A Gospel Account of Our Father and The Blood Atonement of Jesus

Overthrowing the Blood Atonement Doctrine of Jesus Page 1 of 29
Site Index
E-mail us
A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER

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 sacrifical 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
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/atonement.html 11/30/2007
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, Ì 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?
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: Ì desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
NIV Matthew 12:7
7. If you had known what these words mean, Ì 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 Ì 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:
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:
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:
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 Atonementthere 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/ T0001700.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 ìn 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 (Urantia Foundation, Chicago, Ill. 1955) p.
2017.
Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper shall be reproduced
without the express written consent of the author.

A Gospel Account of Our Father and The Blood Atonement of Jesus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Gospel Account of Our Father and The Blood Atonement of Jesus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overthrowing the Blood Atonement Doctrine of Jesus Page 1 of 29

A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER

Copyright © 1999 Michael Shanbour(1)

Contents of this Document:

Recently, I attended a bible study class at a couple's home here in Oklahoma

Before a discussion of the Blood Atonement Doctrine can occur, some

I. BEFORE GOD WILL FORGIVE SINS AND GRANT ETERNAL

In order to address whether this doctrine is a valid precept of Jesus' Heavenly

Using the New International Version Bible,(11) these seven categories of

HOW DO WE KNOW GOD'S PLAN?

WHO SPEAKS FOR THE HEAVENLY FATHER?:

NIV Matthew 17:5

NIV Mark 9:7

NIV Luke 9:35

Obviously, according to three of the four canonical Gospels, God is directly

NIV John 9:13

NIV John 3:34

NIV Matthew 23:10

II. WAS THE PURPOSE OF JESUS' BESTOWAL TO

ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF HIS BESTOWAL?

NIV Luke 4:43

NIV Luke 4:17-19

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

NIV John 3:17

III. WAS CHRIST'S CRUCIFIXION NECESSARY

the subject of what is required to have eternal life:

ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR ETERNAL LIFE?

NIV John 3:15-16

NIV John 3:36

36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,

NIV John 5:24

NIV John 6:40

B. FOLLOW JESUS' COMMANDMENTS:

LOVE THE FATHER AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR

NIV Matthew 22:35-40

36. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

38. This is the first and greatest commandment.

a. WHAT IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS?

NIV Matthew 7:12

NIV Mark 12:28-31

31. The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no

NIV Luke 10:25-28

NIV Luke 10:36-37 (parable of the Good Samaritan)

LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS JESUS LOVED

NIV John 13:34

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

NIV Luke 6:35

NIV Matthew 25:40

IV. BEFORE THE FATHER FORGIVES US OUR SINS,

ACCORDING TO JESUS: WHAT IS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FORGIVENESS

NIV Matthew 6:14

NIV Mark 11:25

NIV Luke 6:37

HOW DEEP MUST ONE FORGIVE?