One comment

  1. There is something pejorative about a hermeneutic like that. And, “No”, further footage does not reveal to the viewer a mitigating exegetical reason for constructing such a narrow corridor of constraint in which to infer something about God. For Boyd, this kind of interpretive ethos is segue to his Cruciform hermeneutic where the “cross of Christ” is used as polarizing lense to “fix” the revelation of the God revealed in the Old Testament. In other words, what we have in the “plain meaning of words” interpretation in many of the passages of the Old Testament (given Boyd’s presuppositions) are obviously “unacceptable” and one must find some way to reform that text to be more in line of what is proper for God in light of the cross of Christ.

    In mathematics a convolution integral achieves a mapping of one functional domain to another. Unfortunately, the mathematical sense of the word convolution cannot be invoked here. Rather that connotation that invokes intellectual juxtapositions that cannot be resolved coherently hangs over that whole enterprise.

    Such a presentation of the God of the Bible should evoke a renewed concern that what is at stake here is an interpretive ethos that is just not consonant with the practice of Christ in His use of Scripture to “exegete” the Character and Way’s of God.

Leave a Reply