18
Vicarious Atonement in the “Blood of the Lamb”
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of vicarious atonement has taken different forms in Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity. In Eastern Christianity, salvation is usually seen as being the gift of immortality and holiness granted to man by God as a consequence of Christ’s victory over death in his Easter resurrection. In contrast, Western Christianity has typically emphasized Christ’s death on the cross as being expiation for the sins of mankind and as reconciling God and man following an estrangement that had existed ever since “Adam’s initial fall from grace” by eating the forbidden fruit. Given this distinction, the concept of vicarious atonement in the “blood of the lamb” finds its fullest expression in Western Christianity.
WESTERN CHRISTIANITY AND VICARIOUS ATONEMENT
Little Biblical support for the doctrine of vicarious atonement can be found in the New Testament gospels, and what exists is quite ambiguous in content and meaning (e.g., Mark 10:45 & 14:22-24; and John 1:29). Thus, it is primarily in the New Testament epistles that one finds the Biblical basis for vicarious atonement, the basic points of which are as follows.
1) All mankind are sinners who have fallen short of salvation and the mercy and grace of God (Romans 3:23). 2) In part, we are all hopeless sinners and must die and be punished, because we have “inherited” the Original Sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-19; Romans 5:12). 3) Believing in God and following His laws and commandments is insufficient for salvation (Galatians 2:15-21 & 3:10a). 4) Christ died upon the cross as a blood sacrifice for our sins and to relieve us of the burden of Original Sin (Romans 3:23-25 & 5:8; Hebrews 10:10; I Corinthians 15:3 & 11:24-25; I Thessalonians 5:9-10; I Peter 2:24 & 3:18; and I John 1:7). 5) Through the blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus, we are reconciled to God (Romans 5:12-14; I Peter 3:18) and relieved from the duty to follow the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:10-13; Romans 3:28 & 7:6), so long as we believe in the alleged sacrifice on the cross of Jesus.
As can be seen from the above, the doctrine of vicarious atonement is based upon a series of assumptions, including: 1) that Jesus Christ was actually crucified, 2) that the crucifixion was part of the divine mission of Jesus, 3) that man was hopelessly estranged from God due to Adam’s Original Sin, 4) that following the divine law was insufficient, and 5) that only a vicarious and intercessory sacrifice could reconcile God back to man. Each of these assumptions is examined in turn.
THE CRUCIFIXION EVENT
Outside of the New Testament, there appear to be only two references to Jesus being crucified in the entire historical record of the first century. The first was made by Josephus bin Matthias, a first century Jewish historian, and the second by Tacitus, a first and second century Roman. Neither writer was a witness to the crucifixion event. For that matter, most Biblical scholars maintain that none of the New Testament authors who wrote about the crucifixion event were witnesses to the crucifixion. Nonetheless, the typical Christian will rightly insist that any attempt to question the crucifixion of Jesus must marshal an impressive array of documentation that there was serious controversy about whether or not Jesus was actually crucified. “Where is that documentation?” they may well ask. Although it may come as a shock to most Christians, the answer is that it is to be found within the writings of early Christianity itself.
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers frequently noted that there were Christian sects that rejected the proposition that Jesus had been crucified. Such references can be found in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. As a specific example, we can turn to Trallians, a book authored by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who died circa 110.
Ignatius wrote that there were Christians of his day who denied that Jesus was crucified in reality and maintained that he was crucified only in appearance or in illusion. Ignatius could not have been attacking a belief among early Christians that did not in fact already exist. His attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus’s crucifixion was only illusory demonstrates the existence of that belief among early Christians as early as 110, i.e., by the time of Ignatius’s death. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110.
In addition, careful research uncovers several apocryphal books once accepted by early Christianity stating that it was not Jesus Christ who was crucified. For example, the Apocalypse of Peter 81:4-82:33 maintained that Jesus was crucified only in appearance, not in reality, with the one who was crucified being a substitute or simulacrum of Jesus. Likewise, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth 55:10-56:25 stated that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but Simon (presumably Simon of Cyrene, who is identified in Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, and Luke 23:26 as being the person who carried Christ’s cross for him) and that Simon appeared as though he were Jesus. This position, i.e., that it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified in place of Jesus, was a cardinal tenet of the early Christian group known as Basilideans, which flourished in Egypt during the second century and which claimed to be based directly on the teachings of Glaucias, the alleged interpreter of Peter, the disciple of Jesus Christ. Additionally, the Acts of John 97-101 reported that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion.1
1 For a fuller discussion of these issues, as well as for the text of the cited passages from the various books of the New Testament apocrypha, see Dirks JF: The Cross and the Crescent. Beltsville, Amana Publications, 2001. Chapter 5.
It is not just within the so-called apocryphal writings that one finds evidence that it was not Jesus who was crucified. Matthew 27:11-26 states that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, gave the crowd a choice between releasing “Jesus who is called the Messiah” or “Jesus Barabbas.” (Any Christians who might wonder about the name “Jesus Barabbas” are urged to consult the New Revised Standard Version of Matthew 27:17 for this identification, which is based on some of the oldest surviving texts of this verse.) Matthew then goes on to state that the crowd chose Jesus Barabbas and that Pilate released Jesus Barabbas. Of note, Barabbas, i.e., “bar Abbas,” is not a given name, but is a patronymic, that is, a statement that one is the son of so-and-so. Translating from the Aramaic language, the language spoken by Jesus, “bar Abbas” may be translated as “son of the father.” In short, Matthew tells the discerning reader that Pilate released “Jesus, the son of the Father” and condemned a different Jesus who was claiming to be the Messiah, i.e., the anointed one. The Hebrew word from which the Anglicized “Messiah” is derived means “anointed one.” The anointed ones of Israel were the kings of Israel, the high priests of Israel, and some of the prophets of Israel. It can thus be cogently argued that the condemned prisoner was a Jesus who was a revolutionary and who was claiming to be the king of Israel, while the Jesus who was released was the “son of the Father.” The name Jesus is the Greek rendition of Joshua, which was a fairly common name at that time.
So, who was who? Does this help explain why Pontius Pilate was canonized as a saint by the Coptic Christian Church? Does one justify sainthood for the man who condemned Jesus or for the man who released him? Certainly, Matthew raises the very real question of who was actually released and who was actually crucified.
THE MISSION OF JESUS
If Jesus was not crucified, what does this say about the Christian doctrine of the atonement in the blood? After all, was not the crucifixion of Jesus the crowning pinnacle of his divine mission? Was it not an absolutely indispensable part of his divine work? In addressing these questions, one has only to turn to the New Testament to discover what Jesus reportedly had to say about these very questions. His answer appears to be reported in a prayer attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John. Of decided importance, John places this prayer prior to the crucifixion event.
Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:3-4)
“I … finished the work that You gave me to do” and did so prior to the crucifixion event. As reported by John, Jesus specifically excluded the later crucifixion event and alleged resurrection as being part of his “work which thou gavest me to do.” This would also negate any possibility that the “atonement in the blood” was in any manner part of the mission or work of Jesus Christ.
Of some interest with regard to this last point, Origen, perhaps the greatest Christian theologian of the third century, specifically rejected the concept that salvation came through the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and stressed that salvation was solely contingent upon man’s proper exercise of his own free will, i.e., by proper belief and action.
ORIGINAL SIN
The doctrine of Original Sin is a completely Western Christian concept, which is primarily drawn from a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 and is based on the assumption that every human inherits the sin of “Adam’s initial fall from grace” through conception via the act of sexual intercourse, an act that according to St. Augustine was contaminated by “concupiscence.” Thus, according to traditional Western Christianity, the whole of mankind inherits Adam’s Original Sin in eating of the forbidden fruit through being conceived through the sexual act. It should be emphasized at this point that the inheritance and concept of Original Sin are completely contrary to the religious teachings of Eastern Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but are indigenous to Western Christianity.
As typically portrayed in Western Christian literature, “Adam’s initial fall from grace” was a cataclysmic event, resulting in the following severe punishments that have accrued upon all humans ever since: 1) Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden and were forever barred from returning to it (Genesis 3:22-24); 2) Adam and his male descendants were specifically punished by being forced to till the “cursed” ground in order to find sustenance through “toil” and “the sweat of your face” (Genesis 3:17-19); 3) Eve and her female descendants were punished by the physical pain of childbirth and by having their husbands forever rule over them (Genesis 3:16); 4) All of humanity is punished by having to undergo death at the end of their lives in the earthly world (Genesis 3:22-24).
According to traditional Christian doctrine, “Adam’s initial fall from grace” was not directly attributable to any moral or spiritual failing in Adam but was specifically secondary to the ethical and religious turpitude of Eve, who having been deceived by Satan, then deceived her husband. Had it not been for Eve, Adam would never have fallen from grace. Thus, all the toil and suffering of humanity ever since that first fateful bite of the forbidden fruit can be laid directly at the doorstep of Eve and through her to all women.
for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. (I Timothy 2:13-15)
Eve deceived Adam, who was her moral and spiritual superior. It was Eve who succumbed to the temptations of Satan, not Adam. As such, Eve’s only hope for salvation, and after Eve for all women, was through undergoing the penance of the aforementioned physical pain of childbirth. But, the above verses from I Timothy are only the start of the process by which Western Christianity has traditionally attempted to lay the blame for all of the sins of humanity upon women. The Western Christian concept of women being to blame for Original Sin was further elaborated by the saints and theologians of early Western Christianity, such as Tertullian (De Cultu Feminarum) and St. Augustine (Enchyridion, chapter 26; letter #243; and The Literal Meaning of Genesis.)
Despite Romans 5:12-19 and the thinking of early theologians in Western Christianity, there are a number of Biblical references that cast severe doubt on there being any basis for a doctrine of Original Sin.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:20-21)
Furthermore, reason dictates that we will not be held accountable and judged on the basis of what our original progenitor did. Basic fairness allows no other conclusion.
FREED FROM THE LAW
As seen previously, Paul was at great pains to stress that the crucifixion event freed mankind from following the dictates of the divine law. But Paul’s position stands in sharp contrast to the reported words of Jesus Christ.
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven… (Matthew 5:17-19a)
…keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)
But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the law to fall. (Luke 16:17)
INTERCESSORY SACRIFICE
Can one actually be sacrificed for the sins of another? The following Biblical verses would appear to answer negatively and stress that each person must pay the price for his own sins.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
…it is only the person who sins that shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4b)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. (Ezekiel 18:20-22)
Moreover, Jesus appeared to be rejecting intercessory sacrifice for sins when he reportedly taught that the path to salvation was by keeping the commandments.
…but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19b)
Behold, one came to him and said, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” He said to him, “Why do you call me good?[a] No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:16-17)
A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Consider the following hypothetical example. Some people have done you a wrong. That wrong is so grievously distressing to you that you cannot find it in your heart ever to forgive them. You simply have no mercy left for those who have wronged you. But you do send your son to them to admonish them. In response, these same people kill your son in the most gruesome of ways. As a result of your son’s suffering and death at the hands of these people, you are now overcome with love and mercy for them, so you are finally able to forgive them. You are now able to forgive them, because they have killed your son. Does such a scenario really make any sense whatsoever? Yet, that is exactly what the doctrine of vicarious atonement in the “blood of the lamb” is all about.
THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
As can be seen from the above review, each and every one of the assumptions underlying the doctrine of vicarious atonement is a shaky foundation at best. As such, it is perhaps time to present what Islam has to say about these issues.
Like many early Christians, Islam rejects the idea that Jesus Christ was crucified. The basis of this rejection is found in the Qur’an.
…(they) boasted, “We killed Jesus, the Messiah, the son of Mary.” However, they didn’t kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them that they did. Those who argue about it are full of doubts and have no (concrete) information. On the contrary, they only follow theories, for they certainly didn’t kill him. Certainly not! God raised (Jesus) up to Himself, for God is powerful and wise. (Quran 4:157-158)
Like Judaism and Eastern Christianity, Islam rejects the concept of Original Sin. But, Islam goes even further and teaches that Adam and Eve were equally culpable when it came to eating of the forbidden fruit, thus totally negating the basis for the degradation of women found in Western Christianity. This can be seen by noting the plural pronouns in the following verse.
However, they (were tempted) by Satan and banished (from the home) where they had been. (Quran 2:36a)
Moreover, the Qur’an specifically states that God forgave Adam for his initial transgression, thus removing any sin that could possibly be inherited — as though such an inheritance were possible.
Then Adam learned words of repentance from his Lord, and He turned towards him in forgiveness, for He’s the Acceptor of Repentance, the Merciful. (Quran 2:37)
Finally with regard to Original Sin, both the Qur’an and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad reject the concept that babies are born into sin.
…so it is that We’ve created the human being in the best form. (Quran 95:4)
It is reported on the authority of Abu Mu’awiya that (the Holy Prophet) said: “Every new-born babe is born on the millat (of Islam and he) remains on this until his tongue is enabled to express himself.” (Muslim, Hadith #6427)
The Qur’an also stresses that each person will be held accountable for his own behavior, that no other can bear the burden of sinful behavior that one has accumulated, and that intercessory salvation is a forlorn hope.
…no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another, and that human beings shall have nothing more than what they strive for, and that the results of (each person’s) efforts will soon be seen—and then (each of them) will be paid back in full… (Quran 53:38-41)
On that day, no one’s intercession will do any good, save for those who were given permission (to intercede) by the Compassionate, and whose speech is acceptable to Him. (Quran 20:109)
…and how can you comprehend what the Day of Judgment will mean? That day, no soul will be able to help another at all. (On that day), all power to command will belong to God alone. (Quran 82:18-19)
Within Islam, salvation is seen as being contingent upon a person’s belief in the absolute Oneness and Unity of God. But, faith without works is insufficient. Given that a correct monotheistic belief is present, final judgment is based upon a weighing of each person’s behavior and intentions throughout life. Fortunately for all concerned, this weighing is heavily tempered by the abundant mercy of God.
Whoever does something good will be given ten times as much to his credit, while whoever does an evil thing will be credited with one bad deed, and no one will ever be treated unfairly. (Quran 6:160)
(Excerpt from book "Easily Understand Islam")
Click to read sample chapters from the book below
Table of Contents
Why is there Evil and Suffering?
Why I Believe in God — A Muslim Speaks
The Quran, Modern Science, and More
Islam & Racism
Islam: A Solution for America’s Social Problems?
Some Muslim Virtues (Sayings of the Prophet)
Section IV: Islam & Christianity
Common Ground: Judaism, Christianity & Islam