Blade Runner 2049

Aesthetically brilliant. Sonically gorgeous. And these are understatements.

Blade Runner 2049 is what cinema artistry is all about.

The pacing, the videography, the score, the dialogue have all been crafted to a degree that clearly denotes the passion driving the makers of this film. Careful, poetic detail has been given to all aspects of this film. The world of Blade Runner 2049 feels real. This is rare in cinema. And under-appreciated by most. Most contemporary films lack true artistic flair. They lack world-building, thoughtful character development and creative, visually enthralling cinematography.

Perhaps many of us lack the ability to appreciate a film that stretches the boundaries of our normative movie-going experience. We settle for movies centered on overwhelming CGI/special effects and non-stop action that purvey the myth of restorative violence and vengeful justice. We settle for movies that reinforce our collective assumptions about the exceptionalism of America.

Movies far too often portray war and violence in and abhorrently unrealistic manner. But even films that refuse to shy away from blood and gore, often ignore the real scars of psychological trauma. Furthermore they perpetuate false dichotomies that present clear, but often misleading boundaries between good and evil.

Now, I’m not implying that a movie must be devoid of all violence for it to be profound or insightful or even entertaining. Nor am I saying that there can’t or isn’t ever good or evil people on either side of a given conflict.

And Blade Runner 2049 contains its share of violence, retributive or otherwise. But what sets a movie like Blade Runner 2049 and the original apart is that the violence isn’t what makes this story so compelling, in every respect. And even if the film is about a “Blade Runner” who “retires” (a euphemism for killing) replicants, the film does not use action simply for the sake of action at least not gratuitously or casually. Rather, the movie is centered around the humanity or perhaps inhumanity of its characters. And in it’s careful focus on these characters and their stories, the film brings out the beauty and darkness of existence. It’s forces the audience to ask poignant questions about science, technology, sexuality, progress and nature.

At some level, all movies can produce thoughtful philosophical and existential insight, but not all movies make this their starting point. Blade Runner 2049, like its predecessor is art for the sake of art, as opposed to entertainment for the sake of profit.

And that is what separates the master film from the amateur one.

The ability to pace a plot, the ability to know when more is less and less is more, this skill is what defines something that is truly magisterial.

Many movies can have moments or stretches of brilliance that resonate with us deeply. But when each successive moment, every scene, every second of pulsating music or silence or tension, resonates with our eyes and ears and hearts, that’s when a movie has earned the title of a magnum opus.

And Blade Runner 2049 has earned that title.

 

Advertisements

The Dialectic of the Two Ditches

Greek mythology tells the tale of Daedalus and his son Icarus, who construct wings so that they may flee from their captor King Minos. As they prepare to leave, Daedalus warns his son that he must not fly too high or too low in order to protect the wax of the wings from being melted by the heat of the sun or soaked from the spray of the waters below. However Icarus fails to follow his father’s advice, foolishly flying higher and higher until the sun melts the wax holding his wings together. Icarus falls into the sea, to his death.

It was also the Ancient Greek philosophers who coined the term “golden mean,” or the notion that every virtue was a balance between two extremes, not unlike walking a tightrope. In a sense, life is a lot like walking a tightrope. It’s a delicate balance where if you lean a little too far in either direction, the result is equally disastrous. I have come to see, along with the ancient Greeks, that in many if not most cases in life, the true path of wisdom is a matter of avoiding the two ditches of partial or incomplete truth which lie on either side.

To avoid the two ditches is to live in a tension between two apparent opposites. That is essentially what a dialectic is. In life each individual must navigate their own pathway. Every person walks a unique path, but like our roads, every path is paralleled on either side by a ditch. The two ditches represent polar opposites, the radical extremes on each end of a spectrum. There are some who choose to walk in these ditches, entirely aware of where they are. Others unintentionally fall into one of the ditches and keep on walking as if they’d never left the path. They become oblivious to the damage they are inflicting on both themselves and on others.

There are many reasons we fall into these ditches. In order to illustrate let me use an example from theology. Christians confess that Jesus is somehow both fully human and yet at the same time fully divine. These apparent contradictions must be kept in tension, or we risk falling victim to either the over-emphasis of Christ’s humanity (the heresy of Arianism) or the over-emphasis of Christ’s divinity (the heresy of Docetism).

But the danger regarding the two ditches isn’t just about avoiding two extremes, it can also come in the form of setting two truths against each other. When we pit a position on one end of a truth-spectrum against a position on the other end of that spectrum, polarization occurs. This is most prevalent in American politics. What are sometimes meant to be truths held together in tension are instead seen as incompatible ideas that cannot be reconciled with each other. One is seen as the correct way to do things, while the other is seen as the antithesis of what should be done. Perhaps we need to start seeing some of the seemingly conflicting ideologies as complementary pieces of a more comprehensive and balanced perspective.

This polarization is most widely illustrated in the broken two-party political system here in America and particularly in the culture wars being waged around various issues. It often can seem like the conservative and progressive ideologies could not be further apart from each other. In some sense they are. However I would like to suggest that this is not always the case. For example, it is not uncommon to encounter a more liberal leaning person who will tend to advocate for individual freedom. Conversely, many conservative leaning people, will tend to advocate for individual responsibility. Likewise, those on the left tend to support social or collective responsibility, while the right supports social or collective freedom. Both sides consistently claim that they are in the right and that the other is sorely mistaken, often caricaturing and demonizing each other. But can it really be said that either side is entirely wrong? Or exclusively right? Perhaps in clinging to an either-or paradigm instead of a dialectical view, both sides end up in opposing ditches, in unnecessary conflict with each other.

Of course, it is also true that this polarization is spurred on by legitimate differences. Sometimes these differences are generational. When a previous generation has taken a particular stance on an issue, one that leaves them in one of the ditches, the pendulum is bound to swing towards the opposite direction at some point in the future. The next generation rightfully rejects the one-sided extremism of their predecessors and rushes to the other side and ultimately embraces a new extremism. Some would argue that this explains the contrast between the extremes of over the top political correctness and the corresponding rise of “PC pushback” that has emerged recently. My primary contention with the analogy of the ditches is that often in our rejection of one extreme, we simply replace it with another.

But there is another way, especially for those of us who follow Christ. Some call it the third way, or perhaps the narrow road. This way is a way that should be guided by the fruits of the spirit. Somehow, Jesus called both a far-right tax collector, who upheld the status quo, and a far-left zealot, who believed in overthrowing the establishment, to come together and abandon their extremist ideologies. The truly wise will try to see the validity of opposing views and to discover the understandable concerns beneath what seem to be distasteful or wrongheaded opinions. There are of course times when a line in the sand has to be drawn, but that does not mean we have to leave the middle way in favor of either one of the ditches. Most importantly our journey on this path should always err on the side of mercy, of justice, the side of peace and self-sacrifice. Jesus called Matthew and Simon to follow a middle path of mutual acceptance and understanding in addition to being a prophetic voice of cultural challenge. The Gospel and the teachings of Christ compel us to follow this example. May we reject the ditches in our lives and in so doing, show the world something radically distinct.

– A shorter version of this article was published in the online Bethel University newspaper The Clarion:

The dialectic of the two ditches

Undredal, Norway

There is something deeply compelling and sentimental in remembrance. Remembrance recreates a memory or even reshapes it. Often memory is formed into something new. A creation based on something true, but where the good is exaggerated and the bad forgotten. But perhaps that is the beauty in bringing the past to the present. Sometimes the only way to truly recreate the past is by romanticizing and idealizing it. Thus remembrance can be a spiritual endeavor.

It is a dangerous game to play. The game of revising the past, that is. But it is also rewarding. Once you learn to balance the extremes of remembrance, it can become a true gift, something others will never quite understand.

An Ethos of Creation

God has given us, the human race, stewardship of the earth
And yet ultimately the earth belongs to God, not us
God has given us a great task. To tend, cultivate and protect His garden
Not ours
This earth is wondrous. Immense. Perilous
This earth is fragile. Delicate. Precarious
The earth gives us much. Beauty. Inspiration. Life.
The earth gives to us out of abundance
But we should receive with a humble heart. A gracious heart. A prudent heart.
Only taking what is necessary.
For if we are greedy, if we are covetous
The soul of this earth will be ravaged and plundered, raped and pillaged.
The earth is like Christ. The bride of the Church.
The earth is our bride too. The bride of humanity.
Thus, we should treat it as such.
With humility. With selflessness. And with simplicity.
For all the beasts, all the trees, the mountains and the seas
They too are part of creation
Man is not their master
But their shepherd.

A Letter from France

The day after the election my mother received a poetically written letter of encouragement in an email from our sweet, dear friend Brijit. She and her two cats live in France, in a two-tiered chalet tucked along the slope of a mountain in the French Alps, the silhouette of Mont Blanc visible on the horizon. Her words brought me much comfort.

Hi my love

I can’t help thinking of you on that day.

The Donald duck has won with money and horrible ideas.

such is democracy …..

in France, next elections won’t be better…..

I’m  dreaming of a better world
with people like  you and me.

yes we can love each other !

a lot of kisses

I miss you, I miss people so lovely than you

your friend,

brijit

It isn’t hard to imagine the sound of her adorable broken English seeped in a thick, rich French accent. I’m so thankful for beautiful, kind souls like hers, during a time like this.

Merci beaucoup Brijit.

Are Millennials really so bad?

Self-absorbed, narcissistic, lazy and uniformed. These are the first words that come to mind when I think of my generation. Others have christened us the “Me me me generation.” (The ‘baby boomers’ were also called the ‘me generation.’)

Do these labels so often used to describe millennials seem fair?

It’s highly likely that most millennials probably wouldn’t take the time to read an article in the New York Times about the geopolitical significance of the Syrian civil war or the conflict occurring in Ukraine. They’d just skim past it with disinterest before clicking on a BuzzFeed link like this one called “13 Potatoes That Look Like Channing Tatum.”  In fact, it’s fairly safe to assume that most millennials likely couldn’t find either one of these countries on a map.

Millennials are the generation that thinks that being an Instagram model is a real job…or that everyone can be a professional photographer and still make a living, even if every other person and their aunt has started a “photography business.” Millennials are the generation that will post a poem or quote from someone like Walt Whitman or George Orwell without reading a single line of O Captain, My Captain or 1984. 

Millennials are the generation that turned selfies into a raging, crazed global catastrophe (The fact that numerous people have been injured or killed while taking a selfies or by someone else taking a selfie, should make you seriously consider never taking a selfie again).

Millennials are the generation that has turned the English language into an incomprehensible monster with words, acronyms and phrases like “bae,” and “I can’t even.” Millennials are also the generation that will spout all their opinions and self-aggrandizing reflections on life on their personal blog as if anyone in the world actually cared. (Okay now were getting a little too close for comfort ;))

Millennials aren’t entirely clueless however. Some have dubbed millennials “Generation nice.” In fact, studies show that millennials are in fact more open minded, inclusive and compassionate than previous generations. Surprisingly, millennials are actually very frugal and cautious about how they spend money. Millennials are also quite communally minded. Interestingly enough, more than half of millennials are humble enough to admit that they are perhaps the most narcissistic and self-absorbed generation.

It’s important to remember that millennials have a lot on their plate. Raising children is more expensive now. Millennials pay an average of $3000 more a year to raise children than the previous generation did. The gap between the rich and the poor is larger than it has ever been. College tuition has skyrocketed and incomes for graduates have dropped. In fact, contemporary college students often pay as much as $30,000 more in tuition than their parents did. So the next time your uncle says that millennials need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just remind him that bootstrap-pulling may be harder than it used to be.

Many make a fallacious comparison between the downfalls of millennials and the greatness of previous generations. In truth every generation has its strengths and weaknesses. The baby boomers had problems and so did their predecessors. To idealize or romanticize any generation is an egregious mistake, one that borders on historical revisionism.

Often you’ll hear an elderly person reminiscing about the ‘good old days’ and how the generation that lived through WWII was the golden generation of America. You might hear something like, “Back in my day, we didn’t take nothin’ that we didn’t earn.” But the truth is millennials aren’t any lazier or more entitled than previous generations.

Let’s not forget that racism and misogyny were the norm a half century ago. “The Greatest Generation” was far from great. Lynchings of African-Americans like fourteen year old Emmett Till, who was brutally tortured and murdered for catcalling a white lady,  were commonplace. His face was beaten into a bloody pulp to the point that it was unrecognizable.

“America’s so-called Greatest Generation is great only in comparison to the rubbish that followed them, which frankly and literally they begat.” –Stephen Masty

It’s important to nuance history. We shouldn’t overlook that the WWII generation certainly overcame many obstacles. Similarly, we shouldn’t overlook that sexual and racial discrimination was rampant. The “greatest generation” also confined Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, enforced the Jim Crow laws, firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and segregated schools. The greatest generation was responsible for creating the most destructive force known to man, nuclear weapons, which gave humanity the ability to annihilate itself.

Yes millennials have given us the horrors of selfie-sticks and pseudo-connoisseurs. But we aren’t responsible for the monstrosity that is the 2016 election. We aren’t responsible for the endless series of pointless and immoral wars and government coups that the United States has instigated.

Every generation has its evils. Every generation has the power to rise up against injustice and every generation has done it in their own way, however flawed that may be.

Millennials aren’t any worse or any better than previous generations…the legacy of the next generation, on the other hand, remains to be seen…  😉

Shalom,

Josiah

I stand(and sit) with Colin Kaepernick

The early church would be utterly baffled by the idea that future Christians would shame someone for not swearing allegiance to the empire.” -Rachel Held Evans

If this place really were the “land of the free” someone would be able to sit during your song and not be endlessly harassed for it.” -Dr. Benjamin L. Corey

If Jesus had come to us in the 21st century in America rather than Palestine two thousand years ago I’m convinced that he would be seen in much the same light as Colin Kaepernick. His words and actions were prophetic and radical in Palestine two thousand years ago and they are prophetic and radical for us now.

A recent firestorm of harsh criticism and even shocked outrage was sparked after San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick sat during the national anthem to protest racial issues in the U.S. The same cultural conformity police that hates any kind of non-compliance to what they perceive as faithful devotion to the creeds and rituals of the national civic religion, has gone nuts over this so called unpatriotic and offensive action. God forbid, someone stand up for the oppression of minorities by blaspheming the sacred idol of America.

As someone who has, since elementary school, chosen not to recite the pledge of allegiance or put my hand over my heart and sing the national anthem, I would like to voice my solidarity with Colin Kaepernick and others who would do the same. While Kaepernick might not share the convictions and beliefs that drive my choice not to participate in such activities, I admire his decision to do likewise.

There is no shame in refusing to stand for the national anthem or choosing to abstain from placing your hand on your chest or reciting a pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth. If America is truly ‘free’ then its citizens should not have to fear backlash for their choice to abstain from oaths of allegiance.

And for us Christians, we would do well to remember the countless Christians who were martyred by the Roman Empire for their refusal to say, “Caesar is Lord.” The Early Christians were dubbed as, “atheists” by their contemporaries because they refused to swear loyalty to Rome and to its Emperors, who were seen as divine representatives.

Rachel Held Evans correctly noted that early Christians would be shocked to learn that future Christians would shame someone for refusing to pledge their allegiance to a nation. But as I see it, early Christians would be more shocked to learn that modern Christians would choose to declare allegiance, or ultimate loyalty, to nations and empires. Such power structures are fundamentally committed, by the very definition of nation or empire, to promoting their own advantage and survival through the use of force and coercion and even killing of perceived “enemies”.

It’s important to distinguish that for the Early Church saying “Jesus is Lord,” was not simply a spiritual mantra, but an overtly political declaration. It amounted to taking a subversive, counter-cultural stance of allegiance for the kingdom of God.

I stand (and sit) with Colin Kaepernick, not just because I believe there is racial disparity and injustice in America, but also because I believe my true allegiance is not to America, but to Christ and his kingdom. Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom that has no condemnation, no judgement, no chains. A kingdom that speaks for those on the margins of society, the oppressed, the poor. A kingdom that rejects injustice, violence and hate. It is for all peoples and all nations. There are no borders, there are no flags. Only the emblem of the crucified lamb. And in Christ’s kingdom there is only one Lord, one King, and only he merits our true allegiance. All else that we do in this world must coincide and look like Jesus.

Jesus is Lord.

 

For Jesus’ words on serving two masters and taking vows:

*Matthew 5:33-37, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17

 

 

Friendship: Beautiful & fragile

Friendships are beautiful and fragile things. They have to be nourished and tended, just like a garden. If you don’t give them enough time, attention, and affirmation they wither away and die, becoming forgotten and lifeless. And if you give them too much challenge, push-back or resistance they will pull away or shut you out. Living things, whether plant life or relationships, do best in the Goldilocks zone, where things are neither too hot or too cold. Relationships need a place where both people can be themselves no matter the dialogue.

During one of our many opinionated conversations after class, a friend and I had been discussing military matters in Iraq and the middle east when he expressed his desire to return. He was a veteran of Afghanistan. I wondered if I would be able to keep my thoughts to myself. I bit my tongue and let him continue on uninterrupted as he explained how the war had been a success. “We killed thousands of ‘them,” he said proudly. My stomach churned, the familiar revulsion rising within me. Now I had to respond. I challenged him politely, bringing up my concerns: firstly the massive number of civilians, killed directly or indirectly by America. This seemed to irk something in him and he quickly reprimanded me: “The Military doesn’t kill civilians.” He said and continued to lecture me. What does he know? I’m sure he was thinking. After all, I hadn’t fought in Afghanistan. How could I possibly know anything? His condescending tone irritated me. I’d heard his arguments before and they didn’t convince me, they infuriated me.

I was reminded of the horrifying footage of children in Fallujah, born with terrible birth defects and cancerous tumors as a result of the intense bombardment of the city with white phosphorous and uranium-enriched weapons. I remember the sick feeling I felt upon discovering how white phosphorous melted the skin off its victims, slowly burning them to death. I’m still haunted by these images and I suspect I always will be.

I decided not to push back too much more on his statements. They always say we are supposed to avoid two topics at all costs: religion and politics. This conversation had a mix of both, so it was particularly loaded with explosive potential. I began to realize that I valued our friendship more than winning an argument. At least I wanted to. The conversation ended amicably and we moved on to the subject of his pet lizard, a topic we could find common ground on no doubt.

We’ve had many conversations before, all of them filled with respectful dialogue amidst controversial subjects that we are both opinionated about, but I sensed that this time I had triggered something in him and in me. I began to realize that I wasn’t going to let this keep me from sharing my beliefs and my sincere anti-war principles. This was a part of me. What did I know? If only he truly knew how much torment and sorrow wracked my heart. Every story of collateral damage flooded into the catacombs of my soul, drowning me in a strange heavy sadness, like a raft filled with too many survivors, slowly becoming engulfed by the waters of the ocean. The screams of the innocent now fill my imagination, becoming something that has overflown into the novel I’m writing. I discovered a dark side of my thoughts that I hadn’t realized existed. But it came from a reality that I knew really existed. The iconic picture of the little naked Vietnamese girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, burned by Napalm dropped on her village seared into my memory. The remains of the Urakami Cathedral, incinerated, along with its congregants, milliseconds after the Plutonium bomb, Fat Man, fell, hardly a block from the church.

I’ve seen the documented cases of civilian casualties and I’ve read the testimonies of mothers who’ve lost children, sisters losing brothers, husbands losing wives. What of the countless stories that have gone untold? The stories smothered in dark clouds of willful ignorance, the stories hidden by corrupt governments and jingoistic military officers and politicians, unwilling to face the ugliness of our own violence. Who speaks for them? Yes we’ve heard the unrelenting, innumerable praises of the the military and their bravery, how they protect our freedom. They have enough advocates. Where are the advocates for the Iraqi mother whose son was shot by an American soldier while crossing the street to buy bread? Where are the advocates for the the Yemenis killed as their wedding convoy approached the groom’s village?

I cannot claim the same direct experiences as my friend. I have never fought in Afghanistan or Iraq and would never willingly do so. I cannot claim to have experienced anything remotely close to the horrific experiences of the untold numbers of men, women and children whose lives have been decimated directly or indirectly by war. All I can say is that I feel their pain and I feel it deeply. It is a responsibility that I’ve chosen to shoulder. If I can somehow be an advocate for those who have no voice or who have had theirs taken from them, I believe I must.

I really respect and love my friend. I disagree with him on a great deal. He has a huge heart. Which is why I want him to see and feel what I do. Yet I’m learning more and more that sometimes you have to speak through silence. I may not be able to convince him that he is mistaken and maybe that’s not what I should be trying to do. And I may have to sometimes sacrifice my pride in an argument to protect the friendship. As our friendship grows, I can still find opportunities to respectfully challenge his assumptions as he challenges mine. Still, I find myself unable to truly feel that I am being myself without him fully understanding how much weight my convictions carry. My staunch anti-war beliefs are a core part of who I am. How do I maintain an authentic friendship without voicing who I really am? At the very least I feel like I am called to be a voice for those who have none. I have felt the weight of these convictions for many years. I’ve never fully understood it myself, but in a strange way, I’m grateful for this responsibility.

I think what friendship has come to mean to me is neither parroting one-another’s opinions, likes and dislikes, nor silent accommodation of each other’s values and convictions.  What it means to me is mutual honesty, understanding, and acceptance and also loving challenge and push-back. Not to make the other conform to our wishes. But to help each other see other points of view, and to either adjust these or to at least have better reasons for maintaining them. Friendships are beautiful and fragile, yes, but just like plants in a garden that have been well-nurtured and have matured, they can be hardy and resilient. To do this we must learn the delicate balance between unconditional acceptance and loving challenge.

-Josiah

This was from my final essay in an essay writing class I took this semester at Bethel University  with April Vinding (Author of Triptych).

 

What’s wrong with Penal Substitution Atonement?

I’m tired of the Christian theology that states that ‘Jesus got what we deserve’ and that Jesus bore the wrath of God that God would’ve otherwise unleashed on us. Jesus saved us from the death! Jesus defeated death! Jesus saved us from what we do to ourselves, not from what God was going to/or had to do to us. Penal Substitution Atonement paints a picture of a vengeful, grotesque and retributive God entirely contrary to the nature of Jesus. PSA essentially says that God requires a sacrifice to not only satisfy his wrath/justice but to pay the debt of our sin. I see Jesus’ death as God’s willingness to absorb sin, violence, injustice and retribution as the only and final way to defeat all of these things.

The penal substitution view under emphasizes the true nature of God’s agape love and also ignores the themes of spiritual warfare and covenant faithfulness, both of which permeate the entire Biblical narrative. The PSA view presupposes that the cross was not about defeating Satan and death, thus ignoring what the Bible implicitly states in 1 John 3:8, that, ‘the Son of God came to destroy the works of the Devil.‘ This is reiterated in Hebrews 2:14. ‘For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who has/had the power of death. Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying.’ 

Colossians 2:13-15 ‘You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed (or stripped off) the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross.’

This verse exactly explains the point that Jesus was not paying a debt but cancelling it … to “forgive” is to release someone from a debt and to absorb the debt yourself, to not make anyone pay but to accept the loss.  To make someone else pay a debt would not only NOT be forgiveness but would also not be “cancelling” the debt, but instead merely transferring it. (Erasing debts is also another theme found in various instances throughout the Bible, but I’ll save that discussion for another time)

By not making anyone pay for injustice but instead absorbing it, Jesus defeats the endless cycle of “crime and punishment”, of “infraction and retribution” that is itself a central aspect of the fallen world and of Satan’s kingdom:  rules and revenge.  Jesus destroys this, breaks the cycle, shows a completely different way … one where he himself accepts injustice without revenge or retribution in order to forgive and then reconcile.

In Ephesians 2:14-22 we see an emphasis on peace, one of the major themes of Christ’s kingdom. It emphasizes the reconciliation BY discarding the laws/rules system. I see Penal Substitution Atonement as not only archaic, but pagan, because God needs no sacrifice to pay for our sin. To say so assumes that God is either unable or refuses to forgive our sins without payment.

We see in the New Testament, the use of the word, ‘free gift,’ in regards to the new life that can be found in Jesus. It would not be called  both ‘free,’ and a ‘gift,’ if Jesus was some kind of sacrificial lamb meant to quench God’s justice. I agree with Baptist Minister Steve Chalke when he said, “The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—A vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed.”

Some would argue that PSA can be supported because of the use of sacrifices to cleanse people of their sins in the Old Testament. Some scholars question whether the whole system of animal sacrifice was ever God’s idea in the first place, or whether it was a fallen human system to which God accommodated to as he clearly does with many other fallen human practices (polygamy for instance).  Whereas with pagan animal sacrifice, the gods fed on the blood or spirits of the murdered animal (or human in extreme cases), the meat of the animals sacrificed in all but one of the Levitical sacrifices were shared in a meal, representing restored covenant and reconciled relationship. To support the argument that God never had in mind animal sacrifices as a payment for sins, one need look no further than such Old Testament passages as Psalm 51:16, Hosea 6:6 and Micah 6:6-8 just to name a few.  Animal sacrifice had occurred throughout all of history. All cultures practiced it and the Israelites were likely already practicing it as slaves in Egypt. God constantly temporarily accommodates to cultural norms and does this for the purpose of moving the culture into another direction. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 10:19-20, that ‘..these sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God.’ 

In Hebrews Chapter 10, the sacrifices are described as pieces of the old system of the law under Moses. In this system, sacrifices occurred over and over, but never gave perfect cleansing and in fact actually reminded the people of their sins rather then purifying and cleansing the people of their guilt. Then it quotes Jesus, where he says that,

  • “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin…” The importance and emphasis on this next verse cannot be stressed enough. “Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God-‘ As is written about me in the Scriptures.”

Jesus was not needed as a sacrifice to appease God’s anger or satisfy some need for punishment. No, what was needed, was for Satan’s rulership of Earth to be defeated and given back to humanity, and for this to happen a human had to be fully obedient to God unto the point of death, thus fulfilling covenant faithfulness with God which was broken by Adam and Eve. The Trinity conspired together to achieve all this, to fulfill God’s ultimate plan. It was not to feed God’s hunger for some revenge, but to free humanity from evil and restore us to adoption as children through sinless, self-sacrificial obedience to God’s will to the point of death.  Perfect obedience defeats Satanic rebellion; mercy triumphs over judgment.

God is like Jesus. Jesus is God in the flesh. So what are you going to believe in?