The Fallacy of the Atonement Doctrine
The tragic misconception that God decreed Jesus' barbaric death.
Most of us who were raised with one of the many Christian religions were taught that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. In fact, this seems to be the primary tenet of Christian credo, and there are many bible excerpts that would appear to support this idea. However, a deeper analysis reveals that this is a great misconception resulting from several factors, including (but not limited to) a reluctance to embrace new revelations of God, errors of translation and interpretation, personal biases and agendas in biblical authors (especially Paul), and the incorporation of many aspects of paganism into early Christianity. Perhaps more importantly, this concept stands in complete contradiction to the actual teachings of Jesus. Is it possible that we have been taught something about God that is not only wrong, but an affront to his true nature? Do we humans hold ourselves to a higher standard of morals than we hold God? This essay will delve into some of these questions that, in the process of trying to answer them, have led me to conclude what I intuitively knew even as a young child—that it would be shockingly unfair of God to demand the sacrifice of his beloved, innocent son to forgive us for our sins—a notion that, in any other scenario, would be perceived as utterly inconceivable and inhumane.
When I ask proponents of the atonement doctrine why God would require something so horrific as the crucifixion of Jesus, I am often told, “We can’t presume to understand the ways of God.” But if that’s the case, why would Jesus have repeatedly stated, “Be you perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect” if we aren’t capable of understanding God’s morality? The truth is, God is not convoluted or mysterious in his dealings with human sin—all that he asks of us is that we sincerely desire to be forgiven. Jesus constantly exhorted his followers to forgive one another as God forgives us; in response to Peter asking how often we should forgive others he replied, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” Further, he presented an updated level of morality when he replaced “an eye for an eye” with “turn the other cheek.” Not once in all of Jesus’ teachings does he mention atonement, sacrifice, or retribution.
In answering my question, one individual actually stated that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice because he was sinless. This is utter nonsense, if not downright perverse; it portrays God as sadistic, masochistic, or under the control of some other, greater power. Why would God do something so cruel to himself—demand that his beloved, sinless son suffer a horrific death to somehow compensate for the sins of his lesser children? And if it wasn’t God himself who ordered this, was he answering to some higher, more powerful, yet arbitrarily punitive entity? The more you explore the rationale behind this assertion, the less merit it holds.
How, then, did we come to accept the atonement doctrine and make it such an integral part of Christianity if it is so wrong? And not only wrong, but in complete philosophical contradiction to everything Jesus taught and demonstrated! In the times of Jesus, Jewish theology dictated that animal and food sacrifice were necessary to appease or win favor with God. The Torah commanded that korban—the term for these sacrificial offerings, many of which were burned—be conducted as a way to show honor and respect for God. Humans can be reluctant to let go of deeply ingrained teachings, and indeed, many of Jesus’ followers were resistant to new revelations of truth, despite the fact that he—God’s human representative—instructed them otherwise. Even in the Old Testament we find contradictions to the teachings of the Torah: In Hosea 6:6, God stated, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice [italics mine], the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” Jesus made reference to that verse on at least two occasions (Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) in efforts to clarify the misconception, telling his disciples, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’”
Even the apostles, who lived with Jesus nearly every day for more than four years, often struggled to accept his teachings when they contradicted well-established religious dogma. Another example was the tradition of the anticipated messiah-–a king of the Jewish people who would deliver them from foreign oppression. Countless times Jesus insisted he would never assume the role of a national king, instead declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world,” yet many of his followers continued to project the role of messiah upon him. Some speculate that it was partly Judas Iscariot’s disillusionment in hearing that Jesus would not be an actual king, and thus not appoint him and other apostles to significant political positions, that drove him to betray the Master to the Sanhedrin.
Judaism was not the only religion of those times that used sacrifice as a means to curry favor with God; many of the pagan and mystery cults indulged in similar rituals. Paul, one of the greatest contributors to the establishment of Christianity, studied Mithraism and Zoroastrianism while writing the letters that we now find throughout the New Testament. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, 9:13 and 9:14, Paul writes: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" In efforts to convert followers of Mithraism to Christianity, Paul incorporated many of their teachings; the Jews did not sacrifice bulls or heifers as korban; that was a Mithraic ritual. In my essay The Nature of God https://mariahines.substack.com/p/the-nature-of-god I provide other examples of Mithraic teachings that were assimilated into Christian dogma.
Indeed, we can probably hold Paul largely responsible for the atonement doctrine, directly or indirectly. Some biblical scholars assert that his writings were subjected to errors of translation and/or misinterpretation. John B. Cobb, Jr., PhD, Professor of Theology Emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology states, “Accordingly, there is also some importance in deciding whether the imposition [of the atonement doctrine] was by Paul or on him.” Cobb explores this in depth in his lecture that can be found here: Did Paul Teach the Doctrine of the Atonement? – Religion Online. Either way, the majority of references to the atonement doctrine in the New Testament can be found in Paul’s writings, or derivations therefrom. Interestingly, Paul was also responsible for the unfortunate characterization of women as unclean or unworthy, directly contradicting the practices and teachings of Jesus, who openly challenged social mores of that time by discoursing with women in public, and including them as his disciples.
It may also be the case that when asking why God allowed Jesus to die such a horrible death, many arrived at the conclusion that he required it; otherwise, why didn’t he or Jesus intervene and prevent it? We know that Jesus healed the sick and even raised Lazarus from the dead. It would only make sense that if he wanted to, he could have used those same powers to escape his own death, so why didn’t he? I believe both God and Jesus chose not to interfere with the natural course of events, nor with human free will, as they related specifically to the unfolding of the life of Jesus. If God had intervened and stopped humans from unjustly crucifying Jesus, we would expect him to step in every time anyone enacts evil upon another, or whenever a natural catastrophe occurs. It is of even greater significance that God bestowed upon us a free will that he respects and upholds unequivocally. It doesn’t make sense that he would arbitrarily retract that human free will to suit his desires. Jesus likewise elected not to use his divine powers to evade even a wholly undeserved and unjust punishment; instead, he chose to do his father’s will, and thus, to respect ours.
Further, I believe Jesus also knew that ultimately there would be great benefits to humanity from his brutal death. First, it allowed him to display the acme of human love and forgiveness to his transgressors, and thereby to demonstrate in person the teachings that he had for years exhorted his disciples to practice, to the extent of asking his father to forgive the people who had inflicted horrific pain and humiliation upon him, while in the midst of that very torment. He also knew that by suffering unjustly at the hands of wicked, selfish humans, his teachings would more likely be forever remembered. Finally, his untimely death provided an occasion for him to awaken from the dead, showing once and for all that he was of both human and divine origin. Allowing good to come from evil is a lesson we all can learn from Jesus; that is, to transform a tragic event into an opportunity for goodness to prevail.
I also suspect that on some level, many of us are willing to believe that Jesus died to save us from our sins because it lets us off the hook—Jesus took the heat for our past and future sins, even for those of our ancestors, so that we don’t have to worry about it. How selfish and lazy! This approach absolves us from all personal responsibility for our own destinies. Moreover, it reduces us to operating at the most primitive level of morality—the idea that we (in this case, Jesus) can pay a price and all is forgiven. Don’t you think God would prefer that we choose to do good because it’s the right thing to do, rather than sin freely knowing that the insurance premium has already been paid…by someone else?
Here’s another consideration: Why use evil personalities to accomplish something that was purportedly for the good of all humanity? Why didn’t the apostles or even Jesus himself orchestrate his death, if it was truly God’s will? If we believe that God wanted or required this, we are faced with a paradox, because that makes Judas, a self-serving disloyal coward, a hero for betraying Jesus to the Sanhedrin and supposedly satisfying God’s demand. And if that were the case, why did Jesus implore, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”?
This leaves us with a final, but valid question: If Jesus did not come to save us from our sins, then why did he live and die among us as a human? Jesus came here to bring man closer to God, and God closer to man; to disclose God’s true nature to us, and to experience first hand the full range of trials and tribulations of the human condition. That he came to reveal God to us is supported by his repeated statement, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Accordingly, we should study Jesus’ actions and his teachings to unveil God’s nature. Did Jesus ever require a parent to sacrifice their innocent child to atone for the sins of an evil, erring one? Never! Likewise, in all of his sermons, he portrayed God as a supremely loving, extraordinarily merciful father.
The parable of the prodigal son conveys the polar opposite of the atonement doctrine by showing God’s infinite capacity for forgiveness and his emphasis on rewarding goodness over punishing the sinner. There is something particularly revealing in this story in that Jesus mentions the older, obedient son’s sense of unfairness when his younger brother is rewarded for coming home, even after years of straying and squandering his inheritance. Using this parable, Jesus acknowledges our human sense of justice, yet calls us to step up to a higher level of morality, one demonstrated by the (our) father’s utter joy at his errant son’s return home. Many of us might desire a more primitive form of justice, wherein sinners are sent to hell or they pay another price for their sins, and some of us even derive a sense of satisfaction when we see others get their just desserts, but this reflects a human level of morality, not God’s. And that is why it is so apparent that humans conceived the idea of the atonement doctrine—not God.
Jesus lived with us so he could liberate us from the unnecessary rituals and stifling doctrines imposed by institutionalized religious dogma, and in doing so, he showed us the most direct path to God. Most religions evolved out of primitive superstitious beliefs and unfortunately carried with them the illogical notion that we can somehow manipulate the gods with our words, actions, or gifts. Jesus never encouraged this; he simply invited us to “Follow me,” and to “Love one another as I loved you.” He made it clear that each and every one of us can and should foster a personal relationship with God, independent of nonsensical, perfunctory rites and rituals. This threatened the authority of Jewish religious leaders and so they demanded that Jesus be killed. This was neither God’s doing, nor his will.
What a heinous assault upon God and his true nature to conclude that because Jesus professed that he came to show us the way to salvation—to life eternal—that God required his torturous death to fulfill that promise! The atonement doctrine is horribly wrong. It is time, once and for all, to put to rest the primitive, barbaric notion that God demanded the inhumane killing of his son Jesus as some sort of ransom to atone for our sins and those of our ancestors. And when we do abandon this perverse concept, we can finally know God as he really is—the supremely just and loving father who is capable of far more mercy than we as humans could ever imagine.
NOTE: Once again, I would like to acknowledge Oliver Codd for his contributions to this essay. It is because of our many in-depth discussions on this topic over the course of at least a year, along with his meaningful suggestions while writing this, that I have been able to tackle one of the most challenging topics in Christian catechism. He is also credited for the opening photo. There is tremendous value in collaboration!
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” —Aristotle