Have you ever wondered what’s up with the constant theme of blood sacrifice that we see throughout scripture?
Have you ever wondered as I have, why God would require blood sacrifice? Especially if God is supposedly just like Jesus?
There are two things I think the western church of today needs to be aware of.
One: I don’t think that the God of the universe ever needed a display of blood worthy of a Quentin Tarantino film to cure him of a bad mood so that he could forgive.
Two: Tommy Lee Jones really reminds me of God. More on that one later.
Right from Genesis 4, we see Abel offering a sacrifice from his flock. His brother Cain also offers a sacrifice to God, but from his crop. (It appears that God prefers steak over vegetables. I can relate to that.)
By the time we get to Genesis 22, we find the story of God telling Abraham to offer up his only son Isaac as a human sacrifice, which he seemingly agrees to without hesitation. This tells us, and we can also see from non-biblical historical records, that human sacrifice was already a common and accepted practice in many civilizations.
Moving on to Exodus, God gives instructions to Moses that “You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings, your sheep, and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.” (Exodus 20:24 NASB)
Well now it seems at least that we’ve moved on to animal sacrifices and left human sacrifice behind, but then….In the book of Judges, we have the story of Jephthah. He had the misfortune of being born to the wrong woman, and as such, was kicked out of the house. Then we have a very heartwarming underdog-turned-hero story come about where the entire nation of Israel is counting on Jephthah to save the day as their fearless military leader. Negotiations between Israel and their enemy—the Ammonites have failed and the battle is inevitable.
Jephthah really needs this victory and makes a rash promise to God that “If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” (Judges 11:30b-31 NASB)
Jephthah wins the battle and comes home in victory only to have his only daughter whom he loves dearly come out of the door to meet him. So he follows through with his vow and sacrifices her to God. There is nothing here that immediately condemns his sacrifice. So we’re back to human sacrifice again.
And then in 2 Chronicles 28, we see the reintroduction of human sacrifice in the cultic practices of Israel under the reign of king Ahaz.
No matter how far we peer into history, there is evidence of human and animal sacrifice in cultures around the world. Different people groups practicing this include; ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Neolithic Europe, the Celts, the Germanic people, the Slavic people, the Chinese, India, Hawaii, the pre-Columbian Americas, and all across Africa.
So the question is: Why is it that every ancient culture has at one point in time had the compelling, perceived need to offer blood sacrifices to a deity?
There have been three main motivators throughout history for sacrifice:
The main one was that the people had felt that they had angered their god and thought they needed to give up something to appease their deity.
The second reason was that they wanted or needed an advantage over another people group and would make a deal with their deity…a trade. A sacrifice for a decisive victory.
The third reason was for divine provision for favourable growing conditions for crops. Another trade-off. A sacrifice in return for good crops. Other reasons tied into this, like the Mayans for example, sacrificing copious quantities of innocent lives so that the sun would continue to rise day after day.
The common denominator here is one thing…Fear.
Fear of God punishing, abandoning, and excluding them. Fear is the one thing that keeps the machine of religion ticking. It is the only thing. It doesn’t seem strange then, that various people throughout scripture are told by God or by angels to “fear not” over 100 times!
Have you ever noticed the progression take place throughout the centuries recorded in scripture?
“Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.” (Psalm 40:6 NASB)
“For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6 NASB)
“For what purpose does frankincense come to Me from Sheba? And the sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable And your sacrifices are not pleasing to Me.” (Jeremiah 6:20 NASB)
“Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.” (Jeremiah 7:21-24 NASB)
“With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:6-8 NASB)
“But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”(Matthew 9:13 NASB)
“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” (Matthew 12:7 NASB)
“Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT a BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; [6] In WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.” (Hebrews 10:5-6 NASB)
“After saying above, “Sacrifices AND OFFERINGS AND whole BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices for SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law)” (Hebrews 10:8 NASB)
So we have to ask, what’s going on here?
Has God, the immutable One changed his mind about sacrifice?
Does the change in the tone of scripture from God seemingly wanting sacrifice to not desiring sacrifice mean that scripture is fallible and errant after all?
I think that people who dogmatically insist on the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture are missing the point. As Rob Bell says in his book, “What is the Bible?”, the Bible is a story about what it means to be human. It is an accurate collection of stories which show how a specific group of people understood God as he has progressively revealed himself to us, culminating in his full disclosure of character when the cosmic Christ became enfleshed and lived among us.
What’s going on here is that God met man where he was: Lost, in pain, uncomfortable, believing in a false identity, forgetting who God really was and imagining what he was like based on fear.
I believe that our lostness is rooted in our trying to live within the parameters of a self-made moral code, when we were designed to live in perfect relationship, which ultimately makes any moral code obsolete.
Who was it then that desired sacrifice? Man or God?
I believe man desired sacrifice so that we could control our way into right standing with God. We mistakenly thought that God desired it and could be manipulated through a transaction.
Let’s dig into this further…
Matthew Distefano writes the following in his excellent book, “From the Blood of Abel”:
“Consider the backdrop for a moment. Here we have a man who does not bear a son with his wife, Sarah, until he is 100 years of age (Genesis 21:5). Not exactly the most ideal period in life to procreate!
Miraculously though, it happens. A baby boy! But then, one day God decides to ‘test’ Abraham, commanding, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the…’ (Genesis 22:2)
Wait! What?
No, no, no…that cannot be right. It sounds too ridiculous!
Well, not so fast. If we transport ourselves back in time, perhaps 3,000 years or more, then we will discover a vastly different culture, with very specific theological assumptions (starting to sound familiar yet?).
The important thing to understand is that once upon a time, people in the Middle East were polytheists. More specifically, and this applies to the early Hebrews, they were henotheists.
Simply put: gods were tribal. I had my god, you had your god, and they had their god. So, for instance, Yahweh was the God of Israel, while Molech was the god of the Canaanites, and so on and so forth. With that in mind, let’s get back to the story…
What Abraham and Sarah faced religiously and culturally sounds brutal for any parent.
Certainly, they both “knew” that in order for God to be appeased, blood had to be shed—and what better blood than that of a first-born son? This was just the way it was. I believe that is why there is no mention of Abraham contesting God’s “commands.”
Notice, in Genesis 22:3, immediately after getting the instructions from God, we are simply told that Abraham “rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac.”
No protesting, no pleading for the boy’s life; just that he saddled up for the journey. Now, after the two reach the place where Isaac is to be slain, Abraham immediately builds an altar (Genesis 22:9). I can imagine a rudimentary pile of rocks with hefty pieces of wood strategically placed on top. I picture them doused in a flammable oil of sorts, perhaps something like animal fat. After all, the body would have to be burned so as to reach the nostrils of God. Once everything is just right, Abraham binds his beloved Isaac and takes out his knife. With a shaking hand, he is ready.
But all of a sudden, in comes the plot-twist. As Abraham goes to kill Isaac, we read, in Genesis 22:11: “But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
Immediately following this, Abraham sees a ram and sacrifices that instead. After he does this, he names the place Adonai-Jireh, or “The Lord will provide” (Genesis 22:14). In order to determine the power and meaning of this text, we are provided with some very strong clues in the very language used.
Note:
• Verse 1: Elohim tested Abraham…
• Verse 3: Elohim had shown him…
• Verse 8: Elohim himself will provide…
• Verse 9: Elohim had shown him…
• Verse 11: But the angel of Yahweh called…Here we have a wrestling with “God’s will.” Initially, a theological assumption is made about the creator God, Elohim, arguing that he needs Isaac’s blood to be spilled. But then the God of Abraham, and then later Isaac, and Jacob, via a messenger angel, rescues Isaac from this false, and might I say murderous, sacrificial assumption. Remember, everyone in Abraham’s day believed all gods, Elohim included, demanded blood. But this is simply false.
In fact, it is a lie, and ultimately comes from satan—or in other words, the human principle of accusation—the one whom Jesus would later label a liar and murderer from the start (John 8:44). The lie that satan hides behind here is that God demands blood. The truth though, is that really we are “satan” – the lying, sacrifice-demanding murderers, not Elohim. In all reality, the one true God—whether named Elohim or Yahweh—has never demanded blood sacrifices, but that theological understanding is not our starting position; the belief in a God who demands human sacrifice is.
This passage takes us from one theological place to another. It is a baby step in a way, but it is also huge (especially for me!) because it is ultimately the reason we do not sacrifice first-born sons any longer (and I am a first-born son!).”
One theme that we see throughout the story of humanity in the Bible is how we have gotten lost and God has met us, not where we should be, but rather where we are—lost, broken, confused about who we are and confused about who God is.
Around twenty years ago, a bunch of friends and I had the brilliant idea of climbing to the top of Mt. Burke and tobogganing down the north face. Mt. Burke is in the Canadian Rockies and has a 3000 ft elevation gain. Oh, did I mention this was on December 23rd?
We ended up getting lost on the way down and what should have been an easy two-hour hike to the base of the mountain turned into an exhausting adventure trudging through deep snow in the dark, trying to find our way back. This was one of the few times in my life where I actually thought I was going to die.
Fortunately, one of the guys that had started up the trail with us had gotten tired out and turned back while we were on the way up. He was waiting for us back at the vehicle and had started wondering what was taking us so long. He became concerned for our safety and managed to get the help of some guys who had their snowmobiles out. Together, they went looking for us.
Where should I have been at eleven o’clock at night on December 23rd? Probably at home with my wife and my one-month-old daughter. That’s not where I was though. I was cold, tired and hopelessly lost in the forest somewhere on the north-west side of Mt. Burke. I needed rescue and my rescuers came to where I was and took me to where I should have been.
To me, this is a picture of how God has met humans where we were throughout history and brought us to where we should be.
I want you to imagine someone important in your life. A person you cannot imagine living without. It could be your spouse, a sibling, a parent, a grandparent, that crazy uncle, a lifelong friend. Picture that person in your mind. Now imagine something you could do that would hurt that relationship. Imagine you have done that thing…whatever it is. You feel incredible remorse and want more than anything else to make things right with that person. You are willing to sacrifice anything of yours which you hold as valuable in order to have that relationship back. Your whole view of that person you love has now changed. You imagine them to be, at best, disappointed with you, and at worst, furious.
You end up avoiding that person out of guilt, maybe working up the courage to make a phone call or send a text offering to make up for what you have done. If you could only exchange something valuable of yours for forgiveness, it would have the effect of easing your conscience.
This is a picture of the human condition. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve made a wrong decision. They decided to act like less than they really were. In their minds, God was angry with them and they needed to do something to make up for what they had done.
Then they produced children, and these children got their ideas about what God was like from their parents. The children also made wrong decisions and assumed that God was angry with them and that they need to do something to make up for it.
This is the system of sin which Adam and Eve introduced, something which evangelicals would call the “sin nature.” Here’s the thing though. God was never angry or disappointed. I think it’s quite difficult to be angry or disappointed with anyone when you exist outside of time and have already known for a few billion years what decisions people will make.
The first thing God does in fact, after Adam and Eve sin, is to come looking for them so that they could go for a walk as they usually did. Together, enjoying relationship.
Notice that here, God did not withdraw from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve hid from God.
God has always demonstrated forgiveness. Yes, even before the cross. In fact, I believe that the very act of creation was an act of forgiveness. God never needed for us to “make up for what we had done.” He never needed an exchange of something valuable in order to forgive.
Let’s get back to Tommy Lee Jones, shall we?
In the 1997 movie “M.I.B.”, the characters “Kay” played by Tommy Lee Jones and “Jay” played by Will Smith have cornered a villainous alien known as the “Bug”. In their epic final confrontation, the bug ingests the weapons of our would-be heroes.
Kay tells Jay that he’s gonna get his gun back, and then moves in front of the alien shouting insults. He screams at the bug, “EAT ME!” The bug more than gladly obliges, thinking that this is the end of one enemy. Kay, however, finds his gun inside the alien and kills it from within.
Just like God did to religion.
He climbed into our darkness, into our mythology, our misconception—our religion—for the purpose of killing it from within. He met us where we were and continues to meet us where we are; smack dab in the middle of our lostness.
In the preface of his book, “Across All Worlds”, Dr. C. Baxter Krueger brilliantly writes:
“Jesus wants His Father known. He is passionate about it. He cannot bear for us to live without knowing His Father, without knowing His heart, His lavish embrace, His endless love—and the sheer freedom to be that works within us as we see His Father’s face.
Jesus knows the Father from all eternity. He sits at His right hand and sees Him face to face, and shares life and all things with Him in the fellowship of the Spirit. How could He be content to leave us in the dark with no vision of His Father’s heart? How could this Son be indifferent when we are so lost and afraid and bound in our mythology?
Burning with the Father’s love for us, inspired with the Spirit’s fire, the Son ran to embrace our broken existence, baptizing Himself into our blindness. He braved the seas of our darkness to come to us. Why? So that he could share with us His own communion with His father in the Spirit, and we could know the Father with Him, and taste and feel and experience life in His embrace.”
I can hear the objections from my religious readers already: What about Hebrews 9:22 where it says, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (NIV)
First of all, if you are still reading an NIV Bible, do yourself a favour. Light it on fire and get yourself a better translation that isn’t jam-packed with sloppy interpretive bias.
Here’s a better rendering of that verse with some context:
“Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” (Hebrews 9:18-22 NASB)
And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
There is a clear distinction here in, “ONE MAY ALMOST SAY”, and “ACCORDING TO THE LAW.”
Whose law is this anyway? God’s, or man’s?
Since we know now that God never wanted sacrifice, I think we can confidently say that this was man’s law, made by men who mistakenly thought that God wanted sacrifice.
God entered our religious system to meet us where we were. God does not require anything in order to forgive. In fact, as soon as you bring a transaction of any sort into the picture, it is not forgiveness anymore. It is a payoff.
One other thing that my religious readers will bring up is a verse from the NASB since that is what I have been primarily using in this essay:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:7-11 NASB)
Yes, even the NASB has some sloppy translation, and the usage of the word “propitiation” is a perfect example of this. The NRSV correctly translates this as “atonement”. Why is this important? The word, “propitiation” carries the meaning of “being appeased”, which necessitates a transaction, which is then no longer forgiveness.
Atonement is an excellent word choice. It means to reunite, to make whole again. It has the imagery of the Hebrew word, “shalom”—nothing broken, nothing missing. It’s interesting to note that the Greek word irresponsibly translated as “propitiation” is ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion).
This word comes from the Hebrew word כּפּרת (kappôreth) which means “lid”, referring to the lid of the ark of the covenant. This is the place where God (the uncreated) and the high priest (being the representative for the created) would meet (At-one-ment) together in the holy of holies and were able to do so because of the blood sacrifice covering sin.
Sin needed to be covered so that the people’s conscience could be cleared at least for a while in order to enjoy relationship with God. God enters the sacrificial system and allows them to use this as a means to relationship—atonement.
Jesus the Christ became the lid or the place of atonement where the uncreated and the created are able to meet. Jesus was the sacrifice (who was not sacrificed to God, but rather to humanity) and he did not just cover our sin, but actually removed it. We are now a kingdom of priests able to always be in the holy of holies.
1 John 2:2 says, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (NRSV).
John 1:29, speaking of John the Baptist says, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”.
Why was it important for Jesus to remove the “sins of the world”? Sin leads to a guilty conscience. A guilty conscience leads to the severing of relationship.
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:11-14 NASB)
When we look at the whole picture of God that scripture paints for us, we must come to one of four conclusions:
- God is not immutable. his essence can change throughout the ages.
- There is disunity within the Godhead with God the Father being the angry, punishing judge, God the Son being the loving, forgiving, self-sacrificing one and the Holy Spirit being the neutral one.
- Scripture is unreliable as it presents two clearly different and conflicting views of God’s character.
- God is immutable. God the Father is, always has been and always will be like God the Son. We haven’t always known this as a human species, but with the perfect revelation of God in Jesus, we now do. Scripture is simply a reflection of our progressive knowledge of this.
I believe number four is the correct conclusion.
God entered our religious mythology and, though never desiring or needing sacrifice to forgive, recognized that it was us who thought we needed the system of sacrifice to appease our guilty consciences. He met us where we were, not where we should have been.
We see throughout the story of scripture how God reveals more and more truth about himself until we finally have the full and perfect revelation of God in Jesus—whom we sacrifice on the altar of religion, violence, empire and human independence in our lostness, confusion, and sin-sickness.
Was Jesus a sacrifice? Yes. In fact, the ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
He was the sacrifice that we demanded, not God.
He was the sacrifice that proved that no matter how much we fell short of what it means to be human, made in the image of God. No matter how independent, selfish, prideful and violent we were, God in Christ would hang on the Roman instrument of torture, bleeding, hurting, and lost in our darkness, just like us…and He would say, “Father forgive them.”
God never asked for sacrifice. We did. And God entered our lostness and met us where we were, giving us what we asked for, to relate to us, to show us that he is here for us as our healer and rescuer.
Ryan Harbidge is the husband to one beautiful woman and a father to three gorgeous young ladies. He lives in the small town of Nanton, Alberta, Canada and owns a painting company. Ryan likes to spend his free time reading, writing, playing music, camping, hiking, riding his motorcycle, growing a large beard and most importantly, basking in the reality of God’s love. It is Ryan’s hope and dream that others will understand and experience God’s love through his writing, music and life.
Gerry Bast says
Nanton, Alberta! Well whaddya know. Gerry Bast here from Calgary. I have only scanned through this and will read it later with my wife, Jill. It was shared on New Kind of Faith – Facebook. Faith should always be New! We should always be moving forward. And camping!
Let’s talk soon.
Ryan Harbidge says
Good to see a fellow Albertan here! My family and I attend “The Refuge Church” in Calgary. This is a great church which fully embraces the hope of universal restoration. I would love to connect with you there sometime!
kent says
Ryan, would love some feedback about my concern with the concept of progressive revelation. I struggle with the argument of progressive revelation because it appears to lead argue the point that god withheld truth from us (previous generations) because we weren’t ready for it…it was too big of a jump for us to make. In the end, because he withheld truth about himself, we (mankind) continued in our misunderstanding of god even though it wasn’t as egregious as previous generations…thus people lived their whole lives never having the opportunity of knowing and relating to the reality that is god, or worse yet, believing they were doing things god wanted or required which cemented them in their ignorance of knowing god as love. Does love withhold truth, thus allowing non truth to continue?
The other difficulty I have is with revelation itself. If god is love, then we come to know him through experience; not through propositional truth. Therefore, when god reveals himself to a person or a group of persons, he would not use a form of revelation that would be interpreted through each individual’s worldview (propositional facts), but would use a much more efficient form of revelation; intuitional experience. Intuition has the advantage of by-passing the worldview filters that lead to misinterpretation of truth. The problem with intuition (heart truth) is that the mind can override this revelation if we allow it to dominate the intuition. This, I believe, is where we (and those who came before us) have always gone wrong. God reveals himself to us intuitionally, but our minds (judging this revelation with our a priori worldview) cannot “fit” this revelation within our views of god, therefore we incorporate what we can (making small steps towards understanding god as love) or discard the revelation altogether continuing in our state of ignorance of god’s true nature.
God’s revelation of himself as intuitional love has never changed. Our acceptance of this revelation (what our hearts know as truth but our minds have trouble accepting) is what is changing. We are to blame for the baby steps; not god.
Ryan Harbidge says
That is an excellent question. I don’t think God is necessarily erroneous in withholding truth from us and like anyone else, I really cannot claim to understand God’s methods. I think the more pertinent question about a God who is love is: Is love patient? Does love use coercion? Does love force truth upon us? I mean, even with the perfect representation of God in Jesus, for the last 1500 years, the western stream of Christianity STILL believes that God is at worst, the angry deity of the Old Testament. At best, He is some bipolar entity who is love and forgives all, yet will torture those who refuse to repent and bow the knee to Him before their corporal existence has ended.
God is obviously quite patient and doesn’t seem particularity interested in forcing truth upon us. I love what you said, “God’s revelation of Himself as intuitional love has never changed. Our acceptance of this revelation (what our hearts know as truth but our minds have trouble accepting) is what is changing. We are to blame for the baby steps; not God.”
For myself, I have come to embrace the perennial tradition. I believe that throughout the ages in all cultures, we as humans have intuitively experienced God and our hearts know Him. Some also understand with their heads, but most cannot get past the blindness that their human experience has brought them. Objectively, yes, Jesus is God and our salvation (healing of the separation that exists in our minds) can only come through Him, and yet others know Him through different names. For example, Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu and yet was certainly more of a “Christian” (Christ follower) than most evangelical Christians I come across today.
Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13:12-13, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. “
I believe that some people will “get it” while living in the physical realm. Most will not. However, I believe that there is only one place that we go when we transcend to the metaphysical…and that is God’s presence. And God is Love. God is restorative—not retributive. One day we will be exposed to naked truth and I don’t think that a God who is love is capable of creating anyone who is ultimately able to resist what they were made for: relationship with God. I don’t understand why we don’t see more clearly in the here and now, but I do have hope for the then and there. As for myself, I purpose to participate with Him in helping others understand this restorative God of love through my life, my writing and teaching right here, right now.
I Hope this helps.
kent says
ryan, thanks for the reply…i have been wanting to bounce some of these thoughts off someone else for a very long time because i know i have blind spots that i cannot see on my own. your reply has been quite helpful to me, and i appreciate the article and the grace in your response. thanks again, kent
Peter Hiett says
Hey Ryan, I’m hugely sympathetic to the underlying ideas presented in your article, but am concerned that we’ve missed the underlying beauty of sacrifice, because we’ve believed absurd atonement theories presented by modern evangelicals. In Romans 12, after Paul states that God “consigned all to disobedience that he may have mercy on all,” and as the entire imperative thrust of his 11 chapter theological discourse, he writes: “I appeal to you therefore, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual (logikos, logical) worship.” Paul is clearly not stating that God needs further sacrifice to accomplish the work of forgiveness or to appease his anger, he is arguing that sacrifice is what God has been longing for all along.
Mercy is sacrifice. Atonement for sin was only part of the sacrificial system. Not all sacrifices were offered in fear, but clearly some were offered in thanksgiving and praise. Think of Solomon dedicating the temple or David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant. Or think of Jesus; I think he enjoyed laying down his life for me. One day, I will enjoy laying down my life for him.
Sacrifice is “giving blood.” “The life is in the blood.” Humanity is truly one body in Christ. In a living body, sacrifice is not death but the very definition of Life. If one part of my body refuses to surrender the life or “lose the life,” it won’t find it’s life. Unless each member bleeds out, nothing can bleed in; the blood clots. To freely sacrifice like Christ is the very definition of love. We do not need to sacrifice in order to appease the wrath of God, but until we sacrifice as Christ sacrificed, we cannot know Love and live eternal Life. We must lose our life (“the life is in the blood”), to find it.
I think CS Lewis and George Macdonald say it best:
“For in self-giving, if anywhere, we touch a rhythm not only of all creation but of all being. For the Eternal Word also gives Himself in sacrifice; and that not only on Calvary. For when He was crucified He “did that in the wild weather of His outlying provinces which He had done at home in glory and gladness” [George Macdonald]. From before the foundation of the world He surrenders begotten Deity back to begetting Deity in obedience. And as the Son glorifies the Father, so also the Father glorifies the Son… From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nor an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature, nor “ordinary life,” but simply and solely Hell. . . .
The golden apple of selfhood, thrown among the false gods, became an apple of discord because they scrambled for it. They did not know the first rule of the holy game, which is that every player must by all means touch the ball and then immediately pass it on. To be found with it in your hands is a fault: to cling to it, death. But when it flies to and fro among the players too swift for eye to follow, and the great master Himself leads the revelry, giving Himself eternally to His creatures in the generation, and back to Himself in the sacrifice, of the Word, then indeed the eternal dance “makes heaven drowsy with harmony.” All pains and pleasures we have known on earth are early initiations in the movements of that dance: but the dance itself is strictly incomparable with the sufferings of this present time. As we draw nearer to its uncreated rhythm, pain and pleasure sink almost out of sight. There is joy in the dance, but it does not exist for the sake of joy. It does not even exist for the sake of good, or of love. It is Love Himself, and Good Himself, and therefore happy.”
– C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Imagine the temple, not simply a place to appease some angry deity. Imagine the temple as the heart in the body of the New Jerusalem that is the Body and Bride of Christ. Why is it so bloody? Because God is Angry? NO! Because God is eternally happy and the heart continually pumps a river of life to every member. To become a member of that body, is not to refuse to bleed, but to bleed freely and continuously.
If only one bleeds it looks like a naked man nailed to a tree in the middle of a garden.
If two bleed, it begins to look like a healthy marriage.
When all humanity bleeds for each other and for God, it will be eternal life and the continuous ecstatic communion that is the Kingdom.
I applaud the effort to do away with poorly formed theories of penal substitutionary atonement. I think they are the reason that we all struggle with passages about sacrifice. It’s true that God does not want dead sheep and goats; but it is untrue to say that God does not want us to present ourselves as living sacrifices… or that all the stuff about sacrifice was just people being wicked and then projecting their wickedness upon God. To say so, does such violence to Scripture that it seems absurd to read it at all.
On the day God delivered Israel from the Egyptians He did not instruct them regarding “burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Jeremiah 7:22), but he did instruct them regarding the sacrifice of a passover lamb. He is that lamb. He is standing on the throne as one “freshly sacrificed.” We are being made in His image–the image of absolute love.
Jesus didn’t sacrifice himself so that none of us would ever sacrifice. He sacrificed himself so that all of us would sacrifice in freedom and joy. To sacrifice is to forgive–aphiemi in Greek–it is to let the blood flow.
As I stated I whole-heartedly support the effort to portray God as Love, because He is. I would just argue that sacrifice is not the opposite of Love, but ironically, it’s definition.
Ryan Harbidge says
Peter, those are some good thoughts! The premise of the article was to show that we as humans have never been required to do anything to gain the love and acceptance of the Divine. There is however a sense in which we are to live a life of constant sacrifice. The Greek term is “kenosis”. It is where we empty of ourselves into the lives of others around us unselfishly. And we know that we are in a safe place in doing this as God is always emptying of Himself into our lives. This is the flow of divine love that Richard Rohr talks about. When we realize that God’s Love really is unconditional, we live out of a mindset of abundance. This is where it is a joy to participate in willing sacrifice. The old pagan sacrificial system which I am critical of is a system of perceived scarcity, where there isn’t enough love to go around and we must earn what we do get. This is the system which Jesus came to destroy.
Joe Barruso says
Very briefly, I agree that scripture explains the process of man making God in his own image. This includes man’s creation of the false doctrine of eternal punishment. Then comes Jesus and the truth. It’s critical to clarify that although God does not require bloody sacrifices of the flesh, He does require a spiritual sacrifice. Jesus said we must “deny ourselves” and Paul wrote we must make a living sacrifice. This is how we are transformed as we are made in God’s image (spiritual). And yes, agreed, we are Satan. Great website! So refreshing! And so truthful!
Ryan Harbidge says
Yes, I believe what Paul is referring to in “denying ourselves” is to reject the false construct of ourselves which contradicts God’s view of us. Even though this ultimately brings us healing of the soul, the process sure feels like sacrifice!
Here’s a link to my own blog site where I write more in depth on this:
http://ryanharbidge.com/2018/09/29/the-sculpture-of-you/
Michelle says
Wow! It’s going to take me a while to get through all of this information. I’ve only got as far as the illustration of Japeth’s vow -can I ask, how did you come to your interpretation of this part of Scripture? What method do you ascribe to in interpreting Scripture?
Where did your understanding that God approves of human sacrifice come from? God had specifically forbidden offering human sacrifices, so it was absolutely not God’s desire for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter (Leviticus 20:1-5). Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 32:35 clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has “never even entered God’s mind.” The account of Jephthah and his daughter serves as an example for us to not make foolish vows or oaths. It should also serve as a warning to make sure any vow we make is something that is not in violation of God’s Word. (Also, it is not specifically stated that by sacrifice it meant he put her to death -it seems a little odd that her biggest concern was she wouldn’t get to marry. It could be that he dedicated her to the service of spiritual worship, we don’t know, but the point is that God was against human sacrifice as clearly stated in Scripture).
As for Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Issac, he was a man recognized for his great faith. He knew his God. He believed in the specific covenant (promise) of a great nation, and the Savior -even specifically stated through the line of Isaac, not another child, but through Issac (Gen.12:2-3, Gen15:4-5,gen.21:12). Abraham knew Isaac would NOT die, or that God would have to raise him to life again (Heb 11:17-19), because God had made an unconditional covenant with Abraham. He would not, He could not break it. Clearly your interpretation of this illustration does not line up with what the rest of scripture says. Scripture does not contradict itself.
Ryan, these are important missteps. I would sincerely like to know how you believe scripture should be approached in order to come to an understanding of the authors intended meaning. I will continue to read on (I hope you don’t mind all the questions -I have feeling I’m going to have many more:)
Ryan Harbidge says
The best advise I can give is to keep plugging away to the end with this overly long article. I got kind of long winded…sorry. However, I believe you will find the thoughts and concepts to coalesce at the end. Feel free to call or text. I believe you have my number : )
Michelle says
I finished:)
Michelle says
What is an Argument?
Definition: An argument consists of a sequence of statements called premises and a statement called a conclusion. An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are all true.
Premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true. … This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure. Wikipedia
You’ve presented an argument (you’ve given more than two premises, followed by a conclusion), however it’s not a valid argument (according to the above definitions), therefore I find it difficult to even discuss. I can’t refute your experience, it’s your experience. And your conclusion? How can we even begin to discuss its accuracy or its validity when it is “drawn out of a hat” so to speak. Your conclusion appears to claim that it comes from your new and proper understanding of Scripture (a proper understanding of the author’s intended meaning), but in truth it is merely drawn from your own understanding and experience. Reading over scripture and drawing conclusions hardly represents accurate interpretation. There is a science to proper interpretation.
The premises you’ve presented are your opinions of the teachings you were taught from your youth until fairly recently, and now consider to be wrong. Your conclusion, however appears to be drawn from your interpretation of what God has written. Therefore what you have written cannot be considered a valid argument. Change your conclusion to be a representation of your thoughts and feelings, based on your premises and you have a valid argument. One I would not argue with. I would not deny your thoughts or your experiences, how could I?
Are you interested in discovering Truth, for truth’s sake? Or are you most interested in defending a position you really like. I’m willing to have my understanding of scripture challenged -always! But I’m not interested in how you see it -I’m not particularly interested in how I see it, or how anyone else sees it, if it’s not truth.
I have studied why the Bible is to be believed when it claims to be the Word of God (I did not search out good arguments, or look for evidence to support my preconceived understandings). It was an interesting study. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I have studied hermanutics, and have carefully chosen a method that best gives understanding to God’s intended meaning, through the many author’s He chose to write through.
Ryan, you are teaching. You are, most certainly, passionately looking to convince people of “your truth”. Are you seriously convinced you are right, because what you understand resonates within you, or because your experience explains it? Any woman can tell you that emotional attachment to a feeling does not represent truth. If it did truth would be extremely subjective, volatile, and undependable at its best -not worth staking your life on! I love to search out truth, but truth is not confirmed by passion, experience, or persuasive opinions. Have you got something more for me?
Ryan Harbidge says
What I hear you saying is that you are not actually interested in seeking out truth. You are only interested in vindicating the “truth” that you grew up with and are comfortable with. Any honest truth seeker who studies the early church fathers (pre-Augustine) and their theology cannot miss the self evident fact that modern evangelicalism is a sharp departure from early church theology and is in fact heterodoxy. Also, the bible is not the word of God. It makes no claimes to be as such and even if it did, that would be an argument formed from circular logic which is not particularly compelling. Jesus is the Word (logos or logic) of God. Not the bible. As Brad Jersak has said, “The Word of God is inerrant and infallible and when He was 18 years old He grew a beard”.
It seems to me that this has ceased being a discussion and has turned into an argument. Arguments are hardly ever helpful. As such, I will no longer engage with you on this platform. However, should you become interested in friendly and intellectually honest discussion, please do contact me. Let’s not pretend that we haven’t known each other for over 30 years. I’m easy to find.
Many blessings to you and your family!
Michelle says
Sorry, Ryan, I am sincere in pursuit of Truth. I don’t wish for argument. I’ve many questions and I am seeking to understand what you are teaching. We may have known each other for thirty years, but you assume wrongly when you accuse me of seeking to defend my truth. I’ve asked many questions -I have not refuted any of your doctrinal beliefs, nor have I shared with you any of my own.
I asked if you would be interested in discussing Scripture, as it is something I truly enjoy discussing. Your reply indicated it was something you also enjoyed very much, and you indicated you would be happy to discuss this topic with me. So far there hasn’t been any discussion. In answer to my questions you’ve pointed me to your writings of which I have taken time to read (quite a few of them) looking for the answers to the questions I’ve asked. I haven’t found specific answers, but have gained a general understanding of your what you are believing, and what you are teaching. Again there has been no discussion. There has been no debate.
You have no way of knowing a single thing that I believe. You have not asked a single question of me. And, again, you have not answered any of my questions.
I realized that discussing specific understanding of doctrine was going to be difficult, unless I had an understanding of how you determine truth. Most of my questions have centered around this In a respectful way, I believe, in order to gain a better understanding of what your plumb line is. Have I challenged you -well, isn’t that to be expected in debate? Was my challenge inconsiderate or not appropriate to the topic? I’m a serious student -and by that I don’t mean all knowing. What I mean is I’m intentional about what I believe, and why I belief it. I am digging, and I will continue to dig for truth. I believe truth is knowable and meant to be known. I believe truth is objective, and not subjective. I believe truth is not under the authority of my experiences. I am not satisfied with being told what to believe, I have some knowledge of the early fathers and some understandings of different doctrinal beliefs. I believe the best, most accurate understanding of church doctrine comes from the earliest teachings (the apostles, and prophets). I’mnot a philosophical student.
I am certainly not against you. Your entire family are, what Dan and I have considered, very much a part of the people we have strong affection for.
That I have taken the time to read much of what you have published, to respond to , and to ask questions of is because I have known you since you were a boy, and is related to that affection. What has transpired is a sincere interest in understanding what you believe to be the truth, and in what I believed to be of mutual interest.
I’m not interested in arguing with you Ryan. In fairness, you invited me to discuss this topic with you, and to read these articles. Following each of them is a comment section in which I placed my comments and questions.
Again my questions are centered around how you determine truth. Are you interested in Truth? Are you open to discussion? Are you willing to defend this “new truth” (your words not mine) Are you able to defend it beyond saying it’s my experience, because just as my experience doesn’t give Truth its authority, neither does yours.