A RESPONSE TO
MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF
JESUS”
(Part V)
QUESTION V: “DOES THE FATHER IN HEAVEN OR JESUS
DESIRE SACRIFICES OF INNOCENT HUMANS OR ANIMALS?”
Once again, with extreme prejudice Mr. Shanbour states that the blood atonement doctrine is rooted in the “primitive” belief that sacrifices will cleanse persons of their sinful deeds. And once again, he has rounded up what he considers to be the definitive verses in which Jesus addresses the issue of ritual sacrifices (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; Mark 2:27,28; Luke 6:9; John 2:13-19). His conclusions from this mere handful of verses are many.
He first concludes that, because Jesus was quoting Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7, this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that neither God nor Jesus would condone sacrifice of the innocents. He goes on to imply that “atonementists” are apparently blind to this “obvious fact” and are themselves “condemning the innocent” (that is, Jesus) by unjustifiably promoting the atonement doctrine.
But as has been his pet strategy throughout this ordeal thus
far, Mr. Shanbour has yanked the context of these passages from under
them. In the Book of Hosea, God was not
happy with the Israelites because they were worshiping Canaanite deities, thus
committing spiritual adultery against God.
Israel had turned to Baal worship (2:8) and improper pagan sacrifices
(4:13), which included association with ritual prostitutes (4:14) and
worshiping the calf image at Samaria (8:5; 10:5,6; 13:2), all the while not
acknowledging God’s provision and love for them. The Israelites were also transgressing against the Ten
Commandments on a regular basis (4:2).
And herein we see the words spoken by God through the prophet Hosea:
“‘For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than
burnt offerings’” (6:6). The word
“mercy” in this case is translated from the Hebrew “checed,” which can
either refer to kindness toward one’s fellowman or piety towards God. In light of the times in which Hosea found
himself, the word probably has application with both meanings. It would be a stretch to force-fit another
meaning to this word such as compassion towards innocent and helpless animals,
which is what Shanbour is obviously striving for in his quest to “primitivize”
Old Testament ritual animal sacrifice.
If the intention of Hosea was to ridicule the very ritual sacrifice
system that had been set up by God (see Shabour’s Endnote 2, and my Endnote 4
in “Introduction” section), which the Israelites were not even practicing at
the time, he would have used a word such as “chanan,” which means “to
bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior” or “to have pity on.”[1] This word was
used, for instance, in Psalm 4:1, which reads: “Answer me when I call to you, O
my righteous God. Give me relief from
my distress; be merciful to me and hear my prayer.” Regarding the word “sacrifice,” any form of ritual sacrifice
(even the Levitical practices) performed apart from faithfulness toward God was
unacceptable (see 1Sam.
One need not go beyond the
historical backdrop (Matt. 12:1-14) in which Matthew 12:7 finds itself to see
what is going on in the case of Jesus referring to Hosea 6:6. The Pharisees had caught Jesus and his
disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and were criticizing them for working on
the Sabbath, on which day any form of work was unlawful. Jesus used several historic examples to
point out that the Pharisees were engaging in legalism and were disregarding
the Law’s original intent. He recalled
when David was shown compassion by allowing him to illegally eat the showbread
in the temple when he was a refugee (1Sam. 21:76; Lev. 24:5,9), and reminded
them of the priests who had to perform work on the Sabbath in order to perform
the ritual sacrifices (Num. 28:9,10), yet were innocent. (I might add here that if Jesus intended to
condemn the animal ritual sacrifices, he would not have referred to them as
legitimate work!) After this brief
lesson in biblical history, Jesus said those words which Shanbour claims are
proof positive that he disdained the sacrificial system: “‘If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not
sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent’” (Matt. 12:7).
After reviewing the passage in its proper context, one can clearly see
that Jesus was not referring to helpless animals being led to the slaughter
when he referred to “the innocent,” but to David, the priests, and himself,
whom the Pharisees were unwittingly attempting to condemn in one fell
swoop. Therefore, this verse does not
imply that Jesus holds ritual sacrifice in contempt, but that he takes a dim
view towards legalism (and toward those that practice it).
Further study of this passage in
its proper context reveals another important point that Jesus was trying to
make to the stubborn Pharisees. After
noting David’s and the priests’ anti-legalistic precedence, Jesus makes the
following statements:
“‘I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. . . .
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’”
(Matt. 12:6,8)
What does this passage mean? It plainly means that Jesus was the fulfillment
of everything the temple symbolizes, including the ritual sacrificial system
that was performed therein.
I find it curious that Mr.
Shanbour did not cite the other canonical Gospel verse in which Jesus cited
Hosea 6:6, which is found in Matthew Chapter 9. However, I can understand why he would choose not to do so, in
light of its obvious context. In the
subject passage, Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house with many tax
collectors and other “sordid” types (v. 10).
The Pharisees took issue with the company Jesus was keeping, and had
confronted some of his disciples on the matter (v. 11). The remainder of the passage reads as
follows:
“On
hearing this, Jesus said, ‘It is not the
healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
But go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have not come to call the righteous,
but sinners.’” (Matt.
In other words, Jesus was not
interested in reaching those that self-righteously do not recognize their need
for salvation (i.e., those that depend on their own works through legalism or
some other mechanism), but those that realize they are lost and in need of a
Savior. This theme does not fit the
“abolish sacrifice” scheme that Shanbour is entertaining in any stretch of the
imagination, which is perhaps why he skipped over this one.
Mr. Shanbour’s second major
conclusion revolves around Luke 6:9 (“‘I ask
you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or
to destroy it?’”), for which he claims the
“figurative” interpretation is that Jesus was referring to his work to save
souls on the Sabbath. Shanbour takes
exception with this “figurative” interpretation and introduces a more “literal”
one, which is that Jesus was referring to the “tradition of sacrificing animals
on the Sabbath” as being “merely an evil destruction of life rather than the
doing good in preserving and saving life.”
In defense of this “more literal” interpretation, Shanbour brings up the
account of Jesus’ anger in the temple courts, when he turned over the tables of
the money changers and released the sacrificial animals because he was repulsed
at the brutal slaughter of innocent animals in God’s name. After all, as Mr. Shanbour reminds us, the
“whole message of the Gospel was founded on the supreme idea of Love and
peace.”
For the life of me, I cannot see
where Mr. Shanbour came up with this “more literal and less figurative”
interpretation when Jesus was about to heal a man’s withered hand! The question Jesus asked was rhetorical in
nature and was designed to set up his demonstration that legally incorrect
compassion (the saving of life through healing on the Sabbath) is preferable
over legalistic indifference (the destruction of life by not healing because it
is legally incorrect). Instead, I would
categorize Mr. Shanbour’s interpretation as “conjectural” at best and “wishful
thinking” at worst. The subject of
animal sacrifice is not even under discussion in this discourse. As far as Jesus’ actions at the temple courts
are concerned, recall what he had said as he was turning tables and driving out
people and stock: “‘It is written,’ he said to them, “‘My
house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are making it a “den of
robbers”’” (Matt. 21:13).
Jesus’ anger was not directed at the act of animal sacrifice itself, but
at those who were cheating the people by monopolizing the market and using
dishonest weights and measures.
To further buttress his theory
that Jesus loathed the ritual animal sacrifice system, Shanbour makes this
bold-faced false claim: “[T]here 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.” I wish I did not have to dignify this
shameless charge with a lengthy response, and I am at this time curious to know
whether Mr. Shanbour’s NIV translation is missing any pages. On the day before his crucifixion, Jesus had
instructed his apostles to prepare a Passover supper, which was to become his
last meal before his death, now known as the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:17-30;
Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-38). We also
know that every year during his childhood and into his youth, Jesus went with
his family to Jerusalem to observe the Passover (Luke 2:41,42). The preparation of the Passover meal (Exo.
12:1-20; Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 28:16-25; Deut. 16:1-8) involved the ritualistic
killing and roasting of a paschal lamb (“a year-old male without defect;” Exo.
12:5). These passages clearly “talk
about” and/or “allude to” Jesus actively participating in the Passover
feast. “Yes, but,” Mr. Shanbour might
retort, “these verses do not say that he actually ate the Passover lamb, but that
he was merely accustomed to the tradition.”
For all we know, he grew up to disdain the messy business of
slaughtering a helpless, poor little animal and ravenously devouring it as a
sign of devotion to God.[2] And perhaps, as a result of this early
aversion, he had instructed his apostles to prepare a meatless Passover, since
his preference was to rid the tradition of its repulsive element.[3] However, one cannot make such claims without
adding to, taking from, or twisting the words of the canonical Gospels. Keeping in mind that the Gospels were
written primarily for a Jewish audience, the pertinent passages clearly imply
that Jesus and his apostles did eat the Passover lamb, as did all practicing
Jews at that time. If the Gospel
authors were to make their point any plainer, they would have had to resort to
some rather mundane language. On the
other hand, if we were to adopt Shanbour’s view of history, we would have to
presume that the apostles, the authors of the four canonical Gospels, and all
those who knew Jesus from his childhood conspired to keep Jesus’ personal
preference in this regard a deep, dark, secret since such scandal would have
exposed Jesus as either a charlatan or a heretic in his Jewish environment.
ENDNOTES (Part V)
[1]. See Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
[2]. The UB is comprised of four parts, Part IV of which is a radical
revision of the four canonical Gospels, including several redactions,
supplements, and omissions, in an effort to harmonize the historical Jesus with
the theological constructs introduced in parts I through III. One of the more creative augmentations found
in Part IV, entitled “The Life and Teachings of Jesus,” is a complete biography
of Jesus, including his formative years from early childhood through young
adulthood. In one particular passage,
we find Jesus at the age of twenty traveling to
[3]. In the UB paper that
deals with the Last Supper, we read this testimony from the alleged agents from
on high who know what “really” happened: “The apostles knew that Jesus had
celebrated other Passovers without the lamb; they knew that he did not
personally participate in any sacrificial service of the Jewish system. He had many times partaken of the paschal
lamb as a guest, but always, when he was the host, no lamb was served. It would not have been a great surprise to
the apostles to have seen the lamb omitted even on Passover night, and since
this supper was given one day earlier, they thought nothing of its absence.”
(179:0.3) Perhaps this account is why the contents of the canonical Gospels
that record Jesus’ observances of the Passover meal have been erased from Mr.
Shanbour’s memory.