AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS
Copyright © 1999 Michael Shanbour(1)
Used by Permission of the Author
Contents of this Document:
Introduction
I. Before God will forgive sins and
grant eternal salvation to all, it was necessary that an innocent and sinless
Jesus die on the cross as a sacrificial substitute to appease God's wrath and
assure justice.
II. Was the purpose of Jesus' bestowal
to die on the cross as an innocent sacrifice to satisfy a debt owed to God by
Man's sins?
III. Was Christ's crucifixion necessary
before we could have eternal life?
IV. Before the father forgives us our
sins, was it necessary for Christ to die on the cross as a sacrifice?
V. Does the Father in heaven or Jesus
desire sacrifices of innocent humans or animals?
VI. Does God's mercy require the death
of an innocent sacrifice?
VII. What verses said by Jesus in the
canonical gospels may allude to the premise that it was God's will that Christ
be sacrificed on the cross for the sins of man?
Conclusion
End Notes
INTRODUCTION
Recently, I attended a bible study
class at a couple's home here in Oklahoma City. Including myself, there were seven who attended
this group. During this study, the moderator asked whether there was a subject
that anybody would like to explore. Responding to this question, my girlfriend
at the time, who was more of the "fundamental" bible persuasion,
stated that "Michael has some interesting ideas regarding the Atonement
Doctrine." Consequently, I was asked by the group what my particular views
were regarding the blood atonement. To their negative astonishment, I proceeded
to espouse my disbelief in such a perverse doctrine. In my discourse, I stated
that this doctrine arose out of the old Jewish tradition of sacrifice(2) and
was attached to the death of Christ through the letters of Paul and to a lesser
extent other New Testament authors.(3) In fact, I went so far as to state that
this doctrine was neither a pre-ordained plan of God, nor supported by the
biblical words of Jesus as reflected in the canonical Gospels. As one would
expect, the reaction by the group was adverse. After all, I was rejecting one
of the fundamentals and the cornerstone of most Christian churches.(4) As a
result, I was asked to prove my assertion within the confines of what they
perceived being the word of God, the Holy Bible.
The following paper is the result of my
research and constitutes a proof that the Blood Atonement did not have its
origin in either God as revealed by the biblical Jesus or by Jesus Christ
himself as reflected in the Bible. This paper was written not only for an
audience whose belief is based on the assumption that the Bible is the only
inspired "Word of God", but also for an audience who find it hard to
reconcile an all loving and merciful God with one that would pre-ordain such a
barbaric plan and thus alienate them from the "Biblical Jesus."
This paper will draw upon those New
Testament books which contain the direct "words" of God and Jesus.
These books are aptly called the canonical Gospels. The canonical Gospels
consist of the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John found in the New Testament of
the Holy Bible. They were accepted and canonized(5) by the Bishop Council
meetings in Carthage (393 A.D. - 419 A.D.) as the authentic words and deeds of
Jesus.(6) For those who follow the "red letter" versions of the Bible,
these are the books which contain the red letters constituting the words of
Jesus Christ.(7) Although there are other ancient gospels (apocrypha) which
claim to contain the words of Jesus Christ not found in these four books, these
four are the only books which will be used in this paper because of the
widespread belief by most Christians that these are the only books which
contain the authentic words of Jesus Christ.(8) Whether that belief is valid or
invalid is beyond the scope of this paper and as such will not be discussed.
Moreover, the issue as to whether the other books of the New Testament are
accurate interpretations of the words of Jesus or the religion of Jesus as
revealed in the canonical gospels will not be addressed.(9) Therefore, the
scope of this paper will address the Blood Atonement Doctrine as it directly
relates to the words of the biblical Jesus Christ who, unlike the prophets of
the Old Testament or the writers of the other New Testament books, is the
bestowed Creator Son of the Heavenly Father.
Before a discussion of the Blood
Atonement Doctrine can occur, some definition of such Doctrine should be
constructed. There are many different theories and definitions of this
doctrine.(10) For simplicity, this paper will work off of the following "substitutionary"
definition of the Blood Atonement Doctrine:
I. BEFORE GOD WILL FORGIVE SINS AND
GRANT ETERNAL SALVATION TO ALL, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT AN INNOCENT AND SINLESS
JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS AS A SACRIFICIAL SUBSTITUTE TO APPEASE GOD'S WRATH AND
JUSTICE.
In order to address whether this
doctrine is a valid precept of Jesus' Heavenly Kingdom contained within the
actual biblical words of Jesus, more questions and answers are required. For
example, to determine whether such doctrine is a pre-ordained plan of God,
analyses of those passages where the Father or Jesus directly speak are
necessary. As such, this paper is divided into seven (7) main categories of
questions with additional sub-questions and answers.
Using the New International Version
Bible,(11) these seven categories of questions will cover all of the canonical
Gospel passages containing: 1. Jesus' words regarding who speaks for the
Father; 2. Jesus' bestowal purpose; 3. the requirement for obtaining the
Father's forgiveness; 4. the requisites for procuring eternal salvation; 5.
Jesus' view regarding sacrifices; 6. Jesus' words pertaining to the Father's
mercy; and 7. the canonical Gospel passages containing words of Jesus which may
allude to the Blood Atonement. Since the four gospels often overlap each other,
some verses containing the same occurrence may be shown.
HOW DO WE KNOW GOD'S PLAN?
Most advocates of the Blood Atonement
believe that God pre-ordained the death of Christ on the cross to cleanse
mankind of his/her sins of the past and the future.(12) Therefore, to determine
whether such a plan existed, one needs to search in the scriptures and find
where God mentioned this specific plan. As most would agree, there is no direct
mention of such a plan directly from God in either the canonical Gospels or the
rest of the New Testament. Consequently, this plan, if it exists, must occur in
the words of His designated spokesperson. The following are passages containing
all the verses where God the Father directly mentions who should speak for him:
WHO SPEAKS FOR THE HEAVENLY FATHER?:
ACCORDING TO GOD:
NIV Matthew 17:5
5. While he was speaking, a bright
cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son,
whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
NIV Mark 9:7
7. Then a cloud appeared and enveloped
them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love.
Listen to him!"
NIV Luke 9:35
35. A voice came from the cloud saying,
"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to him!"
SUMMARY:
Obviously, according to three of the
four canonical Gospels, God is directly instructing all that Jesus' words and
teachings are reflective of the Father himself. In the least, Jesus stands as
the direct spokesperson of the Father. Neither Paul, Augustine, nor any prophet
of old were ever directly mentioned in this light. In fact, these are the only
instances within the canonical Gospels of a direct quote from God. Therefore,
one could conclude that the words of Jesus are representative of the true
intent and purposes of God.
ACCORDING TO JESUS:
NIV John 9:13
13. Jesus answered, "My teaching
is not my own, it comes from the one who sent me."
NIV John 3:34
34. For the one whom God has sent
speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
NIV Matthew 23:10
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,'
for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
SUMMARY:
Although the reasoning may be circular,
the conclusion that Jesus speaks for God is further supported by Jesus himself.
As quoted above, Jesus humbly states that his teachings are not his but a
direct manifestation of God the Father. As a result, one may conclude that the
intent of God the Father can be surmised only through the words of Christ. Even
more poignant is Matthew 23:10 where Jesus states that there is only
"...one teacher, the Christ." Therefore, one might also conclude that
the rest of the bible, including the words of Paul are secondary to the actual
words of Jesus and should not be considered on the same divine level. As such,
any direct contradiction with Jesus' words should be considered null and void.
One could even take such verse literal and limit the "Word of God" to
just the words of Jesus as revealed in the canonical Gospels. This interpretation
would mean that both the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament books
are merely apocryphal and not the "Word of God." After all, the verse
does state that there is only "one teacher" and that no one else
shall be called teacher.
II. WAS THE PURPOSE OF JESUS' BESTOWAL
TO DIE ON THE CROSS AS AN INNOCENT SACRIFICE TO SATISFY A DEBT OWED TO GOD BY
MAN'S SINS?
Given the premise that Jesus Christ
speaks exclusively for the Heavenly Father, to answer the question as to
whether the purpose of Jesus bestowal was to die as a sacrifice for the sins of
man, one must ask what did Jesus say regarding his purpose? The following are
the entire passages where Jesus directly answers the purpose of his bestowal:
ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF HIS BESTOWAL?
NIV Luke 4:43
43. But he said, "I must preach
the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is
why I was sent."
NIV Luke 4:17-19
17. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah
was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18. "The Spirit of the Lord is on
me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me
to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to
release the oppressed,
19. to proclaim the year of the Lord's
favor."
NIV Luke 22:27
27. "But I am among you as one who
serves."
NIV John 4:34
34. "My food," said Jesus,
"is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work."
NIV John 3:17
17. "For God did not send his Son
into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
SUMMARY:
Clearly, Jesus states that his purpose
was to spread truth, to serve, and to save. No where did Jesus state that his
purpose was to die on the cross to atone for the evils and sins of mankind.
Even if dying on the cross for the sins of man were a minor purpose, Jesus
surely would have mentioned such purpose. One could say that John 3:17 above
means that the world is saved through his death on the cross. However, to
interpret this as such would be adding words to the words of Christ. It is this
author's belief that the Aramaic language(13) which Jesus spoke had the word
"death" and/or any derivative thereof. If Christ had meant to save
the world through his death, it is this author's belief he would have used such
word. A more sensible and consistent interpretation would be that Jesus was the
embodiment of truth and that all who sincerely seek truth, seek him, and
therefore are saved through the truth and this positive message is "good
news."(14) This particular interpretation is consistent with Jesus'
teaching that all men and women are brothers and sisters, and as such, opens up
the Kingdom to all sincere truth seekers regardless of their original belief
system.
III. WAS CHRIST'S CRUCIFIXION NECESSARY
BEFORE WE COULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?
According to the basic component of the
Blood Atonement Doctrine, to have eternal life and salvation, Christ had to die
on the cross. Moreover, many Christian Churches teach that not only did Christ
have to die on the cross to atone for our sins, but one also had to believe in
this doctrine before that person could have eternal life. The following are
passages which contain all the verses where Jesus explicitly addresses the
subject of what is required to have eternal life:
ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT IS REQUIRED
FOR ETERNAL LIFE?
BELIEF IN JESUS:
NIV John 3:15-16
15. that everyone who believes in him
may have eternal life.
16. "For God so loved the world
that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life.
NIV John 3:36
36. Whoever believes in the Son has
eternal life,
NIV John 5:24
24. "I tell you the truth, whoever
hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be
condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
NIV John 6:40
40. For my Father's will is that
everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and
I will raise him up at the last day."
SUMMARY:
According to the canonical Gospel of
John, one has to believe in the words of Jesus and his teachings to have
eternal life. Jesus did not state that one had to believe in him AND any other
Christian writers who will come after him whose writings were voted by certain
human Bishops of the early church to be the "Word of God."(15) Since
belief in Jesus' words were necessary to have eternal life, the question now
becomes what were these words regarding personal salvation? The following
passages contain all the verses where Jesus explicitly address how one may
obtain eternal life:
B. FOLLOW JESUS' COMMANDMENTS:
LOVE THE FATHER AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR
NIV Matthew 22:35-40
35. One of them, an expert in the law,
tested him with this question:
36. "Teacher, which is the
greatest commandment in the Law?"
37. Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38. This is the first and greatest
commandment.
39. And the second is like it: `Love
your neighbor as yourself.'
40. All the Law and the Prophets hang
on these two commandments."
a. WHAT IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS?
NIV Matthew 7:12
12. So in everything, do to others what
you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
NIV Mark 12:28-31
28. One of the teachers of the law came
and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he
asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29. "The most important one,"
answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
one.
30. Love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
strength.'
31. The second is this: `Love your
neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
NIV Luke 10:25-28
25. On one occasion an expert in the
law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do
to inherit eternal life?"
26. "What is written in the
Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27. He answered: "`Love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength
and with all your mind' ; and, `Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28. "You have answered
correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
NIV Luke 10:36-37 (parable of the Good
Samaritan)
36. "Which of these three do you
think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37. The expert in the law replied,
"The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS JESUS LOVED
NIV John 13:34
34. "A new command I give you:
Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
NIV John 15:12
12. My command is this: Love each other
as I have loved you.
NIV John 15:17
17. This is my command: Love each
other.
INCLUDING THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AND
ARE MY ENEMIES?
NIV Matthew 5:43-44
43. "You have heard that it was
said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44. But I tell you: Love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you,
NIV Luke 6:35
35. But love your enemies, do good to
them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward
will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the
ungrateful and wicked.
NIV Matthew 25:40
40. "The King will reply, `I tell
you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine,
you did for me.'
SUMMARY:
According to all four Gospels, Love is
the only requisite to obtaining eternal life. Specifically, love the Heavenly
Father and love one's fellow man regardless of how godless they may seem (i.e.
love your enemies and the untouchable humans "Samaritan"(16)).
Moreover, this love should be to the same depth as the love Jesus had for all
men and women. Absent is any indication that Jesus had to die on the cross
before eternal life could be obtained by the individual. In fact, according to
Luke 10:25-28, Jesus specifically states that if one loves the father with all
his/her heart, mind and soul and loves his neighbor as himself/herself, then
that person shall have eternal life, nothing more and nothing less. To add any
extra prerequisites for eternal life would contradict these explicit and
unequivocal statements made by Jesus. Therefore, the requisite that one should
believe the Blood Atonement Doctrine before eternal salvation can be had is an
unnecessary burden placed upon the evolving mortal soul.
IV. BEFORE THE FATHER FORGIVES US OUR
SINS, WAS IT NECESSARY FOR CHRIST TO DIE ON THE CROSS AS A SACRIFICE?
The Atonement Doctrine in its entirety
implies that not only will God be unforgiving until some innocent sinless
person dies for the sins of others, but also that he cannot forgive until such
a barbaric act happens. The following passages contain all the verses in which
Jesus speaks of how one may obtain the Heavenly Father's forgiveness:
ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT IS REQUIRED TO
RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM THE FATHER?
NIV Matthew 6:14
14. For if you forgive men when they
sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
NIV Mark 11:25
25. And when you stand praying, if you
hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may
forgive you your sins. "
NIV Luke 6:37
Do not condemn, and you will not be
condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
HOW DEEP MUST ONE FORGIVE?
NIV Matthew 18:33-35
33. Shouldn't you have had mercy on
your fellow servant just as I had on you?
34. In anger his master turned him over
to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35. "This is how my heavenly
Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your
heart."
NIV Luke 11:4
4. Forgive us our sins, for we also
forgive everyone who sins against us.
SUMMARY:
According to Jesus, the only requisite
in obtaining the Heavenly Father's forgiveness is to forgive others with a
sincere heart. Nowhere in the canonical Gospels does Jesus state that he must
die a brutal death before the Heavenly Father could or would ever forgive
man/woman of their sins. To imply that the Heavenly Father could only forgive
when an innocent person is killed not only is a total abomination of the
teachings of Jesus Christ, but also makes the Heavenly Father seem like a
conspirator to premeditated murder.
V. DOES THE FATHER IN HEAVEN OR JESUS
DESIRE SACRIFICES OF INNOCENT HUMANS OR ANIMALS?
The Blood Atonement is predicated on
the primitive belief that blood sacrifice cleanses one of his/her
"evil" acts committed in both the past and the future.(17) The
following are passages containing all the verses which Jesus impliedly or
explicitly addressed this sacrificial belief:
WHAT DID JESUS SAY AND DO ABOUT
SACRIFICES?
NIV Matthew 9:13
13. But go and learn what this means:
`I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
NIV Matthew 12:7
7. If you had known what these words
mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the
innocent.
NIV John 2:13-19
13. When it was almost time for the
Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14. In the temple courts he found men
selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
15. So he made a whip out of cords, and
drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins
of the money changers and overturned their tables.
16. To those who sold doves he said,
"Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a
market!"
NIV Luke 6:9
9. Then Jesus said to them, "I ask
you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or
to destroy it?"
NIV Mark 2:27-28
27. Then he said to them, "The
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
28. So the Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath."
SUMMARY:
In quoting the Old Testament passage
regarding burnt offerings found in Hosea 6:6,(18) Jesus explicitly alludes to
the fact that sacrifice is not his desire. Moreover, if Jesus speaks for the
Heavenly Father, then one could conclude that God also does not desire
sacrifice especially the sacrifice of the innocent as is explicitly and
unequivocally stated in Matt. 12:7.(19) A statement cannot get anymore direct
than this particular statement. How Atonement theorists can ignore this
statement made by Jesus, just goes to show that still they do not know what the
words mean `I desire mercy, not sacrifice' because they are still
"condemning the innocent" who happens to be Jesus through their
promotion of this Doctrine. Despite what some Atonement theorists allege, there
is no justice in the condemnation of the innocent.
Although less direct than Matt. 12:7 is
Luke 6:9 where Jesus, when answering why he doesn't observe certain traditions
of the Sabbath, asks the question as to whether it is better to "save life
or to destroy it." Figuratively, one could say that he is speaking of his
ministry in saving souls by leading them down the paths of truth even on the
Sabbath day which was reserved for a day of rest. However, if this verse is
taken literally, then one could construe it as meaning that the tradition of sacrificing
animals on the Sabbath was merely an evil destruction of life rather than the
doing good in preserving and saving life.(20) Moreover, one could interpret the
motive behind Jesus' anger in turning over the tables of the money changers in
the temple and releasing the sacrificial animals as a partial result of his
revulsion regarding the brutal slaughter of innocent animals in the Father's
name. This motive is neither hard to discern nor difficult to believe
considering that Jesus' whole message of the Gospel was founded on the supreme
idea of Love and peace.
Furthermore, there is not one incident
throughout the Bible that either talks about or alludes to either Jesus or his
apostles personally sacrificing innocent animals in the name of his Heavenly Father.
It is well documented that religious sacrifices of innocent animals for
purposes of atonement were a common practice among the Jewish people during
this time period.(21) If such sacrifice was a requirement of the Father,
wouldn't one expect Jesus, who lived the Will of the Father, to have sacrificed
animals as much as he broke bread?
VI. DOES GOD'S MERCY REQUIRE THE DEATH
OF AN INNOCENT SACRIFICE?
The question as to whether the Father's
mercy requires the death of an innocent sacrifice seems to have been answered
by Matt. 12:7 above. Since Jesus stated that his desire is for mercy and not
sacrifice, then the question now becomes what did Jesus say regarding the
Father's mercy? To what extent does the Father extend his mercy? The following
passages contain the verses where Jesus talks about the Father's mercy:
WHAT DID CHRIST SAY AND DO ABOUT THE
FATHER'S MERCY?
NIV Luke 6:36
36. Be merciful, just as your Father is
merciful.
NIV Luke 12:32
32. "Do not be afraid, little
flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.
NIV Luke 11:11-13
(Father's mercy is as great as, if not
greater, than an earthly father)
11. "Which of you fathers, if your
son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?
12. Or if he asks for an egg, will give
him a scorpion?
13. If you then, though you are evil,
know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in
heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
DOES THE FATHER'S MERCY ONLY EXTEND TO
THE INNOCENT?
NIV Mark 3:28
28. I tell you the truth, all the sins
and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them
NIV Luke 6:35
35. But love your enemies, do good to
them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward
will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the
ungrateful and wicked.
NIV Matthew 18:12-14 (see also Luke
15:13-32 "Prodigal Son parable")
12. "What do you think? If a man
owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine
on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
13. And if he finds it, I tell you the
truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did
not wander off.
14. In the same way your Father in
heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
NIV Luke 15:7
7. I tell you that in the same way
there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over
ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
NIV John 8:4-11
4. and said to Jesus, "Teacher,
this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5. In the Law Moses commanded us to
stone such woman. Now what do you say?"
6. They were using this question as a trap,
in order to have basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to
write on the ground with his finger.
7. When they kept on questioning him,
he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin,
let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8. Again he stooped down and wrote on
the ground.
9. At this, those who heard began to go
away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the
woman still standing there.
10. Jesus straightened up and asked her,
"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11. "No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and
leave your life of sin."
NIV Luke 23:42-43 (talking to the thief
being crucified next to him)
42. Then he said, "Jesus, remember
me when you come into your kingdom. "
43. Jesus answered him, "I tell
you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
SUMMARY:
In light of Jesus' many discourses
regarding the Father's mercy, it is hard to fathom how such Blood Atonement
became connected with Jesus' revelation of the Father. As stated in Luke
11:11-13, at the very least, the Father's mercy is akin to the mercy shown by a
loving earth father. How many earth fathers could in all honesty have a child
of theirs tortured and killed because of wrongs committed by others? Moreover,
according to Jesus, the Father's mercy is even greater than the mercy shown by
most earth parents. How many earth parents with a sincere heart could be
"kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" and would be willing to
forgive all the "sins and blasphemies" made against them and/or their
family?
Jesus, who was the living will of the
Father, granted eternal life to a thief without consideration of the sins which
that thief had committed. This thief neither repented nor was baptized or even
"born again."(22) He merely asked to be remembered, and with mercy,
Jesus, who was also physically dying, granted him eternal life. Likewise,
Jesus, risking danger to himself, interrupted the stoning of a woman who had
violated the law of Moses. Do these incidences sound like a Father who needs to
have innocent blood shed in order for him to have mercy on his children?
VII. WHAT VERSES SAID BY JESUS IN THE
CANONICAL GOSPELS MAY ALLUDE TO THE PREMISE THAT IT WAS GOD'S WILL THAT CHRIST
BE SACRIFICED ON THE CROSS FOR THE SINS OF MAN?
Each verse will be taken individually
or if they relate to one another in a set. After the applicable verse or
verses, there is an analysis as to how such verse or verses may not support the
Atonement Doctrine:
NIV Matthew 20:26-28
26. Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great among you must be your servant,
27. and whoever wants to be first must
be your slave--
28. just as the Son of Man did not come
to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
NIV Mark 10:43-45
43. Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great among you must be your servant,
44. and whoever wants to be first must
be slave of all.
45. For even the Son of Man did not
come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many."
Regarding Matt: 20:28 and Mark 10:45,
one might construe the word "ransom" as being there for purposes of
sacrifice within the context of the Atonement Doctrine. However, it could also
be construed that "ransom" is used in the context that Jesus had to
dedicate his life, of which death is a part, to uplift man's concept and
realization of the Father in heaven. That his life was one of total servitude much
like an indentured surf commends his life for the whole service of others which
is consistent with his message and purpose as stated in the gospels....to serve
all.(23) This interpretation seems evident in light of the only congruent cite
to Matt: 20:28 and Mark 10:45 regarding this particular metaphor of service
taught by Jesus. Luke 22:26-27 which makes no mention of ransom, states
"But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the
youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who
sits at the table or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at the table?
But I am among you as one who serves" (John had no verse regarding this
particular metaphor). It seems highly possible that the author of the Gospel of
Luke, which has been considered by some to have been written after Matthew and
Mark,(24) to have interpreted Matt: 20:28 and/or Mark 10:45 as being merely a
discourse by Jesus to instruct his believers to live a life of complete service
for others which is consistent with his other teachings and not as a sacrifice
to pay a debt or to free hostages.
If ransom were being used to "pay
back" God or the Devil, this would be illogical. Since Jesus took up this
life again in the resurrection, what payment was made? He never died. Moreover,
if God is being paid, what satisfaction did God receive? It seems odd that God
or a part of God would incarnate in the flesh with the primary purpose to be
brutally killed in order to "pay" himself back. Furthermore, if
Christ's crucifixion were part of God's predestination plan then Judas should
be acknowledged as a hero rather than a betrayer because he would be viewed as
precipitating "God's will" through his betrayal. As we all know, such
hero status defies the Gospels' view of Judas as the betrayer.(25)
Some say the "ransom" is to
pay the Devil who will then release mankind from his evil clutches inherited
from the "fall of Adam" (fall of man).(26) Even this assertion is not
plausible for that would presume that God owes the Devil a debt. This cannot
be, because Good is always greater than evil and owes evil nothing.
The next canonical gospel verses which
may support the Atonement Doctrine are:
NIV Matthew 26:26-28
26. While they were eating, Jesus took
bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying,
"Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup, gave thanks
and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
NIV Mark 14:22-24
22. While they were eating, Jesus took
bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying,
"Take it; this is my body."
23. Then he took the cup, gave thanks
and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24. "This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
On its face, one might say that the
blood of the covenant represents the blood of Christ on the Cross as a
sacrifice for the sins of man. However, another interpretation could reveal
that both Matt: 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24 mention Christ's preaching of his
body symbolizing truth and his blood symbolizing forgiveness. These could be
construed as symbolizing the divine promise to send the Holy Spirit (Spirit of
Truth)(27) and the divine promise to forgive sins.(28) The only parallel cite
to these two verses regarding the last supper found in Matthew and Mark can be
found in Luke. Luke 22:19-20 states "And he took bread, gave thanks and
broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do
this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the
cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured
out for you." For it seems that Christ's intent was for the last supper to
be the sole reminder of truth and forgiveness, rather than the Crucifixion. He
never drew attention to his death in the same manner that he did this
particular supper.
Jesus' emphasis is placed upon the
symbolisms contained within the last supper rather than the death symbolism of
the Cross which did not become an official Christian symbol until the 4th
century A.D. In fact, until the times of the Christian Roman Emperor
Constantine, the Cross was not used by many early Christians because of the
unpleasant memory regarding the manner in which Jesus died. (29)
During the early 5th Century A.D.,
Jesus' death and the Cross became more important to Christians through the
influential Bishop Augustine of Hippo who emphasized the doctrines of inherited
original sin(30) and its resulting need for the Blood Atonement which were
later adopted by Protestant founders Martin Luther and John Calvin.(31) These
negative Augustinian views regarding the nature of man countered and overcame
some early Christian views such as those expressed by the British Monk Pelagius
who believed that Adam's sin was personal and affected him only, and therefore,
original inherited sin did not exist. Moreover, unlike Augustine who believed
that man was born inherently evil through predestined sin and was incapable of
salvation absent the irresistible grace of God, Pelagius advocated that human
nature was essentially good, and therefore, had the natural capacity through
unfettered free will to take the first step toward salvation. Therefore,
personal salvation was merely a free will choice of the individual to submit to
the Will of the Father through wholehearted actionable service to both God and
man.(32)
As such, many early Christians did in
fact view the positive life of Jesus rather than his death as a
"blueprint" for personal salvation. They saw Jesus as the "Son
of God" submitting to the will of God and as the "Son of Man"
submitting to the will/laws of man, serving both God and man.
The next verse which Atonist have
alluded to as supporting the Atonement doctrine is John 10:11-18:
NIV John 10:11-18
11. "I am the good shepherd. The
good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12. The hired hand is not the shepherd
who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and
runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
13. The man runs away because he is a
hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14. "I am the good shepherd; I
know my sheep and my sheep know me--
15. just as the Father knows me and I
know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16. I have other sheep that are not of
this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and
there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
17. The reason my Father loves me is
that I lay down my life--only to take it up again.
18. No one takes it from me, but I lay
it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take
it up again. This command I received from my Father."
In this verse, Jesus creates the
metaphor of his devotion to mankind as that of a true Shepherd to his flock of
sheep. In particular, he states that he is willing to lay down his life for his
sheep and possesses the authority granted by God to take it up again. Many have
construed this passage concerning his discourse of having "authority to
lay down his life" through a "command" of God. While ignoring
the whole context of the passage as being the courageous dedication of Christ's
service to mankind and acknowledgment of his inherent divine nature capable of
resurrection through his own determination, the Atonement theorist seems to
construe such "command" from God as an order from God to Jesus to
"sacrifice" himself as an appeasement. Again, this seems to be
another interpretation which adds to a passage something which isn't there.
Nowhere in this passage is any mention of Jesus being a substitute sacrifice to
satisfy God's wrath. Moreover, if God gave Christ divine authority to take his
life up, then the "command" could not be a strict order alleged by
the Atonement theorist. It stands to reason that if it were a strict divine
order from God, then Jesus would not have such authority.
In this passage, Jesus was not only
preaching to believers, but also to those who sought to persecute him. As to
the believers, the passage itself is a metaphoric discourse on how total
devotion is required in the wholehearted service to one's fellow man. Much like
a genuinely devoted earth father would never abandon his family, Jesus will not
abandon his flock even in the face of the most cruel injustice. He was willing
to die for what he believed.
In regards to the Pharisees and Jesus'
enemies, it was a twofold message. First, it was a message letting the
Pharisees know that he will not flee. Unlike that of a "hireling" who
is hired to protect the flock such as the Jewish Pharisees who are hired
priests out for their own selfish gain, such courageous devotion will not flee
in the face of even the greatest danger. Second, even though in the future they
will believe that it is through their power that he physically dies, his
physical death will occur only as a result of his allowing it to occur, thereby
further proving his wholehearted dedication and willingness to submit to the
will/laws of man as the "Son of Man". Thus, he chose to die as he had
lived, as a man. However, despite his choice of action, Jesus' does remind us
all that he is divine by giving testimony to his divine nature. Not only did
the human Jesus decide to lay his life down which any mortal son can do, but
also did the Divine Jesus "take it up" (resurrect) on his own accord
which only a divine son could do by virtue of the divine gift
("command") from the Heavenly Father.
The following passages reflect Jesus
prayerful struggle with "drinking the cup" when the hour had come for
his enemies to take custody of his person:
NIV Matthew 26:39, 42
39. Going a little farther, he fell
with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may
this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
42. He went away a second time and
prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away
unless I drink it, may your will be done."
NIV Mark 14:35-36
35. Going a little farther, he fell to
the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.
36. "Abba, Father," he said,
"everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I
will, but what you will."
NIV Luke 22:41-42
41. He withdrew about a stone's throw
beyond them, knelt down and prayed,
42. "Father, if you are willing,
take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
NIV John 18:10-12
10. Then Simon Peter, who had a sword,
drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The
servant's name was Malchus.)
11. Jesus commanded Peter, "Put
your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
12. Then the detachment of soldiers
with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus...
There are two facts which can be
gathered from this discourse. First, Jesus had fore-knowledge that his enemies
were on their way to arrest him which was consistent with his knowledge that
Judas would be his betrayer. Second, the Father's will was for Jesus to neither
flee nor resist such arrest. One could argue that the Father's desire that
Jesus not resist this arrest is evidence that the Father had a plan for Jesus'
death. Therefore, Jesus was to follow such plan which was for him to serve as a
sacrifice for the sins of mankind. However, just because it was the Father's
desire for Jesus not to resist his capture and just because the Father did not
try to save His Son from this impending death, does not mean that the Father's
purpose was for Jesus to be offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of others.
To imply that there is evidence of this pre-ordained plan of sacrifice within
this verse would again amount to adding words to the canonical Gospels.
A more plausible explanation regarding
the Father's desire for Jesus to neither flee nor resist arrest may be for the
simple reason that Jesus' work on earth was completed. In effect, the Heavenly
Father's acquiescence to Jesus' capture was a "call" for him to come
"home." The fact that his work was completed can be found in John
17:4 containing Jesus' prayer to the Father just prior to his arrest. In this
passage, Jesus prays "I have brought you glory on earth, by completing the
work you gave me to do." This particular prayer clearly states that Jesus'
mission had ended prior to his plea in the garden at Gethsemane and his death
on the cross. Moreover, there are instances preceding this prayer that Jesus
either fled or avoided his premature capture.(33) Why did Jesus avoid danger in
the past without prayer to the Father and not in the garden of Gethsemane?
Probably because his bestowal work was not finished, whereas by the time of
Gethsemane his mission had been completed and accordingly was being called home
by the Heavenly Father. Unlike the Atonist's conjecture, this explanation is
consistent with both the words of Jesus and the chronological events occurring
in his life bestowal.
Another related explanation why the
Heavenly Father did not intercede and allowed Jesus' arrest can be found in the
greatest gift that God has given man/woman, Free Will. Throughout the Bible
there are instances where man has the option of choosing good and evil without
any celestial interruption.(34) The Father who, through the divine Jesus, not
only honored this gift which he gave each and every individual(35) but also is
not a respecter of persons,(36) refused to circumvent the evil will of those
who wish to persecute the human Jesus regardless of the fact that Jesus was his
divine Son incarnated in the flesh. The Heavenly Father is truly consistent
within himself and does not play favorites.
From this, one may surmise that Jesus,
though divine, was also a mortal of the realm who was expected to finish his
life in the flesh like all other men and women without any supervening divine
interference. Truly, the divine was genuinely experiencing what it is like to
be a material creature, by living and dying as a man.. And in the end, the
human Jesus as the Son of Man "...accepted his fate and, honoring his
Father's gift of free will, allowed misguided mortals to slay him."(37)
The last Gospel verse which may allude
to the Blood Atonement is John 3:16. I add this verse, after I was informed
that such verse is one used by many Sunday school classes to legitimize the
Atonement doctrine:
NIV John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world
that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life.
It seems odd that this verse is used
most often to give Gospel credence to the Atonement Doctrine. This verse states
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Where the
notion of the sacrifice of an innocent person to appease God's wrath can be
derived from the word "gave" as in "God gave" is beyond
logical comprehension and again borders on adding words through biased
interpretation. A simple and more appropriate interpretation which is
consistent with the canonical Gospels(38) would state that in such verse God
loves the world so much that he sent his one and only Son, and that whoever
believes in him and his teachings shall not perish but have eternal life.
CONCLUSION
According to The Interpreter's Bible
which is a widely used bible commentary published by Abingdon Press, the writer
in commenting on the use of John 3:16 as support for the Atonement theory
stated that "Some of the past explanations of the gospel are not over
helpful to us now. Most of us are not at home in the Jewish sacrificial system;
and metaphors drawn from it can be confusing rather than illuminating. And some
of the interpretations, popular in the Middle Ages, are to us incredible, and
even monstrous...So do many, with the Gospels in their hands, appear to see in
them a lesser God giving himself to save us from the implacable fury and
resentment of the great God, slow and hard to be appeased, and demanding his
pound of flesh from someone. That is hideous heresy; and the blasphemy of
blasphemies. It was the eternal plan of God the Father that Jesus Christ lived
out in fact: 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself' (II
Cor.5:19), not standing sullenly aside, and needing himself to be
reconciled."(39)
Another statement which proves that
such Atonement was not the plan of the Father was made by Jesus while on the
Cross. While on the Cross, Jesus exclaimed "Father, forgive them, for they
do not know what they are doing"(40) This statement does not sound like he
is appealing to an entity whose ultimate plan was for him to die on the Cross
so that entity's wrath may be appeased. Instead, Jesus seems to be asking God
to have pity and forgive those who willfully executed him without just cause.
Therefore, even Jesus' statement on the Cross seems to contradict the assertion
that it was God's plan that Christ be sacrificed on the Cross to appease God's
wrath and to lift any curse that may have been placed on mankind.
But probably the most direct statement
coming from Jesus opposing the whole idea of the Atonement can be found in
Matt:12:7(41) where Jesus specifically states that mercy should supplant
sacrifice, in particular - the sacrifice of innocent life. This direct verse,
coupled with the fact that the only prerequisite in gaining forgiveness from
the Heavenly Father(42) is to sincerely forgive others couched within the
panoramic grandeur of the Father's unconditional mercy(43) and in light of the
fact that Jesus' words are that of the Father in Heaven,(44) wholly runs
contrary to the Blood Atonement doctrine which is predicated upon the sacrifice
of a sinless innocent person to pay ransom to or appease the vindictive wrath
of an unmerciful God.
"When once you grasp the idea of
God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you
must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions
about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief
delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are
adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer
to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea
of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was
taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not
secondary to anything in the divine nature.
All this concept of atonement and
sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that
service to one's fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit
believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the
fatherhood of God. The believer's chief concern should not be the selfish
desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and,
therefore, serve one's fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
Neither do genuine believers trouble
themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is
only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may
chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes.
They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.
Even if God were the stern and legal
monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be
satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a
guilty offender.
The great thing about the death of
Jesus, as it is related to the enrichment of human experience and the
enlargement of the way of salvation, is not the fact of his death but rather
the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.
This entire idea of the ransom of the
atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely
philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be
grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual
human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth,
the brotherhood of man. It is true, after all, that you are to be `forgiven
your debts, even as you forgive your debtors.'"(45)
END NOTES
1. Michael Shanbour is a 36 year old
Christian living in Edmond, Oklahoma which is a suburb of Oklahoma City. Mr.
Shanbour may be reached at his e-mail address: mailto:bmsokc@aol.com
2. see NIV Exo. 25-17, 29:33-39, 30:10-16;
NIV Lev.1:2-5, 4:20-35, 5:6-10, 5:14-18, 6:6-7, 8:15, 9:7, 10:16-17, 12:6-8,
14:12-32, 14:50-53, 15:14-15, 15:29-30, 16:6, 16:9-10, 16:11, 16:15-34, 17:11,
19:22; NIV Num. 5:5-8, 6:11, 8:12, 15:22-28, 28:22, 28:30, 29:5, 29:10-11,
35:33; NIV 1Chr. 6:49; NIV 2Chr. 29:24; NIV Neh. 10:33; NIV Eze. 45:15
3. According to The Encyclopedia of
Religion, "There is no single New Testament doctrine of the Atonement
there is simply a collection of images and metaphors with some preliminary
analysis and reflection from which subsequent tradition built its systematic
doctrines and theories." Moreover, "Paul is our earliest written
source for the dimensions of atonement in apostolic preaching: `For I delivered
to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our
sins in accordance with the scriptures' NIV 1Cor. 15:3; see Eliade, Mircea, The
Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 1, (MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, 1987) p.
496. Paul's Epistles constitute 14 of the 27 books contained in the New
Testament.
The following are passages containing
Paul's "images and metaphors" regarding the Blood Atonement: NIV Gal.
1:3-4, 3:13, 4:4-5; NIV Eph. 1:3-12, 1:17-22, 2:4-10, 2:13-18, 5:2, 5:25; NIV
Col. 1:19-20; NIV 1Tim. 2:5-6; NIV 1Cor. 1:17-18, 5:7, 15:3; NIV 2Cor. 5:18-19;
NIV Rom. 3:24-26, 4:25, 5:6-11, 5:15-21; NIV 1The. 5:9-10; NIV Tit.2:14; NIV
Heb.2:9, 2:17, 7:27, 9:7, 9:12-15, 9:20, 9:22, 9:24-28, 10:1-20, 12:24, 13:12,
13:20-21. Note: According to The Easton Bible Dictionary, although not completely
certain, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is thought to be Paul or one
of his associates. see M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary,
3rd Edition, (Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1897) T0001711 --
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/e/easton/ebd/ebd/%20T0001700.html These are passages by
other New Testament authors which reference the Blood Atonement: NIV Acts
20:28; NIV 1Pet. 1:18-20, 2:24, 3:18; NIV 1John 1:7, 2:2, 3:5, 4:10, 5:6
4. Between 1910-15 two wealthy Los
Angeles laymen, Lyman and Milton Stewart mailed twelve booklets entitled The
Fundamentals consisting of literature containing conservative Protestant
Christian theology to three million people. These booklets espoused `the Five
Fundamentals' adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of
U.S.A. in 1910. The "fundamentals" adopted by the conservative
Christians are: 1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures in the original documents; 2.
the deity of Jesus Christ and his Virgin Birth; 3. the Substitutionary theory
of Atonement; 4. the Physical Resurrection of Christ; and 5. Christ's Miracles.
Conservatives later added the doctrines of Original Sin (human depravity and
inherited sin) and Christ's Second Coming. see Gentz, William H., The
Dictionary of Bible and Religion, (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1986) pp. 376-77.
5. Canonization is the process of
agreement that certain books or letters are to be designated as sacred
writings. "The canon of sacred Scripture is a phrase by which the catalog
of the authoritative sacred writings is designated. The word for expression, of
Greek Derivation, kanon...originally signified a reed or measuring rod.
Actually it indicated `that which measures'...Those books that were measured by
the standard or test of divine inspiration and authority and were adjudged to
be `God-breathed' were included in `the canon'. see Unger, Merrill F., The New
Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press, Chicago 1988) p. 205. Therefore, the
Catholic canon (Catholic Bible) contains the 27 New Testament books and 46 Old
Testament books whereas the Protestant canon (Protestant Bible) contains the 27
New Testament books and 39 Old Testament books. The Protestant branch of
Christianity did not accept the Catholic Old Testament books: Tobith, Judith,
Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom and 1, 2 Maccabees as part of their Old Testament canon.
Nevertheless, all three branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and
Protestant) accept Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
6. The first known source, listing the
27 books of the New Testament, was the Easter letter of Bishop Athanasius of
Alexandria written in the year 367 A.D. to the churches of his diocese.
Regarding this list, Athanasius stated that "in these alone is the
teaching of true religion proclaimed as good news; let no one add to these or
take anything from them." see Beache, Maxine C., The Bible The Book that
Bridges the Millenia (General Board of Ministries of the United Methodist
Church, New York 1998) p. 48. As a result, the first fixed collections of New
Testament books called the Alexandrian canon came about.
Because of the rising tide of
Gnosticism which was considered to be a cult form of mystical Christianity,
Pope Damasas commissioned synods to determine which books were to be canonized
and thus separate "their" books from the so called "Gnostic"
books. Using the precedence established by the Alexandrian canon, the Bishop
Councils at Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (393, 397, and 419 A.D.), adopted the
same 27 books. By the end of the first decade of the Fifth Century, the
Catholic New Testament Canon had been determined. Although Martin Luther
believed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as being spurious and
uncanonical, most protestant churches accepted and adopted these same 27 books
as their own. see The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 (Encyclopedia Press, 1996)
p. 274.
Despite the fact that there have been
many canon lists and much debate as to which books are canonical or apocryphal,
about all the early Church fathers, from Rome to Syria, agreed that the 4
gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke, and John) were inspired and canonical. Id.
7. The "red letter" Bible
version originated with the German born Louis Klopsch. Klopsch later became the
publisher of the American edition of the Christian Herald. According to
Klopsch, the idea of the "red letter" occurred to him after reading
Luke 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out
for you." Funk, Robert W., The Five Gospels: what did Jesus really say?
(Polebridge Press, Sonoma Ca. and HarperCollins Publishers Co., New York, 1993)
p. 37.
8. There exists a widely held belief by
the majority of Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) that Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John contain the actual words of Jesus Christ. If one truly wishes to
explore the subject concerning the authenticity of these particular words, this
author recommends The Five Gospels: what did Jesus really say?, see EN 6. The
Five Gospels is the product of the 1985 Jesus Seminar comprising a
distinguished group of biblical scholars from major universities and theological
schools who used their collective expertise in analyzing the hundreds of verses
attributed to Jesus. However, one should only read this book, if s/he is
willing to risk their "comfort zone."
As for the Apocryphal Gospels
supposedly containing Jesus' words and deeds which were not canonized, see EN
4, include the following: Gospel of Thomas, Signs Gospel, Sayings Gospel Q,
Secret Book of James, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Mary, Infancy Gospel of
Thomas, Secret Gospel of Mark, Egerton Gospel, Gospel Oxyrhynchus 840, Gospel
Oxyrhynchus 1224, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the
Nazoreans see Miller, R.J., The Complete Gospels (Polebridge Press, Sonoma Ca.
and HaperSanFrancisco, 1992) table of contents.
9. Unlike the canonical Gospels, the
other books of the New Testament (Acts; Paul's epistles; James; 1 and 2 Peter;
1, 2 and 3 John; Jude; and Revelations) do not contain the actual words of
Jesus while he lived in the flesh, and therefore are considered interpretations
of Jesus' words and deeds.
10. Throughout the history of the
Christian church there has occurred many theories regarding the Blood Atonement
of Jesus. However, although somewhat overlapping, all such paradigms can be
narrowed down to five main theories:
(a) Ransom Theory (Irenaeus, 130-202,
Bishop of Lyons):
This theory states that the crucifixion
of Christ was necessary in order to pay the Devil (Satan) and release mankind
from the inherited sin caused by the Fall of Adam. Origen (185-253), Head of
the Catechetical School of Alexandria, embellished upon this idea by stating
that Christ offered himself as a ransom to Satan and Satan accepted the
payment. However, Satan did not realize that he would not be able to retain
such hold because Christ was both divine and holy. As a result, the souls of
men, including the ones held in hades, were set free from the evil clutches of
Satan. see Stott, J.R.W., The Cross of Christ, 2nd Edition (Inter-Varsity
Press, 1989) p. 113; Berkhof, L., The History of Christian Doctrines (Baker
Book House, 1975) p. 166.
(b) Satisfaction Theory (Anselm,
1033-1109, Archbishop of Canterbury) In his manuscript, Cur Deus Homo, Anselm
stated that instead of God owing Satan, man owed God. Anselm supports this idea
with the premise that, unlike Jesus, man does not submit his full will to God.
Accordingly, sin results and is an affront to God It was Anselm's belief that
"nothing is less tolerable...than that the creature should take away from
the Creator the honour due to Him, and not repay what (man) takes away."
As a result, man must indemnify God. Moreover, according to Anselm, God cannot
overlook such sin because God "upholds nothing more justly than he doth
the honour of his own dignity." The "debt" required a satisfaction
which man could not pay, therefore, only God or a God-man could pay back such
"debt". Consequently, Jesus had to become a man in order to die and
pay back the debt for mankind. Anselm further states that the sinless Jesus did
this freely for the honour of God, thereby releasing mankind of the debt owed
and securing salvation for all. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Inter-Varsity
Press, 1980) pp. 12-14.
(c) Moral-Influence Theory (Peter
Abelard, 1079-1142, Abbot of Monastery at Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuis) Abelard's view
was that Jesus' death was the supreme devotion of the love which Jesus had for
mankind. Consequently, this love was conceived to evoke the love in the human
heart which in effect brought the individual closer to God. The Dictionary of
Bible and Religion, EN 3, at 90.
(d) Penal-Substitution Theory (John
Calvin, 1509-64, Protestant Theologian) This view is the Atonement theory which
this paper addresses and that modern day conservative Protestant churches
follow. According to this theory, sin in and of itself denotes death for the
sinner. Therefore, but for the sacrifice made by Christ all men/women will not
have eternal life because of the sins committed in their lives. A sinless
Christ substituted himself to pay the full penalty owed by mankind caused by
the sins of man. As a result, the sins of mankind were imputed to Jesus while
his righteousness were imputed to all mortals. He suffered in man's place and
vicariously died to release mankind from this penalty. This particular view
places emphasis on God's righteousness which finds expression in judicial wrath
and takes into account man's depravity (original sin) coupled with man's
inability to save himself. Pecota, D., The Saving Work of Christ in Systematic
Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective (Logion Press, Springfield, Mo.1994) p.
342.
(e) Legal/Government Theory (Hugo
Grotius, 1583-1645, Dutch Jurist)
According to Grotius, God's law states
that "the soul that sins shall die". Therefore, strict justice
requires the eternal death of sinners. Forgiveness in and of itself does not
uphold the law. Christ's death was merely a public display of the depth of sin
and the extent to which God would go to uphold the righteous or moral order of
the Universe. Consequently, Christ died on our behalf but not as a substitute. Ibid
at 341.
11. The New International Version Bible
is a product of a group of evangelical scholars representing the Christian
Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. Meeting in 1965,
these individuals desired a more accurate translation which would meet a wide
variety of purposes: `public and private reading, teaching, preaching,
memorizing and liturgical use.' and `...were united in their commitment to the
authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form.' see The
New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1, (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1994) p. 27.
12. see EN 9
13. In the New Testament, there are
passages which imply that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Probably the most evident
examples can be found in NIV Mark 15:13 and NIV Matt. 27:46 where Jesus, while
on the cross and quoting Psalms 22:1, spoke the Aramaic words "Elo-i,
Elo-i, lama sabach-thani" meaning "My God, My God, why has though
forsaken me". Moreover, while Jesus was on the cross, Mary spoke to him in
Aramaic. NIV John 20:16: "Jesus said to her, `Mary' She turned toward him
and cried out in Aramaic, `Rabboni!' (which means Teacher)." There are
other passages giving evidence that Aramaic was spoken by the peoples of that
region see NIV John 5:2, 19:13, NIV 19:17, NIV 19:20; and NIV Acts: 26:14.
14. "Good News" is the
translated meaning of the word Gospel which is of Anglo-Saxon origin meaning
"God's Spell" or according to others, "good spell" i.e.
good news. see Easton, Bible Dictionary, EN 3, at T0001531 --.http://ccel.wheaton.edu/e/easton/ebd/ebd/
T00015.html
15. see EN 5
16. Samaritans are residents of the
region called Samaria which was located in the north central part of Israel.
When the Jews returned from captivity, the Jerusalem Jews refused to allow the
Samaritans opportunity to take part in rebuilding the temple. As a result, the
Samaritan Israelites erected a rival temple around 130 B.C. on Mount Gerizim
which was subsequently destroyed by a Jewish king. The Samaritans then built
another temple at Shechem. There was great bitterness between the Jews and the
Samaritans. In fact, during the times of Jesus, the Jews were instructed to
have "no dealings with the Samaritans" NIV John 4:9; NIV Luke
9:52-53. see Easton, Bible Dictionary, EN 2, at T0003204 - http://ccel.wheaton.edu/e/easton/ebd/ebd/
T0003200.html
By using the untouchable Samaritan as
an example of one's neighbor to love, Jesus was not only extending the Kingdom
to include the least of men (in the eyes of the Jews) and therefore to all men,
but he was also doing this at the expense of challenging long held religious
tradition to avoid undesirables. In fact, some Jews held Jesus in contempt by
calling him "a Samaritan." NIV John 8:48.
17. see EN 1 and 2
18. see NIV Hosea 6:6 which states in
full: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather
than burnt offerings" Note: burnt offerings usually involved the religious
sacrifices of animals.
19. see Section I of this paper; NIV
Matt. 17:5, NIV Mark 9:7, NIV 9:35, NIV 9:13, NIV 3:34, NIV 23:10
20. see NIV Num. 28:9-10; NIV Neh.
10:33; NIV Eze. 46:4 regarding religious sacrifices of animals on the Sabbath.
21. see EN 1
22. Although there is no evidence
supporting this assumption, one may presume as such based on both NIV Matt.
27:44 and NIV Luke 23:41. In Matt. 27:44, "...the robbers who were
crucified with him also heaped insults on him." Moreover, in Luke 23:41,
the saved thief while speaking with the other crucified thief stated that
"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But
this man has done nothing wrong." Therefore, an assumption may be
constructed from these two verses that the saved thief neither repented, nor
was baptized or "born again" prior to his asking Jesus to remember
him in the Kingdom.
23. see Section II of this paper; NIV
Luke 22:27
24. There is an agreement among Bible
scholars that Mark is the oldest of the canonical Gospels. In regards with the
synoptic Gospels (oral Gospels - Matt., Mark, and Luke), there are compelling
arguments that support the conclusion that Mark is older than Matthew and Luke:
1. Matthew and Luke begin where Mark begins and end where Mark ends; 2. Matthew
recreates about 90 per cent of Mark while Luke reproduces about 50 per cent of
Mark; 3. Matt. and Mark often agree against Luke, and Luke and Mark often agree
against Matthew. But Matthew and Luke together rarely disagree with Mark. see
The Five Gospels, EN 6, p. 10-11.
As for which is older Matthew or Luke,
there seems to be less of an agreement. According to some, the Gospel of
Matthew was authored around 80 C.E. and Luke around 90 C.E.. see The Complete
Gospels, EN 7, at 6. While others believe Luke to have been written between
80-85 C.E. and Matthew to have been written around 90 C.E. See Achtemeier, Paul
J. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Harper Collins Publishing Co., San
Francisco, 1996) pp. 630, 661.
Regardless of the fact that Luke may be
older than Matthew and thus could not have been interpreting Matthew, there is
little doubt that the author of Luke did have a copy of Mark when writing his
Gospel. Moreover, the author of Luke specifically alludes to the fact that his
writing is his interpretation of earlier sources when he stated "Many have
undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among
us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word." NIV Luke 1:1-2. Therefore, one
could conclude that Luke 22:26 may be a correlative interpretation of Mark 10:45.
25. see NIV Matt. 10:4, 26:14-25,
26:47-50, 27:3-5; NIV Mark 3:19, 14:10, 14:43-45; NIV Luke 6:16, 22:3-4,
22:47-48; NIV John 6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 13:21-30, 18:2-3.
26. see EN 9, "The Ransom
Theory" of Atonement.
27. see NIV John 7:39, 14:16-17, 14:26,
15:26, 16:13, 20:22; NIV Luke 12:11-12; NIV Mark 13:11
28. see NIV Matt. 6;14; NIV Mark 11:25;
NIV Luke 6:37, 11:4
29. The Christian cross is thought to
have been adopted as a symbol of the Christian church with the Roman Emperor
and newly Christian convert Constantine and his 4th Century Edict of Milan
granting official State tolerance toward Christianity . "According to
Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine, who consistently showed respect for the
cross, had many reproductions made of it. The Emperor had images in his own
likeness made with the cross in his hand. If it weren't for Constantine's
reverence and acceptance of the Cross, the Cross may not have become the symbol
of Christianity because of many early Christian's aversion to its symbolic
connotation of Jesus' brutal death and ridicule received by non-Christians who
viewed such symbol of death as strange. From the year 314, the scaffold for
execution was no longer designated by the word crux, but by patibulum.
Constantine finally abolished the crucifixion as a sentence." see The
Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 4, EN 2, at 162-63.
30. In early Christianity, the doctrine
of original sin implied that human nature is flawed and disordered in every
human group and being. The principal basis for the doctrine of original sin is
established in Genesis where Adam at one time is perfect and immortal and then
disobeying God's command became mortal and cut off from God. According to this
early view, only death and other consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve passed
on to successive generations. However, sin itself was not passed on to
successive generations as stated in NIV Eze. 18:20 "The soul who sins is
the one who dies. The son will not share the guilt of the Father, nor will the
Father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will
be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against
him." and NIV Deu. 24:16 "Fathers shall not to be put to death for
their children, nor children put to death for their fathers, each is to die for
his own sins." see The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, EN 3, at 761-62.
Centuries before Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 A.D.), the doctrine of original sin was not an important part of the
Christian faith, humans had a free will choice to sin or not to sin. To
Augustine, this early view of original sin and the view of human capabilities
was too positive. Before Augustine, humans were free to sin or not to sin.
Therefore, "Augustine firmly established the doctrine of hereditary sin.
He associated its transmission with the sexual act that is necessary for the
conception of each new individual." For support of this idea, Augustine
relied on Psalms 51:5 `in sin did my mother conceive me'. Therefore, the sin
and fall of Adam is inherited by all humans. Moreover, since we are predestined
to sin, only the grace of Jesus Christ can restore in us that freedom not to
sin. This view of hereditary sin has since dominated Christian dogma. Ibid at
91, 761.
31. Like Augustine, both Martin Luther
(1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-64) believed that the human will was
corrupted and in bondage to the sin inherited by Adam's "fall." They
believed that man had no control over his sinful nature and was dependent on
the grace of God. see The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, EN 3, at 762.
Martin Luther, who started his career
as an Augustinian monk, was best known for his protest against the Catholic
church's teachings that one's acts could earn forgiveness from God. Luther
believed that sinful human beings do not earn forgiveness by their works.
According to Luther, Christ's atonement was based on the love God had for man
and not through an individual's free will acts. Through his life and writings
Martin Luther founded the Protestant movement. Ibid at 635-37.
John Calvin's basic theology was
derived heavily from Martin Luther. He believed that humans are inherently
sinful and depraved by original and actual sin. Accordingly, man is so depraved
that had Christ not "elected" to die for the sins inherited by man, salvation
would be impossible. But since Christ elected to die as a substitute for the
sins of man, see EN9(d), some are chosen by God to have eternal life while
leaving "others to the damnation that they deserved." Moreover,
"no one knows the elect for sure, but faith, upright living, and
participation in the sacraments are signs of election." He further
contended that the "Scripture, unfolded through the Holy Spirit, is the
source for divine truth." His writings have not only inspired most
conservative protestant sects and their fundamentals, but also established the
model of worship and behavior which these churches adhere. Ibid. at 173-75.
32. Pelagius feared that the doctrine
of original inherited sin espoused by Augustine diminished man's moral responsibility
which he believed was the direct cause of moral laxity. Eventually, the Council
of Carthage (418 C.E.) addressed the two opposing views with Augustine's theory
of original inherited sin being accepted. Later, the Council of Orange (529
C.E.) adopted a semi-Pelagian view. While upholding the doctrine of original
inherited sin, the Council of Orange rejected Augustine's view of
uncontrollable predestination and upheld the idea that man does have free will.
However, according to this Council man is still dependent on the irresistible
Grace of God. Unfortunately, prior to the Council of Orange, Pelagius was
condemned a heretic for his views by the Council of Ephesus (431 C.E.). For a
good discussion and analysis of the Pelagian controversy, see Warfield,
Benjamin B., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York 1905) pp. 13-17.
33. see NIV John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39,
11:53-54; NIV Matt. 12:14-16
34. see NIV Exo. 15:26, 19:5, 20:6,
23:22; NIV Lev. 26:3-43, NIV Deu. 4:1, 4:40, 5:10, 5:29, 7:9, 7:12-15,
11:26-28, 12:28, 15:4-5, 28:1-14, 29:9, 30:1-10, 30:15-20; NIV Jos. 1:8; NIV
1Kgs. 2:3-4, 3:14, 8:23, 9:3-9; NIV 1Chr. 22:13, 28:7-8; NIV 2Chr. 7:17-22,
26:5, 27:6, 30:9, 31:10; NIV Job 36:11; NIV Prov. 3:1, 16:7; NIV Isa. 1:19; NIV
Jer. 7:3-7, 7:23, 11:1-5, 12:16, 15:19-21, 17:24-27, 22:4-5, 22:15-16; NIV
Zech. 3:7; NIV Mal. 3:10-12; NIV Mal. 3:10-12; NIV Matt. 10:22, 24:13; NIV Mark
13:13; NIV Col. 1:22-23; NIV Heb. 3:6-14, 6:11-12, 10:36; NIV Rev. 2:10
35. see NIV Matt. 10:22, 24:13; NIV
Mark 13:13
36. see NIV Mark 12:14, 22:16; NIV Luke
20:21
37. see Elstrott, K., The Fifth
Revelation (Mighty Messenger Press, New Orleans, 1998) p. 168.
38. see Section III (A) in this paper;
NIV John 3:36, 5:24, 6:40
39. see The Interpreter's Bible, Vol.
8, (Abingdon Press, New York/Nashville, 1957) p. 511.
40. see NIV Luke 23:34
41. see Section V of this paper
42. see Section IV of this paper
43. see Section VI of this paper
44. see Section I of this paper
45. see The Urantia Book, Paper 188, p.
2017.
Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.
No portion of this paper shall be reproduced without the express written
consent of the author.