he argues, we make scapegoat out of God, and God, in his patient love, allows us do it. Readers of my CWG<\/em> and\/or Cross Vision<\/em> (CV) will have no trouble understanding why I appreciate these views of Jeremy.<\/p>\n

On top of this, Jeremy does an excellent job showing how the cross exposes the sin of scapegoating and how it calls us to an altogether different way of resolving conflict, namely, forgiveness. Moreover, his several discussions of the law and sacrificial system as divine accommodations to the fallen state of God\u2019s people were astute, as were his many trenchant critiques of the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement that run throughout this work. I also think most readers will be aided by Jeremy\u2019s discussion of two different kinds of forgiveness in the New Testament (231-32) as well as by his discussion of Hebrews 9:22 (244-47), which has wreaked so much havoc with atonement theories, to be informative and helpful.<\/p>\n

Particularly helpful to me was Jeremy\u2019s argument that the reference to \u201cthe lamb slain from the foundation of the world\u201d (Rev 13:8) \u201creveals that this is the way God has always been. He has always been an innocent Lamb who allows Himself to get slain for the sake of others\u201d (203). I find this interpretation to be compelling, no doubt in part because it provides solid support for my claim (defended in CWG<\/em> and CV<\/em>) that God has always stooped to bear the sin of people, thereby taking on an ugly appearance in the biblical narrative that reflects that sin, just as he does on the cross. And finally, readers of Nothing But the Blood of Jesus<\/em> will find they are given a clearer understand of what \u201cthe blood of Jesus\u201d actually means \u2013 and, just as importantly, what it does not mean. For these and a multitude of other reasons, I recommend reading Nothing But the Blood of Jesus<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thank you for the kind words, Greg! Now, let\u2019s dive into the disagreements!<\/p>\n

Of course, this is not to say the book is not without its shortcomings or that I agree with everything in it. Truth is, I consider several of our differences to be rather stark and quite important. Nevertheless, given our core agreement on God\u2019s loving, non-violent nature and on the correct non-violent way to interpret Scripture\u2019s violent portraits of God, my critiques should be understood along the lines of a friendly \u201cin-house\u201d debate. I\u2019ll make two critical comments concerning the style of Jeremy\u2019s work and four critical comments concerning its content.<\/p>\n

First, while Jeremy has a very readable writing style, this book is frankly quite repetitive. Part of this is inevitable given that the book is organized around a discussion of five words (\u201cSin,\u201d \u201cLaw,\u201d \u201cSacrifice,\u201d \u201cScapegoat,\u201d and \u201cBlood\u201d) and, as Jeremy himself acknowledges, the meaning of each one is wrapped up with all the others. But much of the repetition is unnecessary. Repetitions are not only found throughout the book, but often in a single paragraph. To pick out one random example, Jeremy at one point says that Jesus<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026was innocent of all wrongdoing. Even though most scapegoats are guilty of some of the things for which they are accused, Jesus was completely innocent\u2026.Though the best scapegoat is a guilty scapegoat, the perfect innocence of Jesus reveals that scapegoats are typically not guilty of everything for which they are accused\u2026.Though Jesus did serve in the function of a scapegoat, He is not called a scapegoat because He could not justifiably be accused of any wrongdoing. Jesus was a scapegoat, but He was an innocent scapegoat.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To this, I say, “Guilty as charged.”<\/p>\n

I am intentionally repetitive, because I seek to explain new concepts to people in different ways using different words so that they understand what I am (and am not) saying. Only professional theologians and scholars are likely to quickly grasp the nuances of a particular statement, and so I hope that by stating the same idea in different ways, the point becomes clear.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, maybe this is just a fault of all theology books. I personally found CWG<\/em> to be quite repetitive, including numerous sections (even entire chapters) that could have been cut from the book without any detriment to the overall argument.<\/p>\n

So could the book have been more succinct? Of course. Should it have been shorter? Maybe. Will the point of the book have been as clear with these subtractions? It all depends on who you ask.<\/p>\n

I think an editor\u2019s razor could have tightened up this paragraph as well as the entire book.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I paid for editorial services on this book. But again, this is a subjective criticism that I am not certain all share with Greg.<\/p>\n

Second, and more significantly, with only a couple of exceptions, Jeremy doesn\u2019t cite his sources. Now, this book is intended for a popular audience, so heavy footnoting is not to be expected. But even in popular works it\u2019s customary for authors to cite sources from which they got their information and\/or ideas. The most glaring example of this is that, even though Jeremy\u2019s work is thoroughly indebted to Girard, he never once mentions him or cites any of his works. I am certain this is not intentional on Jeremy\u2019s part, and it likely wouldn\u2019t bother most lay readers. But protecting \u201cintellectual property\u201d is a huge deal among academics, and this omission would cause suspicion. Citation of sources would also help readers check out some of Jeremy\u2019s more controversial claims and engage in further reading instead of just take his word for it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I take great effort and care to cite my sources. I always cite a source when I know I am referring to them. I never cited Girard because although some ideas in my book are \u201cGirardian\u201d I have not found his books to be all that helpful for understanding his theory. Sorry, Ren\u00e9!<\/p>\n

Maybe a quick summary of my approach to writing will help shed light on the lack of footnotes. When I want to study a topic, I buy and read every book I can think of on the subject. Then to solidify the ideas in my own mind, I sort through the ideas and arrange them in a logical order (at least to me). Then I write it all down. I rarely go back to look at the books I read. I say this with apologies to all the authors I have read that didn\u2019t get mentioned in the book. I know it is a weakness to my writing approach … especially with this book.<\/p>\n

Probably what I should have done (and will do in future editions) is include a list of suggested resources at the end of the book. This list would have begun with a statement that the following books were highly influential in helping shape my views and ideas in the book.<\/p>\n

Part of problem with this book in particular, however, is that I never planned to write it. During my reading and research on the problem of divine violence in Scripture, I planned to write a book titled When God Pled Guilty. <\/em>Currently, that book sits on my computer hard drive at 200,000 words with several hundred footnotes. I shelved that book about five years ago to write a different book, which became seven books, which I am now in the process of writing. I never planned to write Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.<\/em><\/p>\n

But one night, in my weekly discipleship group study, as I was explaining some of the content from one of those seven forthcoming volumes, the outline for Nothing but the Blood of Jesus <\/em>popped into my head, and I knew I had to write it. So I did. It took a couple weeks of frantic writing, pouring out the \u201cfire in my bones\u201d onto the written page, but the entire book was written in a very short span of time. This accounts for most of the lack of footnotes in the volume. But ample citations are in the original volumes, which will be published (hopefully) in the next several years.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, numerous citations do not prove the accuracy of an argument. Anybody can quote dozens of sources, just as anybody can quote dozens of verses. Arguments must be dealt with on their internal logical and merit, and nothing else.<\/p>\n

My approach to writing also suffers from one other drawback. Unlike Greg (and most other scholarly authors), I don\u2019t have a team of research assistants to help me track down resources. I don\u2019t have a Paul Eddy. I don\u2019t have any grad students. It\u2019s just me. And while I do try my absolute hardest to give credit where credit is due, I often forget where an idea might have come from, and so fail to provide a citation.<\/p>\n

However (and this is not an excuse), all authors neglect to cite sources \u2026 even Greg. What I find most interesting about Greg\u2019s critique on this point is that although he himself included hundreds of footnotes in his book, he did not include various resources which he himself had referred to elsewhere in his writings as helpful. For example, Greg wrote on his blog<\/a> that he had enjoyed reading the insights of Marilyn Campbell\u2019s book, Shedding Light on the Dark Side of God <\/em>(which is now titled Light Through Darkness<\/a><\/em>).<\/p>\n

Yet Greg never once cites Marilyn in his book. Does this mean he didn\u2019t learn anything from her after all? Or maybe Greg doesn’t feel that he needs to cite self-published authors? Is it because she\u2019s a woman or doesn\u2019t have a Ph. D.? I know enough about Greg to know that none of these suggestions are remotely possible. The truth is that no author can ever adequately cite every source and resource to which they are accountable. We try as best we can, but we always fail.<\/p>\n

Oh, and as for my more my \u201cmore controversial claims,\u201d I take full blame for those. There is no one to cite, because these ideas came from my own research and study of the biblical text in light of the crucified Christ. I hoped that readers would consider the logic and reasonable arguments of my position based on the other ideas presented in the book, and then study them further on their own to see if these things are so.<\/p>\n

Once again, Greg himself makes many controversial claims in CWG and CV, many of which have no citations because they originated with Greg. Readers are invited to consider the weight of his arguments and decide for themselves if what he says makes sense.<\/p>\n

But we better move on. This is too long of an explanation about citations and footnotes.<\/p>\n

Turning to the content of this work, my first and most substantial comment concerns the Girardian framework Jeremy uses to interpret Scripture. I confess that I am always suspicious whenever anyone tries to interpret the Bible through the lens of an extra-biblical idea, philosophy, or theory. So when Jeremy claimed that \u201c[a]lmost every passage in the Bible teaches the truth about scapegoating in one fashion or another\u201d(179) and that \u201c[e]verything in Scripture is focused on revealing [that] [f]rom the beginning\u2026humans have engaged in rivalry, accusation, and violence\u201d (119), I was immediately concerned that everything in the Bible was being forced into the Procrustean bed of Girardian theory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is strange that Greg seems to be unaware of his own Procrustean bed which forms the foundation of his own thinking and theology. Or maybe he is, and he just wants to point out mine? I hope Greg doesn’t make the mistake of thinking that he has a purely exegetical theology. Every theological position is influenced by history, culture, education, family, emotional state, psychological background, traditional practices, and a vast constellation of other factors.<\/p>\n

I am happy to do my best to own up to mine and agree that mimetic theory has been influential in my thinking and writing. However, if Greg does not like the Girardian framework, that is completely fine, but he must show why it is faulty before telling me I depend on it too much. Also, Greg must also admit that he himself interprets the bible through the lens of extra-biblical ideas. It is better by far to know what forms the foundation of your thinking than to be ignorant of such presuppositions or to claim you are not subject to them. I admit and am aware of being influenced by Girardian thought. If Greg wants to disabuse me of it, he should disprove it rather than simply point it out.<\/p>\n

There were points in this work that I saw this happening. For example, we\u2019ve seen that Jeremy regards scapegoating as the \u201cfoundational sin\u201d of Scripture, and he makes quite a big deal over the fact that \u201csin\u201d is first mentioned when Cain kills Abel. But it seems to me that the \u201cfoundational sin\u201d in Scripture takes place prior to this, when Adam and Eve believe the serpent\u2019s lie about God and when they therefore proceed to violate the divine prohibition against eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-5). This sin certainly leads to Adam blaming God and Eve while Eve in turn blames the serpent (Gen 3:12-13), and one could argue that this indicates they are heading down the Girardian path of violence and scapegoating. But the foundational sin that sets this process in motion is mistrusting God and trying to be wise like God, not violence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t know that this is a Girardian idea. Yes, Girard says that there is a founding murder at the root of all civilization, and he does indeed point to Cain and Abel as a founding murder, but does he ever equate this with sin? I do not recall if he does. I think that this might be one of my more controversial claims in the book, for which I take full blame (or credit, as the case may be).<\/p>\n

However, here again, if Greg disagrees, then I invite him to present exegetical arguments to the contrary. Just because traditional theology assumes that \u201csin\u201d occurred when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, this does not mean that traditional theology is correct. The Bible doesn\u2019t define their actions as sin, and so why should we? And yes, I discuss Romans 5:12 in the book.<\/p>\n

So once again, if Boyd doesn\u2019t like Girard, that\u2019s fine. But rather than discount an idea because of its origin, ideas must be dealt with on their own terms, regardless of who else believes them.<\/p>\n

Similarly, throughout this work Jeremy virtually equates sin with violence and\/or scapegoating (e.g. 52, 204, 222, 250). It seems to me, however, that the biblical conception of sin is a good bit broader than this, the above-mentioned sin of Adam and Eve being a case in point. Jeremy several times says that sin is anything that makes us less human, which I fully agree with. But it seems to me that there are many things other than violence that can do this. If a person is a chronically lazy glutton, for example, this is sin (Tit 1:11-13), and I am certain it is so because this person is not living up to their human potential. Yet I don\u2019t see how laziness fits into the Girardian schemata of sin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, I don\u2019t exactly know how Girard defines sin. I take blame for this definition. Well, Mark Biddle\u2019s book on sin<\/a> was helpful as well. But not Girard, if I recall correctly.<\/p>\n

Anyway, while I admit that my definition of sin is new to some, it must be considered on its merit, and on the revelation from Scripture. \u201cSin\u201d is not necessarily \u201cthe bad things we do\u201d as Greg seems to believe. (I don\u2019t actually know what he believes. How does he define \u201csin\u201d?) While the passage he quoted, Titus 1:11-13, does mention lying and lazy gluttons, it doesn\u2019t mention sin. So I am unsure why he cited that text as a way to disprove what I argue about sin in the book. Similarly, Greg eisegetically reads the concept of \u201csin\u201d into Genesis 3. It is not found there exegetically<\/p>\n

Most of the time, in Scripture, when \u201csin\u201d is explicitly mentioned, it is usually mentioned in the context of violence, or the types of actions that lead to violence (e.g., rivalry, blame, accusation, etc.).<\/p>\n

Another example where I felt Jeremy\u2019s Girardian framework was distorting Scripture was when he claimed that \u201cthe main point\u201d\u2019 of the book of Job \u201cis that we humans often engage in the satanic activity of accusing and blaming others and that we do so \u2018in the name of God\u2019\u201d(197). While I grant that this is one of the points of Job, I am quite certain it is not the main point.<\/p>\n

Consider the fact that Job blames God just as much as Job\u2019s \u201cfriends\u201d blame Job, which is why God has to put Job in his place in the three chapter monologue toward the end of the book (chs 38-41). And in this case, Job is not projecting his guilt onto God. Indeed, the main point of the book of Job hinges on the fact that Job is suffering as an innocent man (Job 1:1-5, 8). Job\u2019s blaming God for his troubles thus has nothing to do with mimetic rivalry or violence. As God points out, it rather has to do with Job\u2019s complete ignorance of the unfathomable cosmos (chs.38-39) and of the forces of chaos (Behemoth, Leviathan) that God must contend with (chs.40-41). I would thus argue that the main point of the book of Job is that humans shouldn\u2019t blame God for our misfortunes, because we don\u2019t know much about anything (which, by the way, is illustrated by the fact that neither Job nor his \u201cfriends\u201d ever learn about the random wager in the heavenly realms that led to Job\u2019s sufferings). But if one is reading with Girardian glasses, one is going to miss this because it doesn\u2019t fit into the Girardian framework.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I must confess that I am a little confused by Greg\u2019s objection here. Greg agrees that Job blames God for what happened to him. And what happened to Job? A lot of violence. His crops were destroyed, his servants and children were killed, and Job suffered great sickness. And then Job blames God for all this violence. Since this is so, how can Greg then say that \u201cJob\u2019s blaming God for his trouble has nothing to do with \u2026 violence\u201d? It has everything to do with violence. Then when God shows up, He tells Job He had nothing to do with it.<\/p>\n

\"Job's\u201cBut\u201d (as my wife pointed out to me once), \u201cWhat about God\u2019s deal with the devil at the beginning of the book? Didn\u2019t God allow Satan to do all these bad things to Job? How is this not divine violence?\u201d Excellent point, Wendy! My answer is that this proves that the book of Job is actually about the satanic activity of accusing and blaming others in the name of God. Satan is there in the beginning as the accuser, and the satanic presence is seen throughout the book as everyone is accusing Job, and Job is accusing God.<\/p>\n

Yes, Job and his friends never learn about this divine \u201cwager.\u201d But this is because the story is not for them, but for us. As a result, it is my belief is that the \u201cdivine wager\u201d never actually happened. I believe the story of Job actually happened, but I do not believe that God makes deals with the devil which treats humans as \u201cacceptable losses\u201d in a cosmic game of \u201cchicken.\u201d The account of God\u2019s deal with the devil at the beginning is the narrative framework that sets up the scene, and is then disavowed at the end of the story. In other words, Job 1 is the \u201chuman perspective\u201d of what we humans think goes on in the heavens, and Job 38-41 is \u201cGod\u2019s perspective\u201d of what is actually happening.<\/p>\n

A more detailed explanation will have to wait for a future book. The point is that in the book of Job, \u201cthere is something else going on\u201d than what most people assume.<\/p>\n

As a final example, Jeremy argues, in good Girardian fashion, that Achan and his family were scapegoated when they were burned alive (Josh 7:10-16). Now, the text says that this burning was commanded by Yahweh because Achan kept spoils when the Israelites vanquished the city of Ai. From a Girardian perspective, however, this killing must have been carried out to resolve some social conflict that had been building up. Jeremy thus argues that there was \u201crivalry among the people of Israel regarding the leadership of Joshua and the divisions of the land in Canaan,\u201d and the slaughter of Achan and his family was carried out to resolve this rivalry (192).<\/p>\n

The trouble is, there is no evidence of such a \u201crivalry\u201d in this passage. So far as I can see, it is postulated only because Girardian theory requires it. Yet, Jeremy is so convinced of its truth that he claims that this is \u201cthe most obvious reading\u201d (194) of this passage. Indeed, he argues that the whole \u201cbook of Joshua, like much of the Bible, is written to expose such thinking (viz. scapegoating) for the lie that it is\u201d (195). I grant that some stories in Joshua and throughout the Old Testament can be interpreted as illustrations of Girard\u2019s scapegoating process, but to claim this for the book as a whole is a bit much. But Jeremy goes so far as to suggest that this is what the original ancient author(s) of this book had in mind! To me, this simply reflects how thoroughly Jeremy\u2019s reading of Scripture has been fused with his Girardian perspective.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let me beat the same drum once again \u2026 I didn\u2019t get this from Girard, or from any Girardian scholar that I recall. But I suppose it is true that a Girardian framework influenced my explanation of this passage. Regardless, the steps to reduce rivalry are quite obvious in Joshua 2\u20135, especially when compared to the problems Moses faced in his leadership of Israel. This is the point I make in the book. The opening chapters of Joshua must be read contextually, in light of the exodus and wilderness wanderings.<\/p>\n

However, all of this is only prologue for the Achan story. I should have more clearly made this point about \u201cprologue\u201d in the book. Regardless, I nowhere suggested, as Greg implies, that the original author(s) of Joshua had Girardian theory in mind. Pardon me, but that\u2019s preposterous. What I wrote is that that the book of Joshua, like much of the Bible, is written to expose the lie of human scapegoating.<\/p>\n

Scapegoating is a biblical theme long before Girard picked it up. <\/strong><\/p>\n

To me, Greg\u2019s comment simply reflects how little he understands the seriousness of scapegoating, or its universal pull on every human being. To Greg, and everyone else, I say, \u201cForget Girard, if you want. Let\u2019s talk about scapegoating.\u201d<\/p>\n

My second critical comment about the content of Nothing But the Blood of Jesus<\/em> is that, while Jeremy mentions Satan several times, neither Satan nor any other demonic cosmic agent plays a substantive role in his theorizing. I think his book suffers as a result. For example, Jeremy notes that, like so many today, biblical authors routinely blamed God for natural disasters. Since we know from the revelation of God in Christ that God is not behind violence, Jeremy argues that we should understand the violent portraits of God that include natural disasters to be projections of the biblical authors.<\/p>\n

I completely agree, but in CWG and CV, I go further and argue, on the basis of the cross, that whenever the violence involved in a divine judgment cannot be attributed to humans, as is the case when the judgment takes the form of a natural disaster, we should attribute this violence to Satan and\/or other demonic cosmic forces. Because Satan and demonic cosmic forces play no role in Girardian theory, however, Jeremy doesn\u2019t take this option. As a result, he leaves the natural disasters that function as divine judgments completely unexplained.<\/p>\n

For example, who or what caused the Flood (Gen 6-9)? While Jeremy is clear that it wasn\u2019t God, he offers his readers no other alternative. He comes close to providing an answer when he notes that the violence involved in the Flood is attributed to the flood waters, not to God (184). But he fails to identify these flood waters as the Ancient Near Eastern way of referring to hostile cosmic forces that perpetually threaten the earth and that Yahweh (or, in other cultures, some other deity) must hold at bay. The result is that the undoing of creation that took place with the Flood is left unexplained.<\/p>\n

And the same holds true for all other judgments of God in the Old Testament that involve violence that can\u2019t be attributed to humans. By contrast, if we read Scripture through the lens of the cross, which is depicted in the New Testament as God\u2019s culminating battle with the kingdom of darkness, then we will intentionally look for \u2013 and we in fact find \u2013 that demonic cosmic forces were at work in bringing about these sorts of judgments.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"theI had a very similar conversation with Greg at the ReKnew conference, in which he stated that he also leaves natural disasters completely unexplained. He says, and I agree, that there are too many variables to determine the cause of any natural disaster. The only exception, Greg says, are the natural disasters found in the Bible. The Bible claims that these (in some way) came from God, and so therefore, they did. Call it Satan, the destroyer, or God withdrawing, these, and only these, natural disasters have some sort of divine origin. For many reasons, I find this explanation highly troubling, and extremely unhelpful. After all, if the CWG thesis helps us understand the Bible but not life, then it is not helpful and cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n

But I am not writing this post to critique Greg\u2019s views (though a few more will come below). I just want to point out that while it is true that I do not talk about satan or natural disasters much in my book, this is not because I don\u2019t have a view on them. I do. But my book was primarily focused on human sin and what Jesus did to fix it. I am not prepared, as Greg seems to be, to say that natural disasters are sometimes the result of human sin. One of the primary things we learn from Jesus is that we need to stop blaming God (and humans) for the bad things that happen in this life. This includes natural disasters.<\/p>\n

If this is true now (as I think Greg would agree), then it also includes historical natural disasters, including those found in the Bible. The biblical accounts of natural disasters, then, are revelatory, just like much of the rest of Scripture, about how we humans blame God for violence, whether it is our own sinful violence or natural violence. A more detailed explanation is forthcoming in a future book.<\/p>\n

This then also helps us understand satan and the cosmic powers. I am not going to get into it here, but just as Greg thinks I have too weak a view of satan and demonic cosmic forces, I think he gives them way too much \u201cpersonhood.\u201d I heard Greg\u2019s defense of his views at the conference. I have also read God at War <\/em>and Satan and the Problem of Evil<\/em>, and highly recommend both books. I completely agree that satan and the fallen powers threaten the world and the existence of humanity. But I have a completely different view than Greg does of what satan and the demonic forces are, where they came from, and how they interact with humans. And no, I didn\u2019t get any of my views from Girard. Ha!<\/p>\n

Yet, an even more fundamental problem with Jeremy\u2019s book is that his way of interpreting Scripture has no room for the concept of God judging people, and this is my third critical comment. At a number of points in this book Jeremy says things like: \u201cGod doesn\u2019t punish us for sin.\u201d Rather, \u201cSin carries its own punishment\u201d and God \u201cworks to rescue us from the punishment of sin\u201d (51). Now, I fully agree that \u201csin carries its own punishment\u201d and that God \u201cworks to rescue us from the punishment of sin,\u201d but from this it doesn\u2019t follow that \u201cGod doesn\u2019t punish us for sin.\u201d For as I argue in CWG and CV, when God sees that his merciful work to protect us from the natural consequences of our sin is harming us by allowing us to get further entrenched in our sin, God has no other choice but to withdraw this protection and allow us to suffer the destructive consequences of our sin. And this, I contend, is supremely illustrated when Jesus stood in our place as a condemned sinner on the cross. The Father withdrew his protection of Jesus and delivered him over to violent people, and Jesus experienced the God-forsakenness that is intrinsic to all sin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I believe, which I thought I stated in the book, that we see God\u2019s judgment of sin, death, and satan in the crucifixion Jesus. There are future judgments as well. But in all cases, these judgments are not God negatively punishing anybody for sin. Instead, the judgments of God are when God acts as judge to pronounce right judgments. That is, He names things as they really are. He exposes false testimony so that He might instead reveal the truth. Again, this is not from Girard, and a more detailed explanation will be provided in future volumes, though I believe I wrote some preliminary ideas about this in my book The Atonement of God<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

As for this entire idea of God withdrawing from people when sin gets bad enough so that God lets sin, death, the devil, and the destructive cosmic forces have their way with humanity, I cannot object to this view strongly enough. Here is what many people (myself included) hear Greg to be saying about God:<\/p>\n

\n