Boyd draws heavily on Origen when setting up his proposal for what he calls the Cruciform Hermeneutic. Origen doesn’t explain away the violent passages of the Old Testament. He has a way of looking at them that brings us to the “lens” of the cross.
For now, leading into Boyd’s explanation of his own hermeneutic, he lifts up Origen’s view of the cross. I find it beautiful.
Origen believed that because the crucified Christ is the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), “the cross should serve, in tandem with the work of the Spirit, as the lens through which we interpret Scripture.”
This is what I appreciate about Boyd. He doesn’t want to explain away texts he doesn’t like. He wants to wrestle with how to read them.
The cross, for Origen, was the absolute symbol because it infuses the Old Testament with spiritual significance. There wasn’t a need to explain away the Old Testament. There is a way to read the Old Testament. That is the struggle Boyd takes up.