RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL
ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS”
(Part VI)
QUESTION VI: DOES GOD’S MERCY REQUIRE THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT SACRIFICE?
As before, Mr. Shanbour uses his previous faulty conclusion (that God does not desire sacrifice) to segue into his next corollary, which in this case is exactly what was said by Jesus regarding God’s mercy. He quotes several verses (Matt. 18:12-14; Mark 3:28; Luke 6:35,36; 11:11-13; 12:32; 15:7,13-32; 23:42,43; John 8:4-11) to again draw several conclusions. From Luke 11:11-13, he discerns that the Father’s mercy is like that of an earthly father to his own son, except greater. He even introduces the quoted verses with a parenthetical note that the “Father’s mercy is as great as, if not greater, than an earthly father.” Furthermore, he begs the question, “How many earth fathers could in all honesty have a child of theirs tortured and killed because of wrongs committed by others?” I hate to sound like a broken record, but after all a great deal of Shanbour’s strategy apparently relies on the talent of a one-trick pony. This passage is again taken out of context. If he had recited the previous verses, he would have demonstrated that Jesus was teaching his disciples how to pray (Luke 11:1-4). Afterward, Jesus was urging boldness and persistence in their prayer life (v. 5-8), and was giving them assurance that God answers prayer (v. 9-13). This passage has nothing specifically to do with receiving mercy. In response to the question Shanbour begged, I would think that no sane father of the mortal realm would be either willing or capable of allowing their child to be tortured and killed as retribution for a stranger’s transgressions. And this is the very reason why the Father’s mercy, which was made available to all, is infinitely far more valuable and desirable than any human mind can fully conceive.
From Luke 23:42-43, Shanbour infers that Jesus granted eternal life to the thief on the cross without consideration of his sins and without him repenting, being baptized, or being “born again.” (For that matter, we do not know whether the thief had forgiven all his debtors, either!) I am assuming that the point Mr. Shanbour intends to make here is that the thief went to heaven without relying on Jesus’ death on the cross. The other issues are ancillary and take us off the beaten path somewhat, but I shall endeavor to respond nonetheless. Because Mr. Shanbour does not define what being “born again” means to him, I have no way of knowing how to respond, so I will skip this one.
Repentance is the act of confessing that you are a sinner in need of a Savior and by faith allowing Jesus to be that Savior. So far as it can be surmised, the thief did just this to the best of his ability, under the circumstances. Reading the previous verse, we see that the thief confessed that he was a sinner, having admitted that he had been justly put to death for the crimes he had committed (v. 41). We also see that he realized Jesus had done nothing wrong, alluding to his innocence. The verse that follows, which is the verse Mr. Shanbour cites in support of his supposed hypothesis that the thief did not need Jesus to die on the cross for his sins, sounds very much like a confession of faith. The thief apparently realized that Jesus was who he said he was (the coming Messiah), and beseeched Jesus to include him in his coming kingdom. The thief’s words imply strong faith on his part, in light of the fact that he thought the person hanging on the cross adjacent to his was the Son of God. How else would he have thought to ask Jesus to remember him in his kingdom?
Contrary to popular belief, baptism is not the vital
prerequisite to salvation it is made out to be. Mr. Shanbour, of all people, should be aware of this fact, since
he has been touting other prerequisites that must be met prior to salvation
(such as believing in the words of Jesus and forgiving others). The thief on the cross obviously did not
have time to get baptized, once he made his confession of faith. What would Shanbour have Jesus say to him,
“Sorry old chap, but despite your astounding faith in me, you won’t get into
heaven on this day or on any other because you haven’t been properly
baptized”? Nowhere in the New Testament
is baptism taught as a necessary prerequisite for salvation. Many people point to Mark 16:16 to make the
claim that baptism is mandatory, but this reference actually backfires: “‘Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
does not believe will be condemned.’” Obviously belief, and not baptism, is the
operative word. Just as forgiveness of
others is a reflection of a believer’s gratitude for salvation, but not the
means of salvation, so is baptism a public demonstration of what has already
transpired in a believer’s life.
The question whether Jesus would
consider the thief’s sin history is a moot point once the thief had
repented. If sin (or the lack thereof)
is an issue to take up when deciding whether we are worthy of going to heaven,
then we are all in big trouble. The
thief’s sins (every single last one of them) were covered once he repented and
believed in Jesus.
Finally, by reciting John 8:4-11
Mr. Shanbour challenges the reader to consider the case of the woman caught in
adultery. As Shanbour puts it, Jesus
had placed himself in danger to interrupt the stoning of the woman, who had
broken the Law of Moses. Shanbour poses
the question to the reader whether such action would represent the God who
requires innocent blood to be shed in order to show mercy on his children. However, Shanbour has not accurately recited
the story. As the text plainly reads in
the verses prior to where Shanbour picks up the account, Jesus was teaching in
the temple court (v. 2) when the priests and Pharisees “brought in a woman
caught in adultery” and “made her stand before the group” (v. 3). Jesus did not walk in and interrupt the
stoning, as Mr. Shanbour so dramatically puts it; rather, the priests and
Pharisees had brought her to Jesus in an effort to trick him on a legal
issue. But regardless of the circumstances,
the question Shanbour poses is moot because the carrying out of a death
sentence on a guilty party has nothing to do with the shedding of innocent
blood. If the woman were truly
innocent, then perhaps Shanbour would have had room to make a point.
Other verses quoted but not
discussed include: Luke 6:35-36 (here Jesus is talking about loving your
enemy); Luke