A RESPONSE TO
MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF
JESUS”[1]
By Dale E. Essary
(or, “I’M GONNA WASH THAT BLOOD RIGHT OUT OF MY HAIR”)[2]
INTRODUCTION
My wife and I were hailed on-line by Michael Shanbour one
fine summer day in 1999 because, as he claims, he had performed a search for
screen names with the words “heavenly Father” written in their profiles, and so
ours naturally popped up. As
serendipitous as this encounter may sound, I believe events do not occur by
sheer accident or dumb luck. After
chatting on-line with my wife for a while on matters theologic (it was the
wife’s station at the time, but we shared the handle), Mr. Shanbour offered to
send over a draft version of what we now see posted in its final format on the
Urantia Book Fellowship’s website.[3] He wanted to know our opinion of his
treatise. My wife politely declined the
offer to provide feedback, not wanting to commit the time and effort it would
have taken to absorb the lengthy material and offer a worthwhile response. I, on the other hand, expressed my interest
to Mr. Shanbour in taking him up on his offer.
And so, after much forethought I humbly submit my response for Mr.
Shanbour’s consideration and for anybody else who cares to lend an ear (or eye,
as the case may be).
For those not familiar with the
purpose for which the Urantia Book Fellowship website was constructed, I will
offer a brief synopsis on the central object of its focus. The Urantia Book (The UB), first published in 1955, is a
2097‑page compilation of 196 papers allegedly indicted by a group of
celestial beings through an unnamed human conduit. These “divine revelators” were supposedly commissioned by their
heavenly “supervisors” to enlighten the mortal inhabitants of this lowly planet
(which they call Urantia) as to how mankind has been supposedly misled
throughout human history by the errors of religious thinking. The primary target for which The UB’s “authors” claim is in need of
“correction” in the arena of religion is the Bible, with all its
“misconceptions” regarding the nature of God, who Jesus was, etc. More will be said as this response progresses. Now on to the task at hand.
Mr. Shanbour’s introductory
paragraph exposes his bias on the subject of blood atonement, calling it a
“perverse doctrine.” His hypothesis,
that the doctrine “arose out of the old Jewish tradition of sacrifice and was
attached to the death of Christ through the letters of Paul and to a lesser
extent other New Testament authors” could be stated without such emotive
precursors. If his reasoning is sound,
it will speak for itself. Nonetheless,
let us see if this is so.
The corollaries to Shanbour’s
hypothesis are as follows: The doctrine of atonement was 1) “neither a
pre-ordained plan of God,” nor was it 2) “supported by the biblical words of
Jesus as reflected in the canonical Gospels.”
As his introductory paragraph states, he was challenged to prove his
assertions within the confines of what many (i.e., conservative Christians)
believe to be the true Word of God, the Holy Bible. I am one who takes this position, as I also hold to the inerrancy
of all Scripture (2Tim.
Before we go any further, I would
like to provide some feedback on the endnotes Mr. Shanbour has listed within
the beginning paragraph of his thesis.
Endnote 2: These verses pertain to the Old Testament sacrificial
system, set up by God through Moses for the priests to follow on behalf of the
Israelite people.[4] These rituals served as an annual reminder
of sin’s presence in mankind and as a foreshadowing of what God would later
provide “once for all” (Heb. 10:1-18).
But these verses are not by any means an exhaustive list of the
antecedents to the atonement doctrine as revealed through Scripture, nor are
they the starting point thereto. I
shall elaborate on this point later.
Endnote 3: With this edification Mr. Shanbour has already failed to
meet the challenge of staying within the bounds of Scripture. The Encyclopedia of Religion is
espousing the opinion for which the author apparently seeks, which is rooted in
the presumption that the Bible is NOT the inspired Word of God, but merely a
collection of various religious experiential expositions. Thankfully, Shanbour’s source is not the
final authority on matters of biblical exegesis. Other scholars would disagree with Shanbour’s source and say that
First Corinthians 15:3-7 is speaking of what Paul had received from his
predecessors (that is, the early church which was being led by the eleven
surviving apostles that were hand-picked by Jesus to do so). The language of this creedal statement reads
as though Paul is writing outside the norms of his usual prosaic style, as if
he were reciting oral tradition that had already been developed prior to his
conversion: “what I also received.”[5] By listing Paul’s verses pertaining to blood
atonement and categorizing them as mere “images and metaphors,” Shanbour has
sided with his source without even so much as examining the contrary
evidence. This diminutive step is
surely not a good beginning for an alleged scholarly approach, to dispense with
presumed boundaries when they are inconvenient to the author’s desired
outcome. Indeed, the evidence from
within Scripture (as will be demonstrated later) does not lend itself to this
conclusion.
Endnote 4: Mr. Shanbour may have his historical facts correct
pertaining to Messrs. Lyman and Milton Stewart and their efforts to bring the
fundamental beliefs of an American Protestant sect to the world’s attention,
and perhaps his intent is to use their belief system as a representative
example of conservative Christians everywhere.
But surely he is not implying that conservative Christians later added
the doctrines of Original Sin and Christ’s Second Coming sometime after 1910! As is the case of the “Five Fundamentals,”
the two “latter” doctrines are unambiguously spelled out in Scripture and do
not require indoctrination by any particular individual or group. Because Mr. Shanbour’s thesis deals with
just one of these seven doctrines, I will for the time being consider the other
six beyond the scope of this response.
With these thoughts out of the
way, let us proceed with Mr. Shanbour’s discourse. I will continue to comment on his endnotes in similar manner and
as they avail themselves and as the situation merits.
With the first sentence of his
second paragraph, Shanbour has switched bait on his readers: “The following
paper is the result of both my research and proof that the Blood Atonement did
not have its origin in either God as revealed by the biblical Jesus or by Jesus
Christ himself as reflected in the Bible.”
Whereas in the previous paragraph (in fact the very previous sentence)
he stated that his task was to prove his assertions within the confines of the
entire Word of God (that is, all 66 canonical books of the Holy Bible), Mr.
Shanbour is now severely narrowing his scope to the four Gospels. He has therefore just lopped off the entire
Old Testament and the New Testament epistles without adequate justification. I suppose if I were to carve up the Koran as
much, I could eliminate Allah altogether, leaving the devout Muslim wondering
who it is he worships. But for the sake
of giving him audience, I will go along with Mr. Shanbour’s prosaic license. At least he is willing to accept the four
canonical Gospels as the true record of the words and deeds of Jesus.
Endnotes 5 and 6: One reason why most Protestants do not accept the
apocryphal books as canon is that they had been officially ratified by the
Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation. This move was viewed as a political ploy to
re-establish the authority of Roman Catholicism. Another reason Protestants reject the apocrypha as canon is that
the Old Testament apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bible do not pass
the test of authenticity on one or more account.[6]
Actually, the issue of canonicity
goes further back than the fourth century.
Although the various books of the New Testament had not been collected
and defined as “Scripture” during the late-first and early-second centuries,
Christian writers such as Polycarp and Ignatius were known to quote from the
Gospels and Paul’s letters. One of the
first lists of New Testament books is a document written about A.D. 190, called
the Muratorian Canon after its discoverer, L. A. Muratori, who first published
it in 1740. The document incorporates
the currently accepted canon, less Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John, and
including the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Although the list had subsequently changed,
by this time the churches had clearly accepted the idea of accepting Christian
Scriptures alongside with Jewish Scriptures, the later records fulfilling what
the former had promised. By the
mid-third and early-fourth centuries, church historians such as Origen and
Eusebius utilized slight variations of the canon list (excluding the Apocalypse
of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon).
Although the Easter letter drawn up by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria
in 367, followed by the Bishop Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397),
suggest a trend toward ecumenical finality, they were merely affirming what had
already been largely settled earlier.
Furthermore, the bishops involved certainly did not have the authority
to speak for (or to) the entire Christian church at large. Neither did Damasus, who was merely the
bishop of Rome at the time (366-384) and not a pope. Roman Catholicism had not established its primacy until 440 with
the installment of Leo I as
In Mr. Shanbour’s previous draft
of this article, he had asserted that the New Testament was canonized at the
Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. This
notion, along with that found in his final version, is popular among liberal
scholars, skeptics, and cultists alike who prefer to categorize the canon of
Scripture as an authoritative list of books rather than a list of authoritative
books. In other words, Shanbour’s
sources (or at least the ways in which he utilizes his sources) imply that the
canon’s authority resides in a religious body that controlled the selection
process by way of ecclesiastical fiat, rather than allowing the books to speak
for themselves. The New Testament canon
developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old
Testament canon did. Canonicity is determined
by God, and merely discovered (not determined) by God’s people.[8]
Endnotes 7 and 8: Mr. Shanbour is apparently familiar with Robert W. Funks The
Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (Polebridge Press, Sonoma Ca. and
HarperCollins Publishers Co., New York, 1993).
Although I have not yet read any of Funk’s works myself and therefore
should disqualify myself from commenting thereon, many scholars have pointed to
apparent flaws in Funk’s theories (and those of the Jesus Seminar in general).[9]
Endnote 9: Mr. Shanbour states emphatically that none of the New
Testament epistles provide any words from Jesus. He should have checked his red letter edition. Acts 1:4,7,8,
I sense that Mr. Shanbour would
prefer not to go in this direction, and therefore I assume that he intends to
ignore the post-resurrection words of Jesus as recorded in the canonical
Gospels. This action further narrows
the scope of what Shanbour deems as acceptable survey material with which to
prove his thesis. However, in the interest
of humoring him, I will for the time being accept his now further constricted
precept so that we may press on.
Endnote 10: Again, Mr. Shanbour attempts to imply that the atonement doctrine
is a notion that evolved through various historic paradigms and theological
shifts. Nothing could be further from
the truth; despite the attempts by several outspoken historic figures to voice
their sometimes exotic interpretations, the blood atonement speaks from
Scripture so plainly and clearly that a child could understand it (remind me to
demonstrate this later).
ENDNOTES (Introduction)
[1]. All biblical verses quoted herein are
taken from the New International Version translation of the Holy Bible, as is
the preference of Mr. Shanbour.
[2]. With apologies to Rodgers and
Hammerstein.
[3]. Michael
Shanbour, “A Gospel Account of Our Father and the Blood Atonement of Jesus”
[http://ubfellowship.org/archive/readers/atonement.html].
[4]. See Ex. 25:1; 30:11; Lev. 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:1; 8:1; 12:1;
14:1,33; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1; Num. 5:1; 6:1; 8:5; 15:17; 28:1; 35:9.
[5]. See Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under
Fire; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House (1995), p. 42, 43, 147, 149.
[6]. See “Bible, Canonicity of” in Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Grand Rapids: BakerBooks (1999), p.
80-86.
[7]. Bruce E.
Shelley, Church History in Plain Language;
[8]. See “What Really Happened at Nicea?” by James White, in Christian
Research Journal, July-August 1997, p. 30-34; “Lost Books and Latter-Day
Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the new Testament Canon” by Luke P.
Wilson, in Christian Research Journal, Fall 1996, p. 27-33; and “Bible,
Canonicity of” in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by
Norman Geisler, p. 80-85 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999).
[9]. Mr. Shanbour may want to check into the following resources
in order to get a balanced approach on the subjects that Funk and others
discuss: Craig Blomberg, “The Seventy-Four ‘Scholars’: Who does the Jesus
Seminar Really Speak for?” in Christian Research Journal (Fall 1994);
Gregory Boyd, Jesus Under Siege (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1995); D. A.
Carson, “Five Gospels, No Christ,” in Christianity Today (25 April
1994); “Jesus Seminar” in Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics, 386-88 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999); Gary Habermas,
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, Mo.:
College Press, 1996); Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under
Fire (Zondervan Publishing House, 1995).