A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR=S AA GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS@ BY DALE E

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

(Part III)

QUESTION III: “WAS CHRIST’S CRUCIFIXION NECESSARY BEFORE WE COULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?”[1]

Mr. Shanbour answers this question with another question: “According to Jesus, what is required for eternal life?” His answer (belief in Jesus) sounds orthodox enough at first, and he even cites several appropriate verses that give support to this answer (John 3:15,16,36; 5:24; 6:40). However, he concludes without cause that Jesus is saying that one must “believe in the words of Jesus and his teachings” (emphasis added), as opposed to believing in just himself, in order to have eternal life. The conclusion is without justification because all the verses that Shanbour has chosen state unambiguously that one must “believe in him” in order to have eternal life. None of them say that one must “believe in his words” or “believe in his teachings” in order to be saved. The only verse that varies slightly from this theme is John 5:24, which states that “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.” Again, this verse does not say “whoever believes in my word,” but “whoever hears my word.” That is, one’s faith is not to be placed on the words of Jesus themselves, but toward whomever the words refer to (which in this case is God the Father). Indeed, the variation merely involves shifting belief toward God (the First Person of Deity according to Christian orthodoxy), Who has sent Jesus (the Second Person of Deity), who in turn is God’s spokesman. This verse does not significantly stretch the meaning beyond the other verses, whereas Mr. Shanbour’s conclusion is equally unfounded on all accounts.

I will also point out here that, while he took exception to anyone “adding to the words of Jesus” when previously referring to the “incorrect” interpretation of John 3:17, Shanbour has just done so himself with the above verses (does the phrase “double standard” have any meaning in Mr. Shanbour’s vocabulary?).

Shanbour’s next strategy is to bounce off this unfounded conclusion by posing his next question: According to Jesus, what must a person do in order to obtain eternal life? Notwithstanding that he has already provided an answer to this question above with the “believe in Jesus” passages (John 3:15,16,36; 5:24; 6:40), let’s see which direction Mr. Shanbour is now heading. He provides several answers to his rephrased question, including the following: love your Father and your neighbor (Matt. 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28); practice the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12); remember the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:36,37); love one another (John 13:34; 15:12,17); and love your enemies (Matt. 5:43,44; 25:40; Luke 6:35). Shanbour concludes from these verses that Jesus was stating “Love is the only requisite to obtaining eternal life.” (John Lennon would have been proud.) To infer that one must believe the blood atonement doctrine in order to obtain eternal salvation would be, as Mr. Shanbour puts it, “an unnecessary burden placed upon the evolving mortal soul.” (If you ask me, to believe that one’s soul is mortal would be quite a burden in and of itself!)

Unfortunately for Shanbour, only one of these passages directly answers the question he has posed. The remaining passages refer to rules of social conduct, and not the means of salvation. Read them again. None of the contexts in which we find these passages (save the exception, which I will address forthwith) pertain to what one must do to obtain salvation. The only exception is Luke 10:25-28, which recalls the account of the lawyer who posed the very question to Jesus: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus turned the question around to the lawyer by asking him what he thought the Law required of him, who in turn stated that loving God and loving his neighbor summarized the Law for him. Jesus replied, “‘Do this and you will live.’” Now, does this response by Jesus mean that he was affirming a particular lifestyle as the means of salvation? By no means! He was merely reflecting what the Law had revealed to man all along, that nobody can live up to God’s high expectations on his own. And as we read on in this passage (which I see Mr. Shanbour does not allow his reading audience the benefit thereof), we see that the lawyer realized what Jesus was saying, and was uncomfortable with his answer: “But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (v. 29). In other words, the lawyer realized that he had already not met this prerequisite for eternal life, having already disobeyed the Law at one time or another. The logical conclusion that he reached is that he could not be held to this standard, so he tried to find solace by rephrasing the question.

Curious though it may seem, Mr. Shanbour does not make use of the only other passage that asks the very question which he seeks to answer. The account of the rich young man (Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 1017-30; Luke 18:18-30) tells of a man who came up to Jesus and asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (That does have a familiar ring to it, does it not?) Jesus at first answered the man by appealing to the Law (just as he did with the lawyer in Luke Chapter 10). The rich man responded by boasting of his stamina for having kept the commandments to the letter since he was a wee lad. Then Jesus replied back:

“‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’” (Luke 18:22; cf. Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21).

If we follow Mr. Shanbour’s example from his treatment of the lawyer passage in Luke 10:25-28, then we should conclude that selling all our possessions is what gets us into heaven. Why did Shanbour not use this only other passage that provides a direct answer to his question? Perhaps it was not the answer he was seeking. Or maybe because his readers would have noticed the ambiguity if he were to pull the same punches with both of these passages. Or he could have foreseen that some of his readers would have concluded that Jesus was speaking to one specific individual in both of these passages and was not providing a universal answer to the question.