|
Was the Crucifixion Really Necessary?
Ken Glasziou, Qld., Australia
Was the crucifixion really necessary? That depends on one's theology. For those who subscribe to the doctrine of atonement for original sin, it certainly was. A deep psychological need for atonement may have roots in the "pay-back" customs found in primitive societies, whereby ritual retribution for real or imaginary wrongs was mandatory upon the family or tribe of the victim - a death for a death, an eye for an eye, etc. The payment of some form of compensation, as a means of avoidance of the physical injury demanded by the "payback" system, is a natural evolutionary development that could have also led to the concept of atonement to appease the wrath of the gods.
Regardless of its true origin, this atonement concept reaches far back into those times that lie beyond human memory, times when the fear of the gods gave rise to an endeavor to appease their wrath by means of the ultimate sacrifice, the offering of a human life. In some cultures, this sacrificial victim was also required to be a symbol of purity - such as a young and beautiful virgin. From some such beginnings, there arose the concept of the ultimate sacrifice, that of the slaying of the actual Son of God to make the full and final atonement for the misdeeds all humankind. This would appear to be an almost inevitable development in the attitude of a deprived and backward human community having very limited spiritual capacity because of the Lucifer rebellion. Hidden in the dark recesses of the unconscious minds of many of us, this may be the only acceptable sacrifice that could free us from an excessive burden of guilt. Nothing less could ever serve to accomplish that purpose.
Urantia Book readers who are distressed by the horrifying doctrine of liberation from sin through the blood of Christ must get used to the idea that its victims cannot be released simply by denouncing that doctrine. Even the most skilful of psychiatrists would acknowledge that this sickness, invariably associated with exaggerated feelings of guilt, is curable only in a very small proportion of those whom it afflicts. It seems unlikely that Jesus would have attempted a direct attack. (see 1455:4) More likely, he would have taken a positive approach such as instilling in the minds of its victims that the love of God as a Father always transcends his righteousness as Judge. Jesus did something similar with his parable when he asked whether human fathers would give their children stones when they asked for bread or serpents when they asked for fish (Matt 7:9-10). In time, here or on the mansion worlds, the minds of those afflicted with this appalling error about the true nature of God will need to be released from its oppressive effect upon their spiritual progress. For some, healing will require more skill than is available on Urantia.
Adherents of the atonement doctrine who are not so deeply emotionally impaired may be responsive to logical discussion. With them, it may be possible to sow seeds that will eventually bear fruit. For example, they could be asked to consider whether God could have forgiven man's sinfulness in the event that Jesus had been rescued from the cross.
The Bible tells us that the Roman officer who supervised the crucifixion was so impressed with Jesus that he finally declared that indeed "this man truly was the Son of God." (Matt 27:54) If the officer had discerned this fact at a much earlier stage, a hypothetical outcome may have been that he and his men could have taken a still living Jesus from the cross and fled with him across the Jordan, out of Judea.
The keen sense of the Romans for legal justice was such that, conceivably, the Roman soldiers might have got away with such an audacious act. Since it is entirely hypothetical, we are at liberty to invent any outcome we choose. So for argument's sake, let us suppose that Jesus was revived and was later able to undertake a long and highly successful mission of preaching the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. The result may have been the conversion of millions to the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus could then have died a normal and natural death that could also have been followed by his resurrection and subsequent resurrectional appearances to his followers.
Would such an apparently highly desirable outcome have cancelled God's forgiveness of the sin inherited from Adam? Or would God have needed to demand that Jesus be put to death somewhere else? What kind of God would that make him? Something along these lines might challenge the less fundamental of the fundamentalists to open their minds to alternative concepts.
There are many logical ways of challenging the atonement doctrine. Personally, I am very pessimistic about achieving much success with those generations that have been nurtured on, and accepted, the doctrine. Jesus told us not to challenge erroneous doctrines; rather we should allow truth to displace error. We can certainly do this by expounding on the true nature of God as revealed by The Urantia Book. However, it may be much more rewarding to concentrate on the rising generations than to work with the present.
When young children are provided with a picture of the true nature of God and the expected behavior incumbent on such a nature, the atonement doctrine should become irrelevant.
It is interesting that the concept that Jesus died in order to placate the wrath of God and to make atonement for our inherited sin does not appear in the gospel account of Peter's
|
|
