On the question of what it takes for mortal humans to enter heaven after death, the modern evangelical church teaches that Jesus Christ died for our sins in an act of atonement, a belief based primarily on the teachings of the Apostle Paul in his letters to the churches of his time that have been preserved as part of the New Testament.Central to that is the role of Jesus in that "salvation": yet Jesus himself in his teaching seemed to promote a different gospel which centred around the need for behavioral action, with little more than a single passing reference in the four gospels that He played any part in it (Matt. 26:28). Sodoes Jesus offer us the path to Salvation because he taught us the path we should follow, or because he died for our sins in an Atonement? Through the examination of the words of the Old Testament prophets, the teachings of Jesus, the teachings of Paul and how they differ one from the other, we shall find the answer to that question.
Those who teach salvation through Atonement do not deny or ignore themoral teachings of Jesus, centered on universal compassion expressed in behavioral action, and readily argue that they make the world a better place in this life and are the perfect behaviour code for Christians to follow. As to whether these teachings continue to better our existence after death, a big question mark is often raised. This response seems to show a total disregard for human accountability in achieving salvation which was central to Christ's teaching.
The need for Atonement hinges on the concept that mankind is sinful by nature, he does not have the capacity within himself to rise above this sin. The theology is that God in His perfection cannot tolerate an unclean person or thing in his presence, so it was neccessary for God to instigate a system of Atonement. Having deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin, God instigated a system of animal sacrifice in which an unblemished animal would be killed as a substitute for a person, its death bringing appeasement of God's anger and acceptance by that person into God's presence. The use of animal sacrifices was only ever intended as a temporary measure until Christ had lived his life without sin, and was sacrificed on the cross as the permanent once-and-for-all sacrifice. His death atoned for all mankind, on the proviso that they repented of their sin and believed Christ died in their place and in so doing, He had paid a ransom for their sin. This was a free gift, there is nothing they can do or have to do in exchange for it.
The scenario goes something like this: "I need to be pure or of perfect goodness in order to enter the kingdom of god. But I am blemished with sin, a stain that I am incapable of washing out myself. My lack of goodness constitutes a debt, but lacking the requisite goodness, I am not able to pay this debt myself." Therefore, I need someone perfect (of enough pure goodness) who has the capacity, or richness, or affordability to pay the debt on my behalf." Thus, the need of a saviour or mediator.
The starting point for all of these theories is the alienation from God brought about by humankind's sins. This alienation is what allowed the Devil to gain influence over us and lead us into even greater sin.In some theories the first step in solving the problem is to free humankind from the Devil's influence. In other theories that step can be skipped, because Satan will automatically be pushed aside if we reconcile with God.Theoretically, the ideal solution for the sin problem would be for everyone to reform themselves and start living in accordance with God's wishes. Many Christians believe that the power of sin is too great over humankind to be broken without divine intervention, therefore any reconciliation between God and us requires a divine action.
The simplest action would appear to be for God to simply forgive everyone unconditionally. According to those who view Jesus' death as being an atonement, God was either unwilling or unable to do this, and so another way to bring about the reconciliation had to be found.So why God didn't just forgive us outright, without requiring a sacrifice first? There are several possible explanations, known as Atonement Theories.
Something for nothing: The first problem with the concept of Atonement is that it can be motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. It's any easy gospel that preaches all you have to do is believe and you will be saved. It attracts those into the Kingdom who don't really want to be there but are there simply because they don't like the alternative (eternity in hell). Such a reason for being in God's kingdom (fear of God's wrath if they don't sign up) is hardly a sound basis upon which to form a loving relationship with God, and the need for repentance can be and often is downplayed if not ignored completely. The gospel Jesus preached came with a price (Mark 8: 34) - denying one's self, taking up one's cross (die to self) and following Jesus. The New Testament's documentation of the life of Jesus points to a price having to be paid for our salvation, but it is the person desirous of salvation who has to to pay the price, not Jesus, which the concept of Atonement declares.
Accountability: Atonement does not take into consideration that God holds everyone accountable for their own actions (Romans 12:14) and that every man with be judged of God according to their own works (Rev. 20:13). These verses leave no room for one such as Jesus to accept accountability for or stand in the place of another and receive punishment or judgement on their behalf. Jesus always taught that God treats and judges us by the way we treat and judge others (Matt 7:1-2; Luke 6: 37): "Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall not be condemned: forgive, and you shall be forgiven." The way we forgive others determines whether or not we are forgiven - substitutionalatonement plays no part in it if Jesus' words are to be believed. In Matthew 5 Jesus declared: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ... Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy ... Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." Again, there is no mention by Jesus of sacrifical atonement playing any part in accessing the kingdom of God, in obtaining mercy or in seeing God. It comes down to whether our actions, words and deeds line up with His.
Mankind's unclean state: Sacrificial atonement states that we are stained by sin, and that sin, or the stain it leaves must be washed away. This comes about as a result of no "unclean" thing (or person) being able to survive in the presence of a perfect God. Sacrificial atonement is predicated on the fact that God cannot have imperfect sinners in his presence, however this same God (incarnate as Jesus) embraced the lowliest and most sinful and sought them in his presence! If Jesus was God, one cannot logically believe that God cannot abide the presence of sinners, since Jesus embraced, touched and loved sinners in his presence. It also presents a somewhat wimpy view of an omnipotent, all-powerful deity. Either He is incapable of withstanding the presence of one "tainted" with "sin", or is incapable of creating the right times and situations where one so tainted might be able to approach his divine presence should they so desire. Both seem to be unrealistic limitations on the power of the Almighty God. [Compare Romans 8:38-39: "Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is Jesus Christ our Lord."]
A loving but omnipotent God should have the ability to condescend to the level of imperfect sinners and make them feel comfortable in his presence. In our modern world, highly educated medical professional go into emergency rooms to care for those covered with blood and dirt or risk their lives ("greater love hath no man") in the presence of those with deadly incurable communicable diseases; counselors work with those who are drug addicts, poor, in jail, or abused to help them find a better way; and teachers condescend to the level of those who are uneducated to lead them out of ignorance. 2,000 years ago, Jesus made those who were dirty, poor and reviled to feel comfortable in his presence. He touched lepers, forgave sinners, blessed the poor and consorted with tax collectors. It was the central message from Jesus: it was his first teaching, his last teaching and the foundation of his teaching in between.Near the beginning of his ministry, in the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew, Jesus reportedly taught us to love our enemies ... bless them that curse you ... go the extra mile ... Did God have one rule for us and for Jesus, but had another for Himself? I think not because, after all, Jesus was the revelation of the Father (John 14:8-9; 1 John 1:2).
If God is our spiritual father, then shouldn't He at least measure up to the standards of imperfect, puny mortal fathers? If my son does something wrong, or got "dirty," I still have the ability (as weak and imperfect as I am compared to a God) to stoop to his level, hold him close to me and try to help him through the problem. His imperfection, even if it required some form of punishment or discipline, would not prevent me from being able to remain close to him, if I really loved him. It might require some form of remedial attention, but that would not mean a permanent separation. So how can it be claimed that a God described as being all powerful and all-loving can't remain close to his spiritual children if that's what he wants? He seemed to be able to do that with the wayward Jews, if the Old Testament account of His relationship with them, from the time they left Egypt for the Promised Land and beyond, is to be believed? Why has God suddenly changed?Is He all powerful or isn't He? Why does he need a mediator? And if Jesus is really God, and they are one and the same, then he isn't really an intercessor or mediator at all.
If a perfect being needed to "take upon himself" the sins of others, why couldn't God just do it himself? If Jesus, assuming the debt, has the right to forgive it, why doesn't the original debtholder? Why not just be efficient and cut out the middleman (which is, literally, what the "mediator" is)? Why can this omnipotent deity forgive after being crucified but not before? How does Jesus' torture give an omnipotent God more power to forgive than He already had? And, if one holds a concept of trinity which says that Jesus is God, then, in fact, there is no mediator or middleman. God is just punishing himself, so what exactly is the point? What is accomplished? Wouldn't it be easier all round if He just forgave us. That's what he asks us to do with each other after all. If indeed there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, does that mean we really are not forgiven if we forgive one another unless the shedding of blood takes place? Why would God declare the practice of blood sacrifice unneccessary and not what he wants, only to sacrifice His own son as a blood sacrifice? This doctrine makes no sense whatsoever.
Suffering for all the sins of humankind:The concept of atonement often includes the belief that Jesus also took upon himself the suffering for all the sins of all persons who have ever lived, now alive or will ever live. If Jesus could take away the pain and suffering of those victims, and transfer the entire victimhood away from them and solely to himself, this concept might carry a little more merit, but we all know that didn't happen. No victims has been totally relieved of their suffering; everyone of us has endured some level of suffering for others' sins against us so we all know that it didn't happen. If Jesus just added another instance of that suffering to himself, then all you have is an increase of suffering, and for what? Let's imagine the worst possible crime: an evil, malicious man kidnaps, molests, tortures and ultimately murders an innocent young child. The child suffers terribly through every phase of this crime. The fact that Jesus died on the cross or even re-experienced all that suffering does not undo or eliminate the suffering of that child. Even a smaller sin, like schoolyard bullying or taunting someone who is "different" - the victim has suffered, and Jesus' death did nothing to change that. As for the perpetrator of the crime, few if any suffer as a result of committing a crime unless they are caught and are brought to justice, so there is no suffering by the perpetrator for Jesus to take upon himself.
If Jesus' death was seen by God as the payment of a ransom, who did He pay it to? Wa it to the Devil, who some say owns our souls because we are imprisoned in sin (Satan having "kidnapped" our souls). If so, it begs the question, would God pay off a ransom to a criminal? If He is more powerful than Satan, why could He not overpower Satan and take back to himself what was rightfully His? Or did Jesus pay this "ransom" to God - the supreme judge of the eternal court? That then begs the question, does God extort the payment of ransoms like a common kidnapper? And if Jesus is God, then he was paying the ransom to himself? And what of mankind's free will? As God is a fair and just God who holds us all to be accountable for their own selves, we must thereore be living in sin by choice rather than under the control of the Devil.
Then there is the question of the reason for a ransom. The Bible says "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The consequence of sin is Hell [Matt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; Mk 9:43, 47; Rev 20:14-15 and many more], therefore our final destiny is Eternal Death. If the price we must pay for rejecting the payment of the ransom on our behalf is Eternal Death, and Jesus paid the price for us, the must have paid the same price: Eternal Death. Since He is alive today, He couldn't have paid the price otherwise He'd still be dead. Is He in hell? No. Is he suffering eternal separation from God? No! He lives! He is not dead - He is at the right hand of God!He clearly conquored death. Clearly He didn't suffer Eternal Death, therefore He didn't pay the price.To get around that, the death Jesus suffered is seen by many as being just a physical death and not an Eternal one, but that doesn't add up either. If physical death isthe price one pays the price of sin, and Jesus paid it for Christians, then Christians should never physically die. Christian or non-Christian do die, so we therefore all will end up paying for our sins, so why do we need a surrogate to pay it for us?
Part of the problem with the concept of blood atonement is that it does not address the nature of sin - what "sin" is - and thus how to become cleansed from it. "Sin" is not a tangible, physical object, like a ball that you can throw or catch or hold onto or give from one person to another. Sin is an intangible function of character, representing the negative aspects of character flaws just as virtue represents the positive aspects of character goodness. While one might use allegoric examples from the physical world to illustrate ideas, the literal belief that you can transfer sin from one person (the sinner) to another (a guiltless substitute) is absurd because it contravenes the very nature of sin. And, in fact, the absurdity of saying that Jesus took upon himself all the suffering for sin is made clear by the fact that, as a consequence of mortals' sins, the original participants (both perpetrators and victims) do not have their suffering transfered to Jesus. They still suffer fully, so if Jesus also suffered, all that happened was a doubling of the suffering, which is hardly an act of either justice or mercy. Killing Jesus did not undo the original sins he supposedly took upon himself or the suffering resulting from them.
The nature of sin is that of a negative form of consciousness, of thought, of motive, of spirit - in some way that intangible energy of life force in its negative expression. As previously stated, it is not an object that can be bought, sold, lent, owed, or the object of indebtedness. If I am burdened by sin, there is no physical action that another person can take to remove it as sin is a deliberate action taken on my part. The only thing another person can do is reach me at the applicable level of consciousness, of thought, of motive, or spirit involved - by condescending to my sinful level, and teaching me what is right, or developing in me right values, attitudes, feelings and motives that will lead to changed feelings and a new life, which is the principle at the core of the teachings of Jesus. The process requires the setting in motion of internal processes that enable us to reach out to others unselfishly and cultivate spiritual, internal peace and happiness. In the same way, overcoming sin or evil is one of a transformational process on the inside, not by trying to hand it off to someone else.
While the Old Testament clearly has symbolic gestures of sin transference such as animal sacrifices (detailed in the first and third chapters of Leviticus and numerous other references) and the infamous "scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:9-10), Paul is the one who seems to have adapted this to a literal transference with Jesus as the human sacrifice. While Jesus' role in the forgiveness for sin is mentioned throughout the New Testament, only Paul advances the concept of sin transference.Additionally, Paul is the only one, without reinforcement from any other writer and, in fact, specifically contradicting numerous other New Testament references including the words of Jesus, who says that this atonement occurs completely apart from the requirement of any behavioral component of works or deeds (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:1-9; Titus 3:5). Many Bible teachers, including Jesus himself, do emphasize the need for faith - but always in conjunction with the ensuing behavioral action which follows. Paul stands alone in teaching that faith can exist apart from behavioral response or character transformation.
The analogy of comparing the atonement to "paying the debt" is inappropriate in regards to the administration of justice. It is applicable to a civil debt, and not a criminal violation (punishment for disobeying laws). While we might appreciate that one person can pay the debt of another, we would never tolerate innocent people being punished for guilty ones. If a convicted serial murder/rapist pleads guilty to multiple counts of murder and rape, would we allow a law-abiding relative or friend to volunteer to step in and serve his prison time (or be executed) in his place? That would not be an execution of justice. And if this is how our salvation was obtained, why is it that in the many parables Jesus told to explain the the kingdom of Heaven, never once does he make even the remotest reference to the payment of a debt on another's behalf.
The Apostle Paul describes salvation as an act of grace (Ephesians 2:8) and at the same time declares that Jesus' death on the cross was an act of sacrificial atonement. These two concepts are contradictory. For an act of atonement to take place, the penalty required by the law for a trasgression must have been satisfied in full.Grace, by definition, is unmerited favour, so if Jesus paid in full man's debt to God in accordance with the law, and God accepted it, there is no show of grace or mercy on God's part whatsoever. Jesus is shown no mercy because he is allowed to pay the penalty in full; mankind is shown no mercy because God will not reconcile with him until the penalty has been paid in full. By accepting the payment in full, God is simply administering justice.
In terms of the administration of law, unmerited favour is shown only when a pardon is given. For example, if a pardon is extended to a convicted person, it is not extended because the person has had a conviction overturned. Such a person is exonerated. A pardon is granted as an act of unmerited favour (grace) towards a person previously found guilty, whose sentence has not been satisfied in accordance with the requirements of the law. Though technically still guilty, the pardon nullifies the conviction. Such an act of unmerited favour can only be granted by the lawmaker himself who alone has the power to nullify the law because they created the law under which the person was tried and found guilty in the first instance. Such appears to be the case when God extended forgiveness to mankind. John 3:16, which is seen by many as the gospel in a nutshell, clearly describes an act of grace, not the administration of justice, which by definition is what sacrificial atonement is.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, if salvation comes by the substituional death of God's son, why did not Jesus have the father send his eldest son to die in order that the younger son could be reconciled to himself? Here was the perfect opportunity to illustrate Jesus' role as the atoning substitute but it is not even hinted at. Instead it is the wayward son who had to make the move towards his father, and it is by repentance and changing his ways that he is reconciled to his father. According to Jesus, repentance, followed by keeping the laws one previously broke, is how one enters the kingdom of Heaven. To the woman caught in adultry, he did not say "you are forgiven, being no longer under the law, but grace"; rather he said "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
Jesus explicity and emphatically rejects Paul's teaching, referenced in the preceding paragraphs, of a salvation theology based on atonement through human sacrifice. The gospel according to Matthew twice (Matt 9:13 and Matt 12:7) states that Jesus said: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" (KJV). More modern translations, such as the RSV and NIV, update the archaic meaning of the word "will" and translate Jesus' statements in both verses as: "I require mercy and not sacrifice." This could not be a more explicit rejection of Paul's later teaching.When asked by a lawyer what is the "greatest commandment" in the law, Jesus reportedly quoted from the Old Testament law to love god [Deut 6:5] and love your neighbor as yourself [Lev 19:18], see Luke 10:25-37 and Matt 22:36-40. Note further, that in the Luke account, this was illustrated by an example, the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was used to define "neighbour" very broadly, to include enemies. The Samaritan (the lowest of the outcasts) is the one who exemplifies this broad definition, and who provides the example of one who is saved by their compassionate actions toward their enemy. Yet the Samaritan is not even a believer, not one having "faith" and not one who has accepted Jesus as saviour, yet this is who Jesus nominates as the one who gains eternal life.
Near the end of his ministry, Jesus is described by Matthew as teaching that salvation would be based on our love for God, which God equates directly to how we treat those whom he called "the least of these" (Matt 25:31-46). In his own actions, Jesus consistently expressed love and closeness to sinners, lepers, tax collectors and other outcasts, while saving his rare words of harshness and anger for the Pharisees and Saducees - the pompous, self-righteous administrators of the established religious orthodoxy.
In John 17; 5-7, Jesus, in a prayer to His Father, said, "I have finished the work which you gave me to do," an interesting declaration considering He had yet to die on the cross. Jesus did not see that death in the same light as many christians, or as significant as the concept of sacrifical atonement gives it. He then goes on to say what the work was that he was sent to do, and it wasn't dying on the cross for the sins of the world: "I have manifested your name to the men which you gave me out of the world: yours they were, and you gave them me; and they have kept your word. Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are of you." Read the rest of the prayer and it reads very much like a signing off letter after the completion of a job well done rather than "I'm just about to tackle the main task I was sent to do".
The irony in all this is that Jesus, in what he is reported to have taught throughout his ministry as chronicled in the Gospels, never spoke of salvation coming as a result of an "atonement"; rather, His was a consistent message of universal compassion which provided the means for character reformation and growth that actually can transform the sinner. By so doing, one meets God's requirement of mankind (Micah 6:8), and as a consequence, inherits the kingdom of heaven, obtains mercy and sees God (Matthew 5). Yet Jesus is remembered and worshipped as a saviour for his suffering and death on the cross, and resurrection which became an "atonement" for sin. In cruel irony, this off-centered emphasis, founded in motives of selfishness, along with a preoccupation with rituals, ceremonies and unrelated lesser teachings, distracts most of Jesus' followers from primary attention to his core teaching - to repent and change one's self in order to be acceptable to God.
Design by W3layouts
