During my 30 plus years as a “born again Christian,” I heard countless sermons and “altar calls” declaring that, to be saved, one must acknowledge that Jesus shed his blood for everyone who has sinned and, equally importantly, for everyone who has sinned because everyone is, or was, born into sin (“original sin”). Accordingly, to be “saved,” every human being must “accept” Jesus. Stated differently,everyone must claim the atonement that is offered to him or her and, if one is to do this sincerely, one must believe that Jesus’ died as an atonement for everyone’s sins, was then buried and that he subsequently resurrected.
If this proposition is truly central to the Christian faith, I find it inconceivable that Jesus never once preached that message to those to whom he spoke prior to his death, burial and resurrection. To the contrary, after having preached the gospel to one particular assembled mass, Jesus told his disciples, outside the presence of others, that there would come a point in the future when it would be necessary for him to die. At that time, he did not give his disciples any reasons for the necessity of his impending death. Significantly, however, Jesus then admonished his disciples to keep this fact a secret. Clearly, there would be no need for a “side bar” with his disciples, nor would there be any need for his disciples to keep this critical truth “secret,” if it were, in fact, an essential element for the salvation of one’s soul.
It seems clear to me, therefore, that the gospel Jesus preached was not the gospel being taught by Christians today. Instead, Jesus’ explicitly stated gospel was that the kingdom of God was at hand and that everyone to whom he or his disciples spoke needed to know this fact and repent. Even in the prayer he taught his disciples to pray (the Lord’s Prayer), there is no mention whatsoever about the necessity of Jesus dying for the sins of mankind. Nor does Jesus ever preach that, in order for one to be “saved” and join him in heaven, one must, as a condition precedent, accept his sacrificial death and atonement for the sins of mankind in order for one to “be saved.” In fact, the central themes of the Lord’s Prayer appear to clearly show that the gospel taught by Jesus during his earthly ministry was limited to the issues addressed by Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer. Specifically, in the prayer Jesus taught his disciples, he declared that they were (1) to acknowledge the fact that our Father is in heaven; (2) that His name is to be hallowed; (3) that His kingdom is coming; (4) that, in the meantime, we should ask that “His will be done on earth as it is in heaven;” (5) that we are to ask Him for our daily bread; (6) that we are to ask for our sins to be forgiven as we have forgiven others; (7) that we are to ask God to not to lead us into temptation, but, instead, to deliver us from evil; and, finally, (8) that we are to acknowledge that God is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. It seems to me that, if the gospel being taught by Christians today includes the necessity of Jesus having died for our sins and our accepting his sacrifice if we are to be saved, then, necessarily, the very prayer in which Jesus instructed his disciples regarding how and what to pray would have included something about the necessity of his upcoming death, burial and resurrection and our need to accept what he did for us if we are to join him and his father in heaven.
Similarly, it seems logical that what has become known as the “Great Commission” would have included some language regarding the necessity of Jesus’ atoning death and our need to acknowledge and accept it if we are to be saved. Instead, the Great Commission simply states that Christians are to go out into the world and “teach” the world what Jesus himself taught, to wit: all of the laws of Moses can be summarized into two simple concepts: (1) we are to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds and souls; and (2) we are to love our neighbors as we love our selves.
Completely agree! I considered myself a Christian about the same amount of time as you and what you discussed was something that weighed on me the last few years before I finally let go of my religion. What really got me thinking though and made me doubt for my entire life was at the age of 8 I asked my second grade teacher in the private Christian school I attended if cave men or people from Hawaii or people from the Old Testament, ANYONE who lived before Jesus or in areas that couldn’t be ministered to (tribes in South America for example) were saved and in heaven. She told me that according to the Bible “no” and that they were in hell. I asked her “why” (my favorite word) and she couldn’t answer me. That never made sense to me, but even Billy Graham, a man I’ve respected my entire life, said the same thing when I sent him a letter asking him about it.
I have a proof text because everyone should have one:
“And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
Over time I keep returning to this verse and its implications. This is how Jesus was described on the cross. Who is he asking forgiveness for? It is the pagan Roman soldiers who mocked, beat and crucified him. And what are the conditions of forgiveness? There are none- no baptism, no rituals, no faith, no deeds, no church, no beliefs, no creeds, no dogma. It is unconditional.
To: Gmatthews-
Enjoyed reading your comments. I, too, had the same questions about how those who predated Jesus’ death could possibly enter heaven and, in response to that question, I was told by Christians, who claimed to have an answer for every question imaginable, that those who predated Jesus’ death would be able to enter heaven based on their faith that the god who was faithful in fulfilling his promises to Abraham would be saved the same way that Abraham was saved, to wit: Abraham was saved by grace through his faith that his god would, and did, fulfill the promises he made to Abraham and all Hebrews. That didn’t make sense to me then and still doesn’t.
Regarding the issue of those who were born after Jesus’ death, Christians rely on Paul’s premise in Romans that, and here I’m paraphrasing, “all are without excuse and can not be saved without accepting what Jesus did on the cross.” This includes heathens and others who have never heard of Jesus or what he did for them. Presumably, that’s at least one of the reasons that Paul posited his doctrine of “original sin” (i.e. as his rationale for why his god can’t be called unjust by condemning those who have never heard of Jesus or the consequences of his death on the cross. Stated differently, everyone [as a result of original sin] deserves to go to hell and are without excuse unless and until they accept Jesus as their personal savior and lord. That, too, made no sense to me then nor now.
This thread reminds me of a question I always had as a child about Jesus’ message. Remember in the gospels where early in his ministry Jesus sends the disciples out two by two to teach and to preach? I always wondered what it was they were teaching and preaching. It couldn’t be faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus because it hadn’t happened yet. In the New Testament one can detect a bit of a disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus. What seems to have happened is that the religion of Jesus eventually became a religion about Jesus.
Jesus sent out His disciples with the message that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Each of us is going to die. Will we then go through a process of being divided into those who loved God and did what we could to love Him and love others as we love ourselves and those who only lived by the world’s standards?
We are spiritual as well as intellectual, physical, emotional, social etc. Could it be that God has “written His laws in our hearts” enabling everyone to know instinctively how to be and how to treat others? And yet the stresses, inclinations, challenges and temptations would cause any of us to do whatever others have done given the same circumstances. (We are not to judge others or be unforgiving toward ourselves as we all fail.)
In spite of everything confusing and arbitrary, for those who want to know, isn’t what Jesus taught clear enough and don’t we understand why the Bible, the creeds and the churches tend to be more about who He was rather than what He taught?
gridiron1950 said
Stated differently,everyone must claim the atonement that is offered to him or her and, if one is to do this sincerely, one must believe that Jesus’ died as an atonement for everyone’s sins, was then buried and that he subsequently resurrected.If this proposition is truly central to the Christian faith, I find it inconceivable that Jesus never once preached that message to those to whom he spoke prior to his death, burial and resurrection.
For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.
The Gospel According to Mark 10: 45
Giving his life as a ransom IS atonement.
Steefen said
gridiron1950 said
Stated differently,everyone must claim the atonement that is offered to him or her and, if one is to do this sincerely, one must believe that Jesus’ died as an atonement for everyone’s sins, was then buried and that he subsequently resurrected.If this proposition is truly central to the Christian faith, I find it inconceivable that Jesus never once preached that message to those to whom he spoke prior to his death, burial and resurrection.
For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.
The Gospel According to Mark 10: 45
Giving his life as a ransom IS atonement.
This is one of those verses you can interpret a lot of ways, but no where in the entire conversation of Mark 10:35-45 is atonement for sin mentioned. The verse you reference, out of context in my opinion, is part of the conversation where John and James ask to be allowed to sit at the right and left of Jesus “in your glory”. Jesus goes on to say that this request isn’t his to grant and that to be first you must be last and that to lead you must serve.
I’d like to see Prof. Ehrman talk or comment about this (maybe he’ll read this!) because if you take that final clause off of verse 45, the “and to give his life as a ransom for many” part, then 35-45 seems to flow much better. What does that final clause add to the previous verses? It just seems out of place to me. Maybe the final clause was tacked on later? Even if the verse is believed to be original I still don’t see how anyone could say he’s talking about redemption of sin. That said I’ll admit I don’t know what he means by giving his life as a ransom. 
“I’d like to see Prof. Ehrman talk or comment about this (maybe he’ll read this!) because if you take that final clause off of verse 45, the “and to give his life as a ransom for many” part, then 35-45 seems to flow much better. What does that final clause add to the previous verses? It just seems out of place to me. Maybe the final clause was tacked on later? Even if the verse is believed to be original I still don’t see how anyone could say he’s talking about redemption of sin. That said I’ll admit I don’t know what he means by giving his life as a ransom. “
In “Jesus Interrupted”, the professor refers the reader to this specific passage after explaining that Mark and his readers believed that Jesus’s death brought an atonement, so it’s safe to say that he believes this passage to be original. Thematically atonement is found everywhere in Mark, and the ripping of the temple veil as told in Mark makes little sense unless atonement is borne in mind. That said, I don’t think think the historical Jesus thought his death was going to be an atonement, and when he’s on the cross Mark’s Jesus seems to forget 10:45 as well! (See the cry of dereliction)
Aleph82 said
Mark and his readers believed that Jesus’s death brought an atonement
With the Gospel According to Mark being written circa 67, the death of Jesus in 30 or 33, then (67 and after) becomes atonement?
I think the horrible sins of the Jewish Revolt overshadow the Jesus of the early 30s and his death would not have atoned for the manner in which the Temple was destroyed. Jesus would not have made that equation anyway. While Jesus was prophesying about the Destruction of the Temple, he could have mentioned the role of his blood with respect to the sin of taking down the Temple.
Aleph82 said
In “Jesus Interrupted”, the professor refers the reader to this specific passage after explaining that Mark and his readers believed that Jesus’s death brought an atonement, so it’s safe to say that he believes this passage to be original. Thematically atonement is found everywhere in Mark, and the ripping of the temple veil as told in Mark makes little sense unless atonement is borne in mind. That said, I don’t think think the historical Jesus thought his death was going to be an atonement, and when he’s on the cross Mark’s Jesus seems to forget 10:45 as well! (See the cry of dereliction)
What page is that on? It’s been so long since I read that book. I just flipped through it and laughed at how many sections Prof Ehrman has drawn from for blog posts.
gmatthews said
Aleph82 said
In “Jesus Interrupted”, the professor refers the reader to this specific passage after explaining that Mark and his readers believed that Jesus’s death brought an atonement, so it’s safe to say that he believes this passage to be original. Thematically atonement is found everywhere in Mark, and the ripping of the temple veil as told in Mark makes little sense unless atonement is borne in mind. That said, I don’t think think the historical Jesus thought his death was going to be an atonement, and when he’s on the cross Mark’s Jesus seems to forget 10:45 as well! (See the cry of dereliction)What page is that on? It’s been so long since I read that book. I just flipped through it and laughed at how many sections Prof Ehrman has drawn from for blog posts.
Page 66:
“The curtain ripping in half shows that with the death of Jesus, God is made available to his people directly and not through the Jewish priests’ sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ death has brought an atonement (see Mark 10:45).”
Page 66:
“The curtain ripping in half shows that with the death of Jesus, God is made available to his people directly and not through the Jewish priests’ sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ death has brought an atonement (see Mark 10:45).”
The problem I have with Aleph82’s statement above is that if, after the curtain allegedly ripped in half when Jesus died, at that point, Jesus’ death presumably atoned for the sins that, prior to Jesus’ death, could only be atoned through temple sacrifices offered by the Hebrew priests. If Jesus’ death truly atoned for the sins of mankind, why did sacrifices continue for another forty years after the Crucifixion (until the destruction of the temple in 70CE). Additionally, the Hebrew scriptures clearly state that when the messiah, whom the Jews are awaiting, arrives, the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be re-established. If Jesus’ sacrificial death truly atoned for the sins of all mankind, including the Jews, why didn’t sacrifices end when the curtain tore in the then existing temple and what would be the point of rebuilding the temple in the future and reestablishing sacrifices when the messiah establishes his kingdom on Earth.
gridiron1950 said
Page 66:“The curtain ripping in half shows that with the death of Jesus, God is made available to his people directly and not through the Jewish priests’ sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ death has brought an atonement (see Mark 10:45).”
The problem I have with Aleph82’s statement above is that if, after the curtain allegedly ripped in half when Jesus died, at that point, Jesus’ death presumably atoned for the sins that, prior to Jesus’ death, could only be atoned through temple sacrifices offered by the Hebrew priests. If Jesus’ death truly atoned for the sins of mankind, why did sacrifices continue for another forty years after the Crucifixion (until the destruction of the temple in 70CE). Additionally, the Hebrew scriptures clearly state that when the messiah, whom the Jews are awaiting, arrives, the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be re-established. If Jesus’ sacrificial death truly atoned for the sins of all mankind, including the Jews, why didn’t sacrifices end when the curtain tore in the then existing temple and what would be the point of rebuilding the temple in the future and reestablishing sacrifices when the messiah establishes his kingdom on Earth.
Those are questions for Mark, not Aleph82!
gridiron1950 said
Page 66:“The curtain ripping in half shows that with the death of Jesus, God is made available to his people directly and not through the Jewish priests’ sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ death has brought an atonement (see Mark 10:45).”
gridiron1950
The problem I have with Aleph82’s statement above is that if, after the curtain allegedly ripped in half when Jesus died, at that point, Jesus’ death presumably atoned for the sins that, prior to Jesus’ death, could only be atoned through temple sacrifices offered by the Hebrew priests. If Jesus’ death truly atoned for the sins of mankind, why did sacrifices continue for another forty years after the Crucifixion (until the destruction of the temple in 70CE).
steefen
The interpretation of Jesus’ death was not accepted into Temple Judaism. Temple Judaism tradition continued. The curtain probably did not tear in half. If it did, it was repaired and did not rip again. The Babylonian Talmud states that the curtain was torn by the sword of General Titus during the Jewish Revolt.
gridiron1950
Additionally, the Hebrew scriptures clearly state that when the messiah, whom the Jews are awaiting, arrives, the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be re-established.
steefen
The prophecies were wrong. Even if one tried to make them right to fit Jesus’ time, King Herod only renovated the Temple.
Was the Temple not built at the time those scriptures say the Temple needed to be rebuilt?
Were sacrifices not being performed at the time those scriptures say they needed to be re-established? If the answer is no to both of those questions, then the prophecies may have been fulfilled, what, when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile?
It’s all cultic rigmarole. The man was crucified for worrying the Romans enough into thinking he was going to try to lead a revolt. His followers couldn’t let him go and over the course of the next 40 odd years something mystically fascinating happened and we get Christianity.
I could have probably summarized Christianity in two sentences, but today was the day I wanted to use “rigmarole”.
gmatthews said
Completely agree! I considered myself a Christian about the same amount of time as you and what you discussed was something that weighed on me the last few years before I finally let go of my religion. What really got me thinking though and made me doubt for my entire life was at the age of 8 I asked my second grade teacher in the private Christian school I attended if cave men or people from Hawaii or people from the Old Testament, ANYONE who lived before Jesus or in areas that couldn’t be ministered to (tribes in South America for example) were saved and in heaven. She told me that according to the Bible “no” and that they were in hell. I asked her “why” (my favorite word) and she couldn’t answer me. That never made sense to me, but even Billy Graham, a man I’ve respected my entire life, said the same thing when I sent him a letter asking him about it.
Interesting, but doesnt that contradict the whole harrowing of hell story?
I recall summers in Bible school where we were told Jesus would not return until EVERYONE had heard the gospel and were able to decide. An interesting proposition when you consider how many people are born every day! I suppose one could wax conspiratorial and blather on about how this was a good way to ensure money etc, but the reality is people rarely think beyond “the answer” . No one sat down and thought about whether they could actually do it; the logistics of the whole thing.
When will Jesus return? Well everyone has to be able to decide so it must be once everyone has had a chance to hear the news. Ahhh.. right sure that makes sense.
things like logistics are boring. Not the stuff of great theories.
Wilusa said
Just a thought… “Giving his life as a ransom for many” could be taken merely as a way of saying he’d let himself be seized and executed, because he knew his escape would lead to the authorities he’d angered going after his followers.
I have been thinking similarly for years. It could be that what really happened in Gethsemane was that Jesus, when realizing the plot against him, pleaded to his persecutors to let the disciples go, offering himself voluntarily. That could explain a lot – for instance why his disciples upheld such a strong belief in him, in spite of the broken messianic hopes, and why the atonement theology started growing. Also, it would be in line with his teaching.
My understanding of the ransom theory of atonement is that Satan somehow owns our souls because of the original sin of Adam and the death of Jesus payed this ransom to set us free.
That is not as weird as the blood atonement theory. Here God was so aggrieved by Adam’s sin that the animal sacrifices offered by the Jews no longer satisfied him; a human sacrifice was necessary. And just as the Passover lamb and the Yom Kipper lamb had to be perfect and since no man was without sin (because of the sin in Adam’s seed), God had to send his son to be born of a virgin (so as not to be contaminated with Adam’s seed (this was before it was realized that women also contributed genetically) as a perfect sinless subject so we could sacrifice him and be saved from our sins.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert