A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS”

(Part I)

 And now on to Mr. Shanbour’s systematic approach that begs the seven-part question: Is the atonement doctrine to be found in (some of) the biblical words of Jesus? Part I is actually premised with a statement followed by two unmarked questions:

“QUESTION” 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.”

This statement, which is meant to be the definitive definition of the blood atonement doctrine as wrested from the vagaries of history, is loaded with innuendos, and has less to do with the true biblical doctrine than Mr. Shanbour may care to admit. First of all, even though salvation is conditional, God does not grant eternal salvation to all. The canonical words of Jesus (note how I pay homage to Shanbour’s gag order) indicate that some, but not all, will be saved: “‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son’” (John 3:18). In other words, eternal salvation is not granted to all, but is made available to all who will believe and receive it. Second of all, God’s wrath does not enter into the picture unless and until a person rejects the plan of salvation and must face judgment as a consequence. The death of Christ did not appease the wrath and justice of God on a wholesale basis, but just for those who accept the gift of salvation. Again, in the words of Jesus: “‘There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day’” (John 12:48).

On a tangential issue, let us consider whether Jesus viewed God as One capable of exhibiting wrath to begin with. In Luke Chapter 21, we see a parallel passage to what is known as the Olivet Discourse, found in its entirety in Matthew Chapter 24. In this passage, Jesus was predicting (among other things) the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus indicated that Jerusalem’s destruction would be preceded by its being surrounded by armies, at which time he warned his disciples to flee for cover into the mountains (Luke 21:20,21). Then the passage continues:

“‘For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.’” (Luke 21:22,23)

Apparently, Jesus was claiming that Jerusalem’s destruction was foretold by the Old Testament prophets. And indeed, we can glean this inference of God’s wrath on Jerusalem from several places therein (Isa. 63:4; Jer. 5:29; Dan. 9:24-27; Hos. 9:7). Therefore, Jesus did view God as a just Judge and executor of justice through His divine wrath.

QUESTION IA: “HOW DO WE KNOW GOD’S PLAN?”

Mr. Shanbour’s discussion herein affirms what Christians believe, that God pre-ordained the death of Christ on the cross to save man from sin. He also acknowledges that, if God had revealed such a plan, it would surely be found in Scripture. But he then reinstates his previous constraints by casually observing that 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.” Regardless of which opinion poll he found to be in favor of his declaration, the plan of salvation is echoed loudly throughout the New Testament, including the Gospels. As I recall, Mr. Shanbour buried the New Testament epistles earlier by categorizing the appropriate passages as mere “images and metaphors” in his Endnote 3. He treated the Old Testament with the same indifference by rounding up most of the blood sacrifice passages in Endnote 2. As I shall demonstrate at the end of this paper, the canonical Gospel words of Jesus do testify that the Old Testament provides a preview of the plan for salvation through his vicarious atonement, while the fulfillment thereof is aptly demonstrated through his very words alone. But for now, let us continue with the discovery of Shanbour’s thesis.

He concludes here that the plan for salvation, if it exists, can only be meted out through the words of God’s designated spokesperson. The second question searches for the identity of that spokesperson:

QUESTION 1B: “WHO SPEAKS FOR THE HEAVENLY FATHER?”

Mr. Shanbour cites Matt. 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 as evidence in favor of his conclusion that Jesus is the only true spokesman for God. But he has just violated his own cardinal rule of engagement! He clearly indicated previously that he would only consider the words of Jesus as worthy of being admissible evidence. These verses pertain to the three synoptic Gospel authors’ rendition of what transpired on the Mount of Transfiguration. They are the words of the authors, and not those of Jesus himself (Mr. Shanbour should check his red-letter edition again). I am afraid that I must therefore object to his use of these verses as evidence in his defense, unless he is willing to redress the limitations imposed upon his search.

Be that as it may, I will address the evidence Mr. Shanbour presents. He concludes from these verses that God had appointed Jesus as His spokesperson. Moreover, Jesus is God’s only spokesperson, since nobody else has been given similar endorsement directly by God. However, here is where I beg to differ with Shanbour; these verses do not explicitly endorse Jesus as God’s only spokesperson. I will cite Matt. 17:5, which is representative of all three accounts, to make my point: “While he was still 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!’” If God had intended to make Jesus His one and only spokesperson, he would have said “‘Listen only to him!’” Therefore, Shanbour’s conclusion of exclusivity is unfounded. All of Scripture, both Old Testament and New, speaks for God, but because of Shanbour’s self-imposed limitations I shall not belabor the point by going through the various passages that affirm this fundamental truth. Instead, I will resort (as per Shanbour’s decree) only to the “canonical Gospel words of Jesus” for evidence thereto:

“‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.’” (Matt. 5:17-18)

“‘You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.’” (John 5:39,40)

“Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, “I have said you are gods”? If he called them “gods,” to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?’” (John 10:34-36)

Keep in mind that, by Mr. Shanbour’s own imposition, Jesus is speaking here as God’s representative and therefore whatever Jesus says, goes. Apparently, then, Shanbour has prematurely thrown out the entire Old Testament record as inadmissible evidence!

To demonstrate that Jesus endorses all of the New Testament would require that we leave the confines of the four canonical Gospels. Nevertheless, the trailhead picks up within the canonical Gospel words of Jesus:

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.’” (Matt. 16:16,17)

Because God had endorsed Jesus, and Jesus had clearly confirmed Peter as having direct knowledge from God, it stands to reason that God had also endorsed Peter through Jesus. We can then be reasonably sure that Peter’s epistles are inspired by God. And we see in his second epistle that Peter affirms all of Scripture (2Pet. 1:21) and particularly Paul’s epistles (2Pet. 3:15-17) as having been inspired by God as well. But I digress.

Before I continue in this vein, I must point out another error on Mr. Shanbour’s part. In his enthusiasm to rely on the verses citing the voice of God in the Transfiguration account, he makes this faulty observation: “In fact, these are the only instances within the canonical Gospels of a direct quote from God.” This is not true, because a similar incident took place at Jesus’ baptism:

“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’” (Matt. 3:16,17; cf. Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21,22).

Note that, in this instance, God does not say “Listen to him!” If we extend Shanbour’s presumption of extreme exclusivity to its full-orbed effect, then we must believe that God did not want anybody to listen to Jesus between the time of his baptism and his transfiguration!

As his next case in point, Mr. Shanbour cites John 9:13, John 3:34, and Matt. 23:10 to provide further evidence that Jesus speaks for God. Again, he falsely jumps to conclusions:

“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.”

But as I have already demonstrated above (Matt. 5:17,18; 16:16-17; John 5:39,40; 10:34-36), Jesus is not the only person or source to have official endorsement from God, according to Jesus himself.

In his last attempt to give Jesus exclusivity, Mr. Shanbour quotes only four words from Matt. 23:10 (“‘one teacher, the Christ’”), and flags this verse as proof positive that the entire Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament outside the canonical Gospel words of Jesus should be dismissed; indeed, they should be considered apocryphal! But once we examine the context from which this phrase has been yanked, we come to realize the hyperbole of such a skewed notion. Beginning in verse 1 of Matthew Chapter 23, we read that Jesus was chastising the scribes and Pharisees for their self-righteous behavior. Jesus was admonishing the multitudes gathered around him not to be as they are, for they are hypocrites. However, Jesus apparently had no problem with what the scribes and Pharisees were actually teaching: “‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you’” (Matt. 23:2,3). But it is because they did not practice what they preached that Jesus took issue with them (v. 4-7). In retrospect, Jesus is not telling us to avoid calling each other teachers in a wooden literal sense. If this were so, then his admonition not to call anyone on earth “father” in verse 9 would have to be taken to mean that we should not address our male parents in said manner. Adopting such a context for this passage is obviously overstating the case. Instead, a more balanced context is to take what Jesus says as a warning against seeking titles of honor as a means of fostering pride. Verses 11 and 12 spell this meaning out clearly: “‘The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’”

Mr. Shanbour is correct to assert that “any direct contradiction with Jesus’ words should be considered null and void.” However, the issue of whether any part of the Bible contradicts the canonical Gospel words of Jesus has neither been brought up nor demonstrated. Shanbour is only attempting to demonstrate that any part of the Bible other than Jesus’ words are irrelevant. Therefore, his statement makes a false inference.

In conclusion, Mr. Shanbour’s two-part question, “How do we know God’s plan?” and “Who speaks for the heavenly Father?” should be answered as such: Although Jesus is God’s unique representative as the Son of God, both his chosen apostles and all of Scripture speak for God also. This fact has been demonstrated using only the canonical Gospel words of Jesus as evidence, in accordance with Shanbour’s self-imposed injunction.