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 dramatic post-Pentecostal sermon. In this, Peter announced to the world the true identity of Jesus as the Messiah, his resurrection from the grave, and the meaning of his life and death (Acts 2, 14-42). Peter's call to turn away from sin and be baptized is virtually identical to the call for repentance and baptism for the remission of sins by John the Baptist, except that it includes the receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

next column>

The atonement concept is also absent from Peter's next speech in Soloman's porch (Acts 3, 11-26). Repentance is the only requirement for the receipt of God's forgiveness.  Still later, when he addressed the High Priest and the Jewish leaders. (Acts 4, 8-12), Peter says that salvation is to be found through Jesus, but makes no mention of atonement for original sin. So when did this  doctrine attain prominence?

Although it is mentioned in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament, it is dubious whether the atonement doctrine was of great importance to many of the early Christian communities. During the latter stages of the second century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, had considerable influence on the formulation of church doctrine.

Irenaeus held that Adam and Eve were well intentioned children of God in the Garden of Eden, that their sin was not a damnable revolt but an error of judgement calling forth God's compassion because of their weakness and vulnerability. Irenaeus pictured man as being created as an imperfect and immature creature who has to undergo moral development and finally be brought to the perfection intended for him by God. He taught that the suffering endured by Jesus on the cross was not, as such, willed by God but was the result of human wickedness, self-centeredness, and moral failure. In enduring this appalling event, Jesus was not placating a wrathful God but was his agent in overcoming evil with good.

The Irenaen concepts of the meaning of the life and the teachings of Jesus, held widely in the early church, were remarkably similar to the teachings in The Urantia Book. However they did not prevail against the theological brilliance of Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430), who saddled the Catholic Church with the doctrine that the sin of Adam and Eve is automatically visited upon all of their descendants. Augustine's doctrine also asserts that all people are born in a state of guilt and condemnation that would merit their consignment to the eternal damnation of hell. The basic teachings of Augustine were carried on by Thomas Aquinas, then later transferred to Protestanism by reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the Irenaen teachings.

According to The Urantia Book, when Jesus made the decision to enter Jerusalem for the last time, he was aware that he might undergo sacrificial death. He said:

"From olden times the prophets have perished in Jerusalem, and it is only befitting that the Son of Man should go up to the city of the Father's house to be offered up as the price of human bigotry and as the result of religious prejudice and spiritual blindness." (1872) Shortly after he had spoken these words he turned to his disciples and said: "Nevertheless, let us go up to Jerusalem to attend the Passover and do that which becomes us in fulfilling the will of the Father in heaven." (1872)

The Urantia Book provides us with a dramatic and soul-wrenching account of Jesus alone in Gethsemane. It tells us he endured great anguish and suffered untold sorrow, that perspiration rolled off his face in great drops. Then, when at last he was convinced that the Father intended to allow natural events to take their course, Jesus determined not to employ  his sovereign power in order to save himself. The book says that the Father in heaven desired the bestowal Son to finish his earth career naturally, just as all mortals must finish their lives, unaided or made easy by some special dispensation. (1972)

Why was the cross necessary? What were the alternatives? Let's go to the book for answers:

"On millions of inhabited worlds, tens of trillions of evolving creatures who may have been tempted to give up the moral struggle and abandon the good fight of faith, have taken one more look at Jesus on the cross and then have forged on ahead, inspired by the sight of God's laying down his incarnate life in devotion to the unselfish service of man" (2018)

"We know that the death on the cross was not to effect man's reconciliation to God but to stimulate man's realization of the Father's eternal love and his Son's unending mercy, and to broadcast these universal truths to a whole universe." (2019)

"The cross makes a supreme appeal to the best in man because it discloses one who was willing to lay down his life in the service of his fellow men. Greater love no man can have than this: that he would be willing to lay down his life for his friends - and Jesus had such a love that he was willing to lay down his life for his enemies, a love greater than any which had hitherto been known on earth." (2018)

Those reasons are enough for me. There was no possible alternative course of action. I pray that I could have the courage to do likewise if ever called upon. But I thank God that is highly unlikely.

Ken Glasziou, Maleny, Australia.