Kent – Dumma Theologica

Two Ways, Two Visions

To understand the depth of our present social and political divisions, we need to examine their roots. For a Christian, this means understanding the “two ways” identified in Psalm 1. Following are some of the important scriptural teachings on these two ways.

The root of all divisions is found in the Genesis account of “the fall”. The original way was to hear and submit to the one creator-God. The second way was to acquire an autonomous human capacity to discern for ourselves “good and evil”, and thereby become “like god”.
The tower of Babel account presents an archetype of mankind’s attempt to ascend to heaven, and thereby exalt ourselves in a united global kingdom, acting as “god” to rule the world. This is the alternative to the way of humbly exercising dominion as the faithful “image of God”. In response, God restrains the evil and limits its destructive potential by creating cultural-political divisions.
God called a special people, and established a special nation, that would exemplify the way of submission to the one true God. They were to be clearly separated from the way of all other nations and peoples, who exalted themselves as gods through their idolatry.
The division of the two ways later became typified by the city of Babylon and the city of Jerusalem.
In wisdom literature, the two ways are best characterized by those who “fear the LORD” and those who are “wise in their own eyes”.
One representation of the two ways in the New Testament is the identification of all people, as sinners, as being originally “in Adam”. The other way is the way of those who are being saved “in Christ”, the second Adam.
For the early church, the two ways were particularly represented by either submission to Caesar as Lord and “son of god”, or to Jesus Christ as Lord and Son of God. In Revelation, the people of the two ways are identified by receiving either the mark of the beast, or by being sealed by God.

So, how do these two ways relate to today’s political divisions and choices? Underlying all these descriptions and representations of the two ways are the basic attitudes of either fearing the LORD, or being wise in your own eyes. I see a close correspondence between these alternative ways and Thomas Sowell’s two visions (as set forth in “A Conflict of Visions”). His “unconstrained” vision is the way of human arrogance, which aspires to ascend to heaven, to become god, and to create the perfect utopian society on earth. It is a way that is based on a faith in autonomous human knowledge and wisdom, especially the superior wisdom of the elite. His “constrained vision”, however, recognizes that no man has ever been nor ever shall be wise enough and righteous enough to create and implement such a utopian society, and should never be entrusted with the power to attempt it. Sowell later described those of the unconstrained vision as the “anointed” (chosen to rule), and those of the constrained vision as the “benighted” (humbly confessing their limitations). For the former, a consequentialist ethic (teleological) takes precedence over virtue (deontological). They believe in their power to achieve desired consequences, and therefore justify compromises of virtue to attain the desired end. For the latter (the benighted), a virtue ethic (deontological) takes precedence over consequentialism (teleological). Ethical responsibility is proportionate to one’s power, and they acknowledge they have very limited power over consequences, but complete power and responsibility for internal character (virtue).

The unconstrained vision is the basis for the Jacobins, Marxism, Marcuse and their progressive derivatives. The constrained vision is that of John Locke, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, Edmund Burke, and today’s conservatives. In the past few decades, two additional factors have been added to the progressive unconstrained vision: post-modern rejection of any absolutes or universals, and critical-theory rejection of reason. This means it is no longer possible to find a common ground of principles or values or use of rational discourse to resolve the differences between progressives and conservatives. The only path offered by progressives to establish their unified utopia is that of physical coercion and manipulative deceit.

For the Christian, the only possible realization of the perfect society is the Kingdom of Heaven, which is not of this world, and whose only worthy King is Jesus Christ. Any attempt to establish a humanistic utopia on earth, by earthly means, results in a realization of the “Beast of the Sea” in Revelation. Those who embrace such an unconstrained vision belong to the Beast, and bear his mark. The alternative, the constrained vision, even among those who have no faith in Christ, is the way that has been influenced by the Christianized Western culture, so as to recognize the vanity and the threat posed by the arrogant ways of Babylon and the Beast.

These two ways are therefore radically different, and irreconcilable; the division is ultimately intractable, admitting no humanistic political solution. Everyone must choose one or the other, and a nation must ultimately be dominated by the one or the other. We must also accept that warfare between the two, at a spiritual level if not physical, is inevitable. Christians are to live peaceably with all men, as far as possible. But at the level of spiritual identity and conviction and ultimate loyalties, there can be no peace between Jerusalem and Babylon, between Christ and the Beast.

A Proposed Chiasm

I’ve been considering a speculative interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, regarding it not as three consecutive eras (Eden, antediluvian and postdiluvian), but rather as three aspects or perspectives for understanding the entire history covered by the Hebrew bible. It is an approach similar to what I believe is appropriate for interpreting the Tribulation and the Millennium in Revelation, and results in a Chiastic presentation of all history as below:

A – Eden and the Antediluvian Age
- B – Postdiluvian world (Noahic Covenant)
  - C – Israel
    - X – Christ
  - C’ – Church
- B’ – Present Age
A’ – Millennium and Tribulation

In this scheme, A1 and A1’ are representations of the reign of God over His people, with the blessings and protections that He provides. Eden (A1) is a projection back to the origins of mankind, and the Millennium (A1’) is a projection forward to the end of the age (the Amillennial view). Each of these may be considered as a proleptic presence of the New Creation.

The Antediluvian era (A2) and the Tribulation (A2’) represent the free rein given to the wicked to pursue their own ways and to persecute God’s people. This leads, in the end, to their judgment. In Daniel and Revelation it is represented as a time, times, and half a time, which I interpret qualitatively, not quantitatively. It is a “time”, in that it is the appropriate duration ordained by God. It is “times”, in that it feels excessively long from the perspective of God’s persecuted people. And it is “half a time” in that the wicked see it as cutting them off prematurely, in their prime.

The narrative of the postdiluvian world (B) and the corresponding present Age (B’) represent the situation of all humanity before and after Christ, respectively. It is a time of co-existence of the righteous and the wicked, living together under the forbearance and providence of God, giving the wicked opportunities to repent. That is the essence of the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9:1-17). God’s dispersal of humanity at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) is an example of gracious divine intervention, for the sake of preserving humanity. My point is not to deny the historicity of some kind of catastrophic flood, but rather to suggest that the main purpose of the narrative is theological rather than historical.

Israel (C) and the Church (C’) are the people especially called out for a redemptive mission, before and after Christ, respectively. A, B and C are all concurrent, before Christ, as types; and A’, B’ and C’ are all concurrent, after Christ, as anti-types.

Ears to Hear

I’ve discovered some interesting parallels between Plato’s “Seventh Letter” and some of the teachings both in Proverbs and in the Gospels. Plato comments in the 7th Letter that it is of no value, and is in fact a mistake, to try to educate a person who is not in his soul prepared to properly receive it.

“Whenever anyone consults me about any of the weightiest matters affecting his own life…if he seems likely to listen to advice about the thing on which he consults me, I advise him with readiness…. But if a man … evidently does not intend to follow my advice, I do not take the initiative in advising such a man…”

“If men are not by nature and kinship allied to justice and all other things that are honorable,… none of all these will ever learn to the full the truth about virtue and vice.”

For this reason, Plato hesitated to teach philosophy to Dionysius, ruler of Syracuse. He describes how he will put Dionysius to the test, as to whether he would be a worthy student. Plato will make clear how much labor is required in the quest, and see if Dionysius still shows genuine commitment, whether he has the attitude that “life is not worth living if he does anything else”.

There must be a deep love for virtue, above all other things, before one can be taught to become virtuous. Both Plato and Aristotle contended that this needs to be instilled by the training of children, from the earliest age, so that in later years they will be able to receive the explicit teachings. If virtue and piety are not their first love, an end in itself, then whatever they learn from teachers will be in the service of other purposes, contrary to the truly virtuous life.

An example of a very capable and intelligent student of philosophy, who nevertheless did not embrace it as his first love, is Cyrus, as presented by Xenophon In “The Education of Cyrus”. He was formally educated in virtue, and gave all the appearances of a virtuous man during his rise to power; but it becomes evident that he practiced it only for political expediency, for the sake of gaining and retaining power.

The book of Proverbs makes a similar observation, where the first nine chapters seek to instill a burning desire and love for wisdom, as a prerequisite for studying the actual Proverbs in the remainder of the book. Consider, for example, the following. “When I was a son to my father, tender and the only son in the sight of my mother, then he taught me and said to me, ‘Let your heart hold fast my words; keep my commandments and live; acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will guard you; love her, and she will watch over you.’” – Proverbs 4:3-6.

Similarly, in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus explains his use of parables as a means of concealing the teachings in mystery for those who are not of the right mind-set. The revelation of their meaning is reserved for those who make the commitment of discipleship; and He made clear that it is a costly commitment, warning that they must count the cost. He also instructs the disciples to not “cast your pearls before swine.” And in the gospel of John, we find that Jesus’ teachings can be received and understood only by those who had been previously prepared in their hearts. For example: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” – John 8:47.

So this principle set forth in the gospels and in Proverbs, was also evident by general revelation to Plato and Aristotle. It is essentially equivalent to saying: “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.” And this fear of the Lord is not taught by words, in books, in the classroom; it is rather acquired in life experience, and most importantly in children as they are trained by their parents. That is what constitutes “the beginning of wisdom”, the prerequisite for virtue-teaching. That is how one acquires ears to hear.

Taking the Knee

Kneeling is generally a symbol of respectful submission to a superior. It is a way to show yourself to be a friend, presenting yourself in a defenseless position. One reason for this sign of humble submission is a feeling of shame and guilt, seeking forgiveness and mercy. This can be appropriate before a person you have deeply offended or sinned against; it is certainly appropriate before God.

But what does it mean to kneel when the national anthem is played? How does kneeling differ from standing? Some try to dismiss it as an alternative way to show respect, but for most people it is obvious that this is not the intent. When you stand up for the anthem, it indicates that you are proud of the nation, and proud to be an American. In contrast, kneeling indicates shame: being ashamed of the nation, apologetic, ashamed to be an American.

This interpretation is confirmed by Colin Kaepernick’s explanation: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” By kneeling, he refused to show pride, he was expressing shame.

This explains why taking the knee is so offensive to most Americans. It expresses the widespread belief on the political left that America is fundamentally evil, and that we have much more to be ashamed of than proud of. It is the attitude expressed by Michelle Obama, when she said that the event of her husband’s election was the first time in her adult life she could be proud of her country. Subsequently, president Obama showed the same attitude in his “apology tours”. It is the shame engendered by the historical negationism of Howard Zinn, and more recently expressed in the 1619 project.

Symbols and symbolic actions matter. Some symbolic acts unite a people under a common cause, other symbolic acts incite tribal divisions and strife. “Taking the knee” in response to the national anthem is of the latter kind, and is nothing less than a rejection of our nation as one nation. It dishonors our history, our founders and those who fought and died for her. Those who take the knee are expressing more than a grievance, they are expressing a much broader hate and ingratitude. They of course have a legal right to such expression, but the rest of us also have every right to be offended.

Confession and Consequentialism

In Malick’s “A Hidden Life”, the question that most captured my attention pertains to the importance of words. How important are true or false confessions, and why? The lead character, Franz Jägerstätter, refused to swear loyalty to Hitler, which finally resulted in his execution, and persecution and hardship for his family. Everyone advised and admonished him to consider the consequences – for himself, for his wife and children. He was told that he could regard signing a loyalty statement as a meaningless act; it was just a piece of paper. But if he refused, it would have dire consequences for himself and his family. Furthermore, his refusal would never be publicly known, and would never have any consequence as a political statement. He was told that his refusal was totally a matter of selfish pride.

But he was unmoved by these considerations of consequences. He simply could not voice words contrary to what was in his heart. His over-riding concern was his own integrity.

What shall we say of this? One point to make is that there is always someone who hears and knows what we say or refuse to say. Whatever words we utter within someone’s hearing is a witness, and it is beyond human wisdom and foresight to foresee the consequences.

But what is of utmost importance are the consequences for our own soul. Consider Proverbs 18:20-21 — “With the fruit of a man’s mouth his stomach will be satisfied; he will be satisfied with the product of his lips. Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.” We must be careful about our words, for the sake of guarding our own personal integrity. When you speak what is truly in your heart, it reinforces and establishes your conviction; it guards your integrity, and it guards your soul. And this is not primarily a self-serving interest; for a Christian, it is a matter of loving and serving one God with all of your heart and soul and might. On the other hand, words or symbolic gestures that deny what is in the heart undermine one’s own being; they undermine whole-hearted love for the Lord, and lead to the loss of one’s own soul. Personal integrity, upheld and guarded by the words of the mouth, is of infinite value, surpassing any external consequences in this life.

Essentially the same issue is addressed in Martin Scorsese’s “Silence”. A Jesuit priest in 17^th century Japan is pressured into symbolically denying Christ, as the means of delivering his parishioners from a horrendous torture-execution. The appeal was the same, that a gesture that could be regarded in his heart as meaningless would be the way to save his people from death, and would thus be an act of loving mercy. But to obstinately refuse their demand would be an act of selfish pride. In this case, he finally relented to their demand, and denied his Lord.

The crucial difference between the two cases was the matter of faith and hope. In the latter case, the priest was focusing on the consequences on earth. But Franz, in “A Hidden Life”, was focused on the greater and living hope in the age to come, wherein the destiny of his own soul and the souls of his family took precedence. When one has such an eternal hope, then virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics become one. Malick makes it clear at the end of the film that Franz and his wife were driven by this hope. This is what has always been the crucial factor in Christian witness. The stories of early church martyrs show that they were not driven by an earthly prideful “courage”. They were not driven by a desire to be remembered and honored in future generations, as was the tradition of Greece and Rome. They were rather driven by a love for the Lord and an indomitable hope in the resurrection.

Corporate Identity and Collective Guilt

In the present troubles, the ideas of corporate identity and collective guilt have become crucial subjects of discussion. What should be the Christian position, based on scriptures? A summary statement, at the outset, would be that we are all social beings, bound together both synchronically and diachronically, such that we in fact suffer both good and evil consequences of the deeds of our ancestors. And, in various ways, we all share in collective sin and guilt.

From the Torah, consider Exodus 34:7b — “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations”. Turning to the prophets, Isaiah regarded himself to be unclean because: “I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:4). These texts confirm the principle of corporate sin and consequent collective guilt.

On the other hand, we are given the promise that there will be a new covenant where God’s people will be accountable only for individual sins. “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Then, in the writings, we see explicit identification of two categories of sin: “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins” (Psalm 10:12-13a). Note that the requests are different for the two categories: acquittal for the hidden faults, and prevention for presumptuous sin.

Then, in the gospel of the new covenant, Paul also speaks of two categories of sin: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). There is the corporate sin of the one man, Adam, and there are the sins of each and every individual since Adam.

Of the two kinds of sin, 1) non-presumptuous/hidden, and 2) presumptuous/willful, corporate sin would be a subset of the first category. This pertains to the sickness of unwilled sinfulness, which includes non-malicious prejudices and privileges. This collective guilt is between us and God, and He has forgiven us. We are all acquitted, covered by grace, by universal atonement. Roman patricians and soldiers who became Christians were not held accountable for the sins of their colleagues and ancestors. But sins of the second category, those that are individual and presumptive, require individual repentance. And for these we have accountability to the victims, to seek forgiveness and offer restitution (as with Zacchaeus).

What then are our social obligations regarding corporate sin? There are some things that can be done to partly ameliorate the evil consequences of such sins, and we are obliged to do what we can. But such deeds are to be acts of love, because we are forgiven, not deeds of penance to win forgiveness. Those who would demand repentance and penance for sins that are not willful, in order to win their forgiveness for what God has already forgiven, do not serve peace; they rather create and aggravate strife. Furthermore, we must realize that any attempts at peacemaking using the methods of this world have severely limited effectiveness. In the world, racism, tribalism, profiling and identity politics are to some extent forever incurable and inevitable. And attempts to eradicate such sins by coercion are ultimately counterproductive. Institutional systems and structures can sometimes facilitate or sometimes hinder people’s efforts to do either good or evil, but genuine and lasting transformation can arise only voluntarily, from the hearts of individuals. The only truly effective answer is in Christ, by the Spirit.

And what should be our corporate identity? Everyone who is of the world shares in both the corporate sins and sufferings of their ancestors, because their connections and heritage are according to the flesh. But Christians are new creatures, born from above, in the Spirit. Our corporate identity is not found in the flesh, but in Christ. Our brothers and sisters and ancestors are the spiritual brothers and sisters and ancestors we have in Christ, where there is no distinction of tribal or racial lineage (see Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13-16). Our pedigree is not established by DNA, but by the one baptism.

What is the prognosis? The outlook for the world is quite pessimistic, as is well established in scripture. But we have the assured hope that in the kingdom of God all walls of division are torn down, and there shall be peace. And it is within the church, among those who are in Christ, that there is both the possibility and the obligation to put this peace into practice in the present age. “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33b).

Until Shiloh Comes

The text in question is Genesis 49:10 — “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes,
And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” (NASB)

So, what is Shilo?

There are various interpretations afoot and here are some examples:
“until tribute comes to him” (ESV, NRSV)
“until he to whom it belongs shall come” (NIV,RSV)
“until there comes the things stored up for him” (LXX)
There are arguments to support each of these, as well as other interpretations, but none are particularly convincing. The approach by the NASB, to evade the question and punt, may be the better part of valor.

However, I think there is one suggested interpretation that has special merit: that Shiloh can mean “tranquility”, as the word is closely related to shalom. If one takes a canonical approach, giving priority to NT theology, then this would be the preferred understanding. Such a hermeneutical approach seems appropriate in a verse like this where it is clearly and widely accepted as Messianic, and where there is so much uncertainty in the exegesis of the Hebrew text.

Some relevant associated texts are:

Psalm 110:1 “The Lord says to my Lord:
‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’”, which is quoted in Acts 2:34-35.

Hebrews 10:12-13 — “He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet”

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 — “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.”

An interpretation of Genesis 49:10 consistent with the above texts would be that Judah (the Lion of the tribe) is continuing to this day to hold the scepter, as the Messiah who presently reigns; and this reign will continue until all His enemies are destroyed. There shall then be peace (Shiloh will come), and He will then lay aside the scepter, but not before. I believe we should regard this as the promise revealed in Jacob’s blessing.

Two Goats, Two Selves

I offer here some thoughts on the OT ritual of atonement, Yom Kippur. The background to this is the more general meaning of offerings – korban – which is “to draw near”. The rationale and purpose for the sacrificial system was to make it possible for the holy God to dwell among His people, and for the people to be able to approach Him in fellowship. It’s ultimately about reconciliation for the sake of communion.

On the day of atonement there were two goats used in the ritual: one for YHWH, and one for Azazel.

The goat for YHWH is often related to removing the penalty of sin. This goat was the source of the cleansing blood, which has the power of new life. The blood is applied to the tabernacle and its furnishings, to cleanse it, so that it will be an acceptable dwelling place for God – so that He can continue to abide with His people. It cleanses both from impurities ( בְּנֵ֣י ) and from transgressions ( וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶ֖ם ), thus dealing with all sins ( חַטֹּאתָ֑ם) (Lev 16:16). The generalized meaning is that the blood sanctifies the means of communion with God, thus enabling reconciliation. Under the new covenant, this is fulfilled in the application of Christ’s blood to cleanse and sanctify each of us, so that God in His Spirit can dwell within us. This goat was offered up to YHWH, in the burning of the visceral fat (suet), as specified in Leviticus 16:25. This fat was considered the most valuable and inner-most part of the animal. It therefore belongs to YHWH. We should probably recognize a connection between these inward parts and what Paul refers to as the inner man (Rom 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16). See also Psalm 51:6, where He desires truth in the inward parts. The rising smoke of the offering represents an ascent into heaven, to YHWH; it is also a transformation from things that are seen to things unseen. This is fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, and in our new self, to be raised up in Christ, destined for eternal communion with God.
The goat for Azazel is often related to removing the guilt of sin. Azazel was the name later used for a personal goat-demon of the wilderness (a parallelism with the “goat for YHWH”). Note the reference to goat-demons in Leviticus 17:7. It represents the old-self, of sin, united with Christ, and condemned in the flesh. Other examples of being handed over to Satan for destruction are found in Romans 1:24,26,28; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20. The consequent death and destruction is inherent in the self-destructiveness of sin. The sinner desires to flee from God, from God’s presence and protection, and this judgment is a releasing, or loosing, allowing the sinner to flee and to self-destruct (see prior blog “The God Who Polarizes”). This goat takes sins far away, outside the camp, outside the holy precincts of God’s people and covenant. It represents the transfer of sin to the old-self, for subsequent banishment and destruction, thus purifying the new-self. It is expiation.

We should thus regard our “old self” (Ephesians 4:22-24) as being in Christ the scapegoat, taking on and removing all sins. This is uniting with Him in death. And we should regard our “new self” as being in Christ the sacrificed goat, receiving His cleansing and life-giving blood, and offered up to God. This is uniting with Him in life.

On La Dolce Vita and Other Vanities

Several “great” films from Europe near 1960 have a common theme: the vanity of what society regards as the “good life”. La Dolce Vita is an example, as also are ”L’Avventura” and “Jules and Jim”. In style, they were innovative, but in message they repeat what had been said many times before, e.g. in “Rules of the Game” and “Children of Paradise”. These and many other films acknowledge and lament how the privileged classes, especially those who have the luxury of idleness, and who misconstrue cultural sophistication to be wisdom, are in fact quite impoverished – superficial and despairing. To me, these movies become a bit tiresome in their smug despair, refusing to explore any avenues of hope. I would compare it to the bankruptcy of Epicureanism, bourgeois decadence, or the aesthetic stage of Kierkegaard. I would also refer to Agur’s plea: “give me neither poverty nor riches” (Prov 30:8).

There is a kind of person who prefers, in their pride, to self-indulgently exult in misery, rather than open themselves up to a hope for healing. We know from Agur, and many other scriptures, that it is their pride that is at the root of their downfall. I prefer movies that not only expose the superficial, but actually attempt to discover something beyond the superficial – as in Bergman, and more so in Tarkovsky. And, even better, movies that send a strong message of hope and redemption, such as those of Yasujiro Ozu, Satyajit Ray, Robert Bresson, the Dardenne brothers. Their movies follow the example of Job, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and the lament Psalms; they are realistic about the darkness, but they shine beams of light into that darkness.

La Dolce Vita (F. Fellini)
The Marcello – Emma relationship is at the crux of this movie: the woman’s full commitment to a genuine love, and the man, Marcello, refusing commitment to anyone or anything, in the vain hope of finding something better. His predicament is characteristic of the life of wealth and cultural sophistication, critiqued in the movie as empty and dead. In this stratum of society, everyone is bored and disillusioned. It is similar to what is presented in “Children of Paradise”, except with a more definitive negative stance.

Is this movie primarily a critique of Marcello, and his associates, in their arrogant rejection of all that is good and real, in their refusal to ever make commitments? Or, is it more a critique of traditional institutions and society – that all is vanity, unworthy of commitment? We should probably see both of these critiques.

In the closing scene, the grotesque dead fish is probably a symbol of the church (i.e. Roman Catholicism), which had once been meaningful and helpful, but is now an ugly corpse, an object of pathetic curiosity. Marcello is then beckoned by a girl, who represents angelic innocence, but he is unable to hear or accept this call to potential deliverance. She then turns to face the camera (similar to the closing of “400 Blows), as if also beckoning the audience. In this, at least, there is a glimmer of light and hope.

Jules and Jim (F. Truffaut)
First of all, there is the theme of the captivating attractions of Catherine. She exults in her power to possess her lover(s), and she exults in the idea of exercising total unconstrained “freedom”. She refuses to be “understood”, because she sees any kind of predictability as a constraint on her freedom. She is therefore driven to prove this freedom by impulsively irrational behavior. She demands total faithfulness from her lovers, but she refuses to respond in kind. She can be faithful to no one or no thing that would restrain her freedom. She is the Queen, and she walks to a different drum. It reminds me of Kieslowki’s “Blue”. Jules and Jim are each captured by her charm and beauty, especially her charm. And, as Proverbs 31:30 says, “charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain”. She is like the adulteress of Proverbs, whose way is the way of death, and her lovers are like the naive, simple-minded youth who falls prey to her deceptions.

A sub-theme is the contrast between this kind of romantic love, and the true friendship between Jules and Jim. The latter is meaningful and lasting.
In this movie, the darkness is in the destructive lust for an absolute freedom, the attendant exercise of power over others through charm and charisma, and the destructive captivation of those who succumb to the charms. The glimmer of light is in the alternative possibility of self-giving friendship.

L’Avventura (M. Antonioni)
This “Adventure” also concerns the lives of self-centered and superficial people of privilege. They desire to find satisfaction in others, but refuse to give themselves to others. They become at times conscious of guilt and remorse as well as vanity, but none of them find any escape or hope of redemption. The main character, Claudia, is on an “adventure” of developing a new identity for herself, by taking on the role of her lost friend Anna, continuing Anna’s struggle to “find herself”. In the end, she gives herself to the emotionally adolescent Sandro, as if there is nothing better available in this world.

The following two movies in Antonioni’s trilogy, La Notte and L’Eclisse, also present the vanity of modern life, and the lead women characters’ failed attempts to find fulfillment in love-relationships. These three movies are totally dark and despairing, as I had also concluded about “Children of Paradise”. To identify evil, but to suggest there is no hope for deliverance, is only a very small step away from embracing evil. Either position is nihilistic surrender. One can admire this movie for technical and artistic quality and innovation, but its message is poison for the soul. It is charming but deceitful. To admire such works for their artistic sophistication is like admiring Adolf Hitler’s rhetorical skills. If one recognizes evil genius, one must also recognize it as ultimately evil.

The Sweet Exchange

I’ve lately been considering 2 Corinthians 5:21a, one of the most important, and controversial, texts on atonement. The specific phrase under consideration is: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, typically translated as: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf…” (NASB). God the Father is the subject, Who made (ἐποίησεν) the Son to be sin.

Consider some other NT examples of a similar use of ποιέω as “being” or “becoming”:

John 10:33 — ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν — you make yourself God

1 John 1:10 — ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν — we make him a liar

Revelation 3:12 — … ποιήσω αὐτὸν στῦλον … — “…I will make him a pillar…”

These are all readily understandable as making a person to be or become some other kind of person, or to fulfill the role of another person. To say that Jesus was made to be sin is a case of abstractum pro concreto, wherein “sin” in some way characterizes the person that Jesus was made to become. Similar usage is found in the following:

Galatians 3:13 – “having become a curse for us…” (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα). This curse, κατάρα, can be understood as having a root meaning of “according to a curse”. So, this is saying that He became accursed – a person subjected to the curse, according to the curse.

1 Corinthians 1:30 – He became wisdom, sanctification and redemption, meaning that He became the agent and source of wisdom, sanctification and redemption.

Ephesians 5:8 – The saints in Ephesus had been darkness, but became light, meaning that they were formerly followers and practitioners of darkness but are now followers and practitioners of light.

The question for us in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is how to understand the relation between the abstraction of sin and the concrete person that Jesus became.

One interpretation, which has substantial support, is that “sin” refers to “sin sacrifice”. That seems to be quite plausible, based largely on the following two OT references.

Leviticus 4:24/25 says of the burnt offering presented before YHWH, in the Hebrew text, that it “is sin” ( חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא). This was translated literally, word-for word, in the LXX as “ἁμαρτία ἐστι…”. The teaching here is that the sacrificial victim became sin.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul was undoubtedly alluding to Isaiah 53:10. The Hebrew text can be literally translated as: “even though He had done no violence, nor was there deceit in His mouth, yet it pleased Yahweh to crush Him, to make Him ill – when You make Him to be sin” (וַיהוָ֞ה חָפֵ֤ץ דַּכְּאוֹ֙ הֶֽחֱלִ֔י אִם תָּשִׂ֤ים אָשָׁם֙ ). The LXX translates the final phrase as: “The Lord is also pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give concerning sin…” (ἐὰν δότε περὶ ἁμαρτίας…). This seems to be interpreting sin in the Hebrew text as being a sin-sacrifice. Most English translations follow suit. So, again, the sacrifice is sin, because it became sin.

It is interesting that Paul seems to have deliberately followed the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:10 rather than the more easily understood LXX. He was not content to merely say that Jesus was a sin-sacrifice, but wanted to convey the deeper meaning of that sacrifice. Since the most common interpretations and translations of Isaiah 53:10 consider it as a sin-sacrifice, it is reasonable to interpret “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 in the same way. But this identification of sin with sin-sacrifice side-steps the deeper question of the meaning of the sacrifice. It simply restates one mystery in the terminology of another mystery. Calling Him a sin-sacrifice does not answer the question of what Jesus, as the sacrificial victim, had actually taken upon Himself. And it is likely that Paul intended that the reader explore and grasp this deeper meaning. The OT sacrificial system gives us some limited knowledge about the meaning and consequences of a sin sacrifice, as taking on sin; but the deeper meaning of the identification between “sin” and the OT sacrificial victim must be found in an understanding of its fulfillment in Christ, not vice versa. So, whether one uses the terminology of “sin-sacrifice” or not, the same basic question remains: how does the sin-sacrifice relate to sin, and correspondingly, how does Jesus relate to sin.

One answer, which is the prevailing tradition, is that He simply became subject to the consequences and penalty of sin, in similarity to his becoming accursed (Galatians 3:13). The alternative that I’m proposing is that Jesus became sin in a manner analogous to His becoming “wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:30), or Christians becoming “light” (Ephesians 5:8), which would mean He became an actual agent and perpetrator of sin. In this case, “sin” would be understood as the personification of sin, similar to Paul’s usage in Romans 6 and 7. On its face, this would seem theologically unacceptable, but I will attempt below to counter such objections.

The traditional interpretation, in accordance with the penal-substitution theory of atonement, is that He acquired the legal status – the consequences – of sinfulness. That would mean that the “condemnation of sin in the flesh” and the reconciliation with God pertain to legal status before God the Father. This is true, as far as it goes; but it does not adequately address the full meaning of atonement, especially its participatory aspect, because it does not adequately address the full meaning of sin. Sin is primarily a matter of the heart and will, not some external objective thing that contaminates. It is not what enters the mouth that defiles, but what proceeds from the heart. The essence of murder is in the hateful will of the heart. The salvation we need is not just a deliverance from the penalty of sin, but from the corrupting power of sin, from the corrupted heart.

I accept what Gregory of Nazianzus said in defense of the full humanity of Jesus: “What has not been assumed has not been healed; it is what is united to his divinity that is saved…” (Epistle 101). Following through on this logic, one could also say that in order to fully condemn and destroy sin in His flesh, that “sin” that He received must incorporate the full personal willful agency of sin. This is to say that He not only had to be fully human, and fully afflicted with the consequences of sin (legal status), but also that He had to fully embody the willful agency of sin, in and from the heart. Only then can He totally save us from the willful sin that arises from our own hearts. Just as we all participate in Adam’s sin as willful agents of sin (Romans 5:12-21), it was necessary for Christ as the second Adam to participate in the fullness of mankind’s sin as a willful agent.

I’m suggesting then that Jesus became sin personified, acting as the agent of sin, carrying out the sinful desires and intentions of sinners. The sins of mankind are sins of hate and rebellion, ultimately aimed at God, with, in effect, the intent of killing God. But that is impossible for us to do; we are unable to accomplish the final intent of our sins. But when Jesus took our sins upon Himself, He fulfilled that intent; He did what only the God-man (Son of God, Son of Man) could do. When Jesus laid down His life, He carried out the murder of God. Alternatively, He was both the sacrificial lamb and the High Priest who slayed the sacrificial lamb; He was both the perpetrator and the victim of the sacrifice. Those who wanted to crucify Him did not in themselves have the power to kill Him; no one could take His life. But, as personified sin, He was our agent, accomplishing for us what no one else could ever do. And in so doing, He transformed what was in us a spirit of hate and rebellion against God, into an act of supreme love and total submissive obedience to God the Father.

It is often argued, rightly, that there is an intended parallelism between Jesus becoming sin and our becoming righteous. Under the traditional assumption that He became sin only in the sense of legal status, it is thereby concluded that our righteousness spoken of here pertains only to legal status. I propose applying this parallelism in a different way. There is much support for the idea that Paul intends that our righteousness go well beyond legal status. Paul teaches in Romans 5:17-6:14 that we are to be transformed from being slaves of sin to becoming instruments of righteousness. There is more here than legal status, there is obedience from the heart. A parallel scope of meaning should then be attributed to Jesus becoming sin. By parallelism, He willfully and actually committed sin (as the executing agent of our sins), just as we are intended, and enabled and destined to willfully and actually practice righteousness.

This interpretation accords well with Rom 8:3b-4 — ὁ Θεὸς, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Υἱὸν πέμψας, ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί, ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. It is of interest that the phrase “for sin”, περὶ ἁμαρτίας, is the same as used in the LXX translation of Isaiah 53:10. Consider first the meaning of “in the form of sinful flesh” (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) in Rom 8:3b. The “form” is capable of being sinful, of receiving and/or practicing sin. Again, this implies more than just receiving a decreed penalty and/or legal status of sinfulness. It likely means a capability for real sin, a capability to commit sin from the heart, in the same way that we all do. What I’ve proposed here, is that the capability was actually exercised. Also, note the parallelism with a righteousness that is described as walking according to the Spirit.

Furthermore, the fact that sin is condemned (κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί), is more understandable if sin is considered as the personified agent of sin, rather than one to whom the legal status of sinfulness has been assigned. To assign a legal status, by decree, to a person, and to then condemn that person by putting Him to death, is offensive to a rational sense of justice. But if Jesus was an actual agent and perpetrator of sin, then the condemnation through His bodily death is rationally comprehensible, and just. We can thus comprehend both the justice of the atoning sacrifice, and its efficacy for total salvation from sin.