Jesus 37 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 04 Sin Atonement 2
Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
File Size: 7.18MB
Today we have our 37th on Jesus to be dealt with messenger of Allah. Our topic today will be our fourth on Trinity atonement Amba sacrifice. In particular we will talk about atonement in the New Testament. I'm your host Charlemagne here once again from St. Mary's University, is Dr. Delgado Estrella conducted commodities
club, we started off with a summary of last week's program,
which is to give a sort of summary of the doctrine of sin and atonement, how is it related to Adam and Eve and how the entire humanity Felt with the fall of Adam and Eve, and the necessity for divine redemption.
And then we inquired first, whether this doctrine has any basis in the Bible, beginning with the Old Testament, we expected first to examine the evidences that are approved that's normally presented as a base for that. And we find that at best, this is the inconclusive evidence, because it doesn't really clearly say that the divine must die in order to save humanity.
We examine the counter evidence, and we find that that was much more conclusive and clear. And it clearly shows that it is possible to achieve atonement, through repentance, sincere repentance, without the necessity of blood sacrifice, and we have given no less than 11 quotations from the book of Deuteronomy, Paris, Samuel, in the Psalms of David from Jeremiah from Ezekiel, the book of Isaiah, there are several of them.
And then we move to the New Testament. We asked, first did Jesus or was Jesus ever quoted as teaching the doctrine of atonement as has been accepted later by the church, and we have found that he really didn't say that.
In fact, he himself emphasized repentance also emphasized commitment, and following the commands of God without the necessity of blood sacrifice. And we made some references, especially to Matthew 721, Mark 1125, Luke 747.
We indicated that according to rush that one of the biblical scholars, the only questionable expressions, attributed to Jesus peace be upon him is the use of the term that he came as a ransom for many, and also the language which is used in the Last Supper. But according to him, also, he said that these seem to be ecclesiastical additions that can leave us with the clergy and church. And that even if we were to assume that these statements attributed to Jesus were genuine. There are a number of problems because it is not consistent, or they are not consistent with the rest of his teaching about the love of God and His forgiveness, forgiving quality. And also, he said, that it is
impossible to imagine that Jesus thought that so clearly, and people understood it around him. And immediately everybody forgot that. And Jesus said, Forget that, at the time of his arrest, when he was praying that God may take the cup away from him. So he said, the logic of it, if you look at it in the context of the Bible does not seem to show that Jesus really ever taught the doctrine as formulated later on. I asked him about the counter evidence, even counter evidence from the New Testament and New Testament, you mentioned the Old Testament.
Okay, when in the New Testament, we find like the Old Testament, but not only is the proof presented as a positive proof, very weak and inconclusive, but we find that also there is a clear counter evidence to to the doctrine itself. Just to give you a few quick examples, in Matthew chapter nine, verse 13, Jesus peace be upon him was almost repeating almost verbatim, what was referred to previously in the Old Testament. I desire mercy
not sacrifice, the basic principle that we have quoted extensively last time from the Old Testament. And the famous
incident reported in the Gospel according to Matthew chapter 19, verses 16 to 19.
When somebody told him, you know, good Master, and so on,
Jesus simply refers to the 10 commandments, he didn't say, in order to achieve salvation, you must believe in the divine dying for the sins of humanity or me as dying for, for your sins. That was not mentioned. In the Gospel, according to Mark in chapter 10, verse 14,
he was telling about the children,
that to those children belongs the kingdom of heaven. He never said that those children are born sinners, and that they have absolutely no chance of salvation unless they accept the concept of atonement, which actually, like I said, was developed by, by Paul, the same thing might be relevant. In the New Testament, the parables of the last Chief, the last coin, the President, traditions, there are several incidents and stories in the New Testament, which really open the way for atonement and
repentance, I should say, without necessarily the idea of bloodshed of the Son of God, or gallican.
Is the doctrine of atonement
is not based on the Old Testament, or the teachings of Jesus. Well, then, who introduced one it is believed widely that actually the main architects of that doctrine was Paul as the one who really presented the foundation for that. And he actually played the most important role also in propagating this particular doctrine. I must note here, and that will be repeated because I think it's quite relevant, that Paul was neither one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, nor even an eyewitness of Jesus during his entire ministry, that I think would be relevant.
That might raise a question as to where did Paul,
come come up with this ideas?
Where did he get this doctrine from? Other than what has been revealed already or thought to other disciples? But in any case, that question, we will address a little later about the origin of that notion in all mythology, but we will focus here just for the fullness of presentation in terms of giving a chance of a hearing for what Paul really has to say about it,
which I think could be summarized very briefly, in five basic points, one, every child is born or come into this world, as a sinner.
An infant even to
salvation does not depend on good works or following the law. But by accepting the death of Christ, or Jesus on our behalf as penalty for sin, three,
that Jesus was a heavenly being, or was heavenly being who existed with God, before he came to earth. But despite of these three points, the other two are quite interesting.
The first point is that Jesus is actually distinct from God. And for example, First Corinthians chapter eight, verse six, which was in a previous program, he says that there's only one God, the Father, and one Lord was teacher, Jesus Christ, so they don't distinguish between both. But the fifth point is even more significant. He says that Jesus, or indicate that Jesus was not only distant from God, but subordinate to God, always subordinate to him, not equal to him. For example, in his letter to the Philippians, in chapter two, verses five to eight, you speaks about Jesus peace be upon him as a servant, who became obedient unto death. So he's still subordinated to the Father
or subordinated to God. This is just In brief, really, which is not very different from the summary that we made earlier, in a previous program goes with what that tournament really means. So there's no doubt and this is definitely a very important topic. And because of that, maybe I'll ask you for some more documentation as to how Paul presented his views. You want to hear it more or less like from the horse's mouth. What I do have actually a compilation of a number of,
of his statements, at least eight of them, so perhaps I can read them so that hopefully there'll be no bias my
itself trying to reword it or put it in different terms. Again, we have to be fair, even though we may not necessarily accept something we have to at least to listen to what it says in Romans, chapter three verses 23 and 24. He speaks about the generality, or the universality of sin. And he says, since all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by His grace as a gift, through the through the redemption, which is in Jesus Christ. And the symbol of Romans, chapter five, verses eight and nine, it speaks about the significance of the death of Jesus. And he says, Christ died for us. And later on, he says, We are now justified with his blood, which is very
similar to what he said elsewhere in First Corinthians chapter 15, verse three,
in the book of Romans also chapter five, verse 18, he addresses the consequences of sin, and righteousness. And he says, as one man's trespass, that Adam,
led to the condemnation of all men. So one man's act of righteousness, leads to acquittal, and life for all men.
And the following verse actually 19 he emphasized again, that with one disobedience or disobedience of one person, everybody became sinner, and with the obedience of one person, that's Jesus, everybody become, can become righteous.
In the same book, the book of Romans actually is full of this, you know, ideas. In chapter six, verse 14, he addresses the people and says you are not are not under the law, but under grace. That's what's more important in his mind. The same basic
notion is emphasized in Galician, chapter two, verse 16, when he says, Man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.
In Romans, again, if we get back to Romans, chapter 10, verse 13, it says, everyone calls, records upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That's it. I mean, this is the main thing in his mind.
in First Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 2122, he makes a comparison between Adam and Jesus. And he says,
For as by Eman came
by Amen, has come, also the resurrection of the dead, that's with one men, Adam came this are sent into the world, and with one man, or through one man, Jesus came, also the resurrection of the dead, and then continues For as in Adam, all die, so also in Christ, shall all be made alive. And that's quite similar to Romans 512, when you again speaks about sin coming into the world through one man.
The seventh condition is in the book of Hebrews, chapter nine, verse 22, in which he says, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. This is a very key petition that reflects the attitude towards this notion of acceptance. without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. So it excludes any other way of achieving salvation except the shedding of blood and of course, in that case, the blood of Jesus so Paul's notion is really quite
clear that quotation, and the final one in the eighth quotation, he speaks about the mission of Jesus peace be upon him.
That again, in the book of Hebrews, chapter two, verse nine,
and he again till the people that
the suffering of Jesus and His death so that he might taste death for everyone, but Jesus might test this for, for everyone, like I said earlier,
or not, by any means, making these quotations by way of accepting what they imply or accepting false theory, but hopefully trying, as much as humanly possible to have a sense of fairness. But before we criticize something or try to analyze, we have to find first what does it say
helpfully from the standpoint of the main proponents of the doctrine is mentioned Paul's news.
Is that view more or less in line with other writers of the New Testament? during that time? Yes, then in one sense, you could say that are some similarities, especially on the part of those who have been quite influenced by the kitchen of porn, like Peters, like his student, Luke, for example, the author of one of the four Gospels. But we find also that some of the disciples did not necessarily take the same line or to the same line as Paul did.
And even among those who might have held some similarity in approach to porn,
they were not as explicit about this doctrine of atonement as Paul was. So it's not really that clear. In other words, there may be some similarity, but it's not really that decisive. They're not exactly the same religion, the way they expressed their views. You told us, they're not the same. Maybe you can give us examples of this to clarify. Okay, let's take one person who has been greatly influenced by Paul even though he used to be the head of the disciples, the chief of disciple Peter. And, again, we describe the impact of Paul on Peter in some previous programs as to how the documents developed within the church. But anyway, in the first letter of Peters,
chapter one verses 1819, we find that on one hand, to be fair, Peter actually is addressing the people in verse 18. and say, You are not are you know, that you were ransom from the few tidal waves inherited from your fathers.
That is through the blood of Jesus and verse 19, that is with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an end, without blemish or spot. So we find that, and then since he speaks in a language that seems to be somewhat similar to Paul or carries the influence of the teaching of Paul, but on the other hand, we find that Peter also emphasizes
as an important element of salvation, not just the blood as an exclusive thing, but faith in God and purification of the soul. For example, in verse 13,
he says, he focuses on behavior, be wholly yourselves in all your conduct, verse 22, he focuses on confidence in God,
as a prerequisite for salvation. Through Him, you have confidence in God that's through Christ, you should have confidence in God who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God, not in just the blood of the Son of God.
In in chapter two of the same first letter, Peter's
first epistle, he says, put away all malice, and all Guile and insincerity and envy, and all slanders
like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it, you may grow up in salvation.
Of course, we're not saying at all, that good behaviors and purification of the soul are opposite, or the exact opposite of atonement through blood sacrifice, as Paul presented. But what you're seeing here basically, is that, unlike Paul, who speaks very conclusively And clearly, without bloodshed, there is no salvation. Let's it there's enough distributed evenly, you know, sacrificial blood of Jesus peace be upon him. But Peter, he speaks about that in an in some weak way, but comes back again, to emphasize the importance of behaviors and purification. So there is no consistent theme in Peters views that shows that the substitutionary sacrifice or compulsive, vicarious
sacrifice is the base or the only thing for achieving salvation. Well, let's now talk a few words about Luke. What has he been doing? Well, like I said before, of course, Luke was a student and was believed to be the personal physician also called so he's very much influenced by him.
But the interesting things about Paul's view, I sorry about Luke's view
illustrated by the variation of the question.
of what has been attributed to Luke for a long, long time for centuries. And that could be done very easily. And I would suggest to some viewers wish to research it for their own as they did to just get two copies of the King James version and the Revised Standard Version. And to open Gospel according to Luke, chapter 22, verses 17, to 20. And we find amazing things. First of all,
in the King James Version,
we find that in the language of the Last Supper, it is because attributed to Jesus, that he said to things quite explicitly,
that he said that he's the bread that he gives to the disciple represents his body, and that should be taken in remembrance of him.
Secondly, in the King James Version, it speaks also about Jesus after the supper, passing a cup among his disciples and say, that this is the New Testament in my blood, which should for you,
that's occasions, the old day, okay. Now, obviously, when you look at this version of the Bible, it will appear somewhat
confirming to the idea of substitutionary sacrifice, at least it appears so you know, and I see it appear so not definitely because again, to say, even to say that this blood was shed for you, does not necessarily mean that this is the blood for forgiveness, because you can say, a martyr or he'll might be sacrificing himself or his life, for the sake of others, but not necessarily the substitutionary sacrifice to atone for Original Sin, which has a specific meaning and a specific implication.
But the most interesting thing that they noted that when you compare that with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, there are major differences, major differences, first of all, in
one verse, it speaks about the breads, already being mind body, but stops at that that's investment, that Jesus said, Take this bread, it is mind body, but it omits, it emits What is there in King James Version, that this is in remembrance
of Munich, or which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me, that part
is left out. It simply says in the footnotes, other ancient manuscripts are authorities. At this bet. Of course, as we know, the Revised Standard Version claims to be a result of a great deal of research, scholarly research by biblical scholars to the body actually contains the more authentic as they seem something which is really the most ancient or the most authentic, or both.
The other difference, which is even more significant, is that the entire verse number 20, inclusions version is totally dropped out in the Revised Standard Version, the entire verse, actually, if you go to the Revised Standard Version, in Luke chapter 22, you find that verse 19, is there's there's no 20 and the jumps to 21. There is a gap there.
And simply in the footnote, again, it says that other ancient authorities add, and then it speaks about the password. Jesus said that this is the cup that you pass is the testament or the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But that's very significant work.
To be dropped in the morgue, or claimed more authentic translation of the Bible shows that that particular edition is not exactly as authentic as the rest and perhaps it could have been an ecclesiastical tradition that was made method to the text of the Bible, which was discovered by scholars
believe that Paul and john are self similar in their views, that also apply to the issue of atonement.
When this there are some basic similarity between the poor lien and Java nine as the call theology,
but even if you examine the gospel according to john, quite carefully,
which by the way, is rather different in many respects as biblical scholar indicates, from the first three so called synoptic gospels, we will find again that there are some basic differences when, by way of generations orientation, of course, the gospel of
JOHN speaks about the crucifixion of Jesus peace be upon him as a manifestation of the love of God as a good example of self sacrifice. However, let's look at, you know, three or four references in the Gospel
of john, in chapter 14, verse 21, he says, quote, Jesus has saved, he, who has My commandments and clips, and keeps them, he, it is who loves me, and he who loves me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and manifests Myself to him.
Not to say that Jesus is not saying whoever loves me and believe that I am paying the penalty for sin or the sin of Adam and Eve, and so on. He emphasizes good deeds, see, who keeps my commandments, he didn't say my beliefs in my blood.
And then he indicates that whatever he says, as we have seen in the Gospel in the same gospel of john, Chapter 14, verse 24, that whatever he says, is only what
the Lord who sent to him taught him. So he's not talking on his own authority, but he's communicating the Word of God that he
communicated to him. A second condition will be also quite relevant.
In chapter 17, verse four, and john, again,
Jesus is quoted as saying, I glorified v on Earth, addressing God
hasn't accomplished the work, which thou gavest me to do.
This is quite significant, because that appears in chapter 17, in john, and before the incident, are attributed an incident of unrest and crucifixion of Jesus.
Now, if Jesus here at that point of time, when there was no arrest, or crucifixion says that I have fulfilled or accomplish the work that God has given him to do on Earth.
How could that be the sacrifice or the crucifixion, or the shedding of the blood to get the point. So at that point, essentially, the work has been finished. Now, that does not sound like someone who's saying that the core of my mission is the eternal secret that was kept, that my blood will take away The sins of humanity, they say that it's all it sounds more like a prophet, who, towards the end of his mission, says, God, I have already done my best, I have communicated them with your message, I have told them everything that you taught me. Now, it's up to you to decide. It doesn't sound like someone who speak up would be curious or substitutionary sacrifice. A third reference
would be quite interesting. Also, in gospel of john chapter 17, verse eight, he says, For I have given them the words which thou gave us, me, and they have received them.
Notice here, again, that the most important aspect of what he's saying, again, is not substitutionary sacrifice as the basis for his mission. But rather, he simply says, I communicated the message that they believed in me as that is as a messenger, or emissary of God. In other words, they believe that I am the messenger of God.
This is even more clear, in chapter 16, verse 27, in the Gospel, according to john, because in that he says, For the Father Himself, loves you, because you have loved him, and believed that I am from the Father, that is a prophet or messenger who came from the Father, because in numerous other occasions, he speaks about concerns being sent from from God. What I'm basically concluding from examination of the Gospel According to john that, yes, for fairness, john might be using a language that somehow seems to resonate with the ideas of Paul, about atomic blood sacrifice. But on the other hand, we find that again, his name respects, at least in the conditions mentioned, far less
explicit about deduction than Paul was, in fact, he's given even indication that good deeds are required. keeping the commandments is very important. And that even Jesus finished his job before even he was crucified, which is the core of his mission, according to Paul, thank you for
your time and thank you all for joining us. You understand?
would miss appreciate any questions or any comments you may have. Our phone number and address would be fitting on the screen. From all of us.