Analogue 32: Critique of the Gods

ANALOGUE 32

Critique of the Gods

People have been sacrificed to gods who “devoured” human beings. Before humans, animals were sacrificed to these so-called “divinities.” Whoever receives such sacrifices, however, are not, in fact, divine.

SYNOPSIS

• The consequences of Yeshua’s Messiahship was a bloody crucifixion. 
• Paul’s interpretation was that this was a “sacrifice demanded by or made to God” against which Philip appears to forcefully argue.
• Philip critiques the whole sacrificial system as a human construct—and in this short passage counters the Pauline argument in agreement with the prophets. 
• In Philip’s estimation, a “god” who accepts human sacrifice is, in fact, not divine. 

COMMENTARY

A basic (and not so subtle) argument is being made in this analogue (and in earlier sections of the Gospel) which comes perhaps from Yeshua’s own experience of the religious world of Palestine and its assault upon him (both Jewish and Roman). As a result of the religious and political systems of his day, he met a terrible end—a bloody and painful death. However, it is around this historical pivot point concerning the meaning of his death that both the western and oriental traditions radically diverge. In the western tradition, under the interpretive influence of the Apostle Paul, this event comes to be seen through the lens of Temple sacrifices and the sacrificial system of early Judaism, a tradition which had a long and convoluted history. Paul took the theme of sacrifice as a way of explaining the cosmic significance of the Messiah’s death. For him it was a scriptural fulfillment—perhaps that of Isaiah 55 concerning the suffering Messiah. From his vantage point a sacrifice needed to be made, and so Paul drew a direct parallel from the ancient Hebrew texts about sacrifices to the idea that Yeshua became a sacrifice offered to God for the expiation of sin. 

Over time, this interpretive viewpoint grew into a complex system of thought called atonement theology. It has established itself throughout the western tradition, becoming the central theme of Christianity. In significant ways it even eclipsed teachings concerning the resurrection, and often the very wisdom teachings of Yeshua himself. Crucifixes, with the corpus of the Christ hanging on the cross, became the primary image for Christianity in the West, and have remained so to this day. From the viewpoint of the eastern churches, this focus was and remains out of proportion—exaggerated. The Oriental Christian world (and in particular the viewpoint of the early Jewish followers of Yeshua) perceived these doctrines concerning the atonement to be a major distortion of the actual message that Yeshua taught as a teacher of wisdom. The desire to provide an alternative to Pauline teaching (the Greco-Roman theological perspective) seems clearly to be the point of this Gospel’s understanding. Philip states very clearly that the practice of either animal or human sacrifices necessarily made to God is antithetical to the divine reality itself. It contravenes the teaching of love and ultimate reconciliation which is its central premise. Such a theological system also meant that these ‘gods,’ however they are described, were and are not divine at all—perhaps they are the antithesis of divinity—even diabolic. 

For Philip, the teachings of the sacrificial system say little about Yeshua’s wisdom and very much about the characteristic features of the “god” to whom and for whom these sacrifices were being made—an angry and punitive figure needing “payment.” Whatever god that may be (and whatever ideas sustain that perspective), will eventually fail, falling far short of the divine Reality toward which it supposedly points. In the end, for Philip, it is a contradiction and perversion of the truth and a denial of the goodness of the sacred teaching that both he and Yeshua knew. Philip’s viewpoint was also a conclusion of Jewish Christianity which was later anathematized and condemned as a heresy by the West. It is over this central teaching, and the understanding of the significance of Yeshua’s death, that a great gulf continued to divide East from West—and has also perhaps created an almost unbridgeable wound in the minds and hearts of those who contemplate these traditional western teachings and their implications in our day. Beyond the conventional theological viewpoints privileged and authorized in Occidental Christianity, the perspective of Oriental wisdom may be exactly what is needed as a corrective in our day. 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. If you have grown up in the West and have been exposed to either Protestant or Catholic Christianity (and also what we today call “eastern Orthodoxy” which formed in the Roman Empire as well), you know something of the teaching about “the Cross of Christ and the blood of Jesus”, his death for our sins, and his payment of our debt to appease an angry god who demands this sacrifice. These teachings (and their corresponding images and symbols) are inextricably woven into Christian culture in the West. What has been your exposure to this theology? 
2. Do you have an inner, personal response to this teaching—either now, or from earlier in your life?
3. Do you agree with Philip that any god who would require such sacrifices is not, if fact, divine? What are your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with this Gospel text? Journal your reflections on this matter. 
4. How much about the sacrificial system of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam do you know? (Islam continues the practice of sacrifices, but for different reasons.) Feast days and celebrations of death, dying and atonement are in each of these sacred traditions in one form or another and have clearly been a part of other ancient traditions around the world. If you know about any of these, sketch out your understanding of these various systems. 
5. Can any truth be found in the teachings about sacrifice, however skewed they may have become? What truths might you see?
6. How would the idea of self-sacrifice fit into this teaching?

Notes for further Reference and Study

1. In order to more fully understand the roots of Philip’s argument and Pauline teaching, read and explore the following passages: I Corinthians 5:7 where Paul states clearly that Yeshua’s death fulfills the Passover rite of sacrifice, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” There are other passages which bolster this viewpoint: Philippians 4:18, Ephesians 5:2. In these Paul states that the offering of sacrifice is made to God. Hebrews 5:1, 7:27, 8:3, 9:9, 10:1-26, which are also considered to be a part of the Pauline canon. You might wish to do an internet search and study of Atonement Theology (sometimes called “penal substitutionary atonement”). You might also want to examine and explore the various creedal statements as well as the catechisms of both Catholic and Protestant churches for their understanding concerning this matter. 
2. A counter-argument to this had already been made in the Prophetic tradition and in the sapiential literature of the Hebrew world which stated clearly that God was not interested in sacrifices — and in fact detested them (see Hosea 6:6-8, Micah 6:8, Amos 5:21, Isaiah 1:1-14, Jeremiah 7:21-23, I Samuel 15:22, Proverbs 21:3, Psalm 40:6-8, 50:8, 51:16). Paul, however, was rooted in the metaphors of temple sacrifice, which were also grounded in early Jewish history, and his theology grew from those traditions. 
3. A further historical note on Paul and the Pauline Corpus of Christian Scriptures (called the New Testament) is this: Because Paul was a missionary to the Gentile world in the Roman Empire, his writings have had understandable influence on the thought and theology of Christianity in the West. While Paul was clearly devoted to Yeshua and in many ways exhibited very powerful insights that indicate a spiritual genius of its own, the truth was that he never actually walked with Yeshua. He does not discuss any of Yeshua’s teachings extensively. He cannot, therefore, be said to be a faithful interpreter of Yeshua’s wisdom or insights. The Gospel of Philip certainly takes issue with much of the teachings of Paul and the theological drift they were creating in the nascent Christian world. Almost all of Paul’s focus is upon the meaning and significance of the last days of Yeshua’s life: in particular his death and resurrection. Very little time is spent on anything else. It is the core of Paul’s understanding and central to his theological development. Although Paul was Jewish, he later steps away from Judaism’s major premises, calling the Torah into question and many of its practices. The letter to the Galations, in particular, is an argument made against Jewish tradition. Furthermore he ceased being Torah-observant in the way he had previously been. He appears to have developed an antagonistic attitude toward his “mother faith.” This will color all of his later thinking and is one reason why the Gospel of Philip appears to take such strong issue with his viewpoints, in particular, it seems, with his theology of sacrifice and the theology of the atonement. 

Notes for the Translation 

1. The intent of the word ‘devour’ is to indicate a cannibalistic sacrifice, which can be interpreted as significant to Pauline theology, though it is never presented in just that way. 
2. All human sacrificial systems and their teachings seem to be called into question by the force of this analogue.