Loading...I have been dealing with the question of Jesus’ death in the Gospel of Luke and have been arguing that Luke does not appear to have understood Jesus’ death to be an atonement for sins. He has eliminated the several indications from his source, the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus’ death was an atonement, and he never indicates in either his Gospel or the book of Acts that Jesus died “for” you or “for” others or “for” anyone. Then why did Jesus die?
It is clear that Luke thought that Jesus had to die. For Luke it was all part of God’s plan. But why? What is the theological meaning of Jesus’ death for Luke, if it was not a sacrifice that brought about a right standing before God (which is what the term “atonement” means)?
You get the clearest view of Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ death from
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thanks for addressing Luke’s reasoning about why Jesus had to die. It’s enlightening to see how different his theology was from others of his era (i.e. Mark & Paul).
But this brings to mind a new question: Luke was supposed to have been a traveling companion of Paul. Why, then, would his theology be different from Paul’s? Assuming he had been Paul’s companion, did the two of them harbor different theologies at the same time yet remained companions? Or is it the case that Luke changed his mind (Paul was martyred in the 60s IIRC whereas Luke wrote in the 80s so there was certainly time for his views to change)?
Alternatively, is this “different” theology not really as “different” as I’m now thinking it was? Maybe, within the context of the first few decades of Christianity & the relationship of the two men, this wasn’t really perceived as a major difference?
I think it’s pretty different. And I think it’s one of the indications that Luke was in fact not a personal companion of Paul.
You frequently appeal to the ‘oldest and best manuscripts’. Please can you explain how this ‘best’ judgement is arrived at (I can understand the oldest label) and why we should particularly value them.
It’s a tricky business. It involves checking where manuscripts tend to preserve the reading that is almost certainly original most frequently when other evidence (which form of the text the author was more likely to have written based on grammar, vocabulary, style, view/perspective, etc.; which form is one that scribes would have found difficult and more likely wanted to change; which form of the text would have been more palatable to later readers/scribes). If one manuscript almost always has the reading that on other grounds seems almost certainly to be the right one, and another almost alays has the other one(s), then the first is deemed generally better. The idea is that if a manuscript is right in most of the instances that can be checked and decided, it is also most likely to be right also in the instances that (for other reasons) cannot be decided.
Since Luke uses Mark as his source and Paul is Luke’s hero, why does Luke not have a doctrine of the atonement?
Why does Luke differ from Mark and Paul on this point?
There are clear possibilities, but it’s hard to know which would be right. My guess is that Luke had different understanding and wanted to make it appear to be Paul’s in correction of Mark’s? BUt Maybe he didn’t read very carefully and didn’t notice the difference. Or maybe … something else.
Just curious, you mention Thucydides and the speeches in Acts. And almost every major academic work on Acts (whether commentary or specialized study) cites Thucydides regarding speeches, and for good reason. Do you think it odd that rarely is Thucydides cited regarding the words of Jesus in the gospels? Why do you think that is?
If one answers, multiple attestation, but what about the teachings that are not multiply-attested? About 20% of Matthew and 35% of Luke is unique material without parallels, and that includes many unique teachings. And if one holds to Q, where did Q get that material and why isn’t Thucydides cited regarding speeches? Or if one holds Farrer Theory, where did Matthew get all that double-tradition material that Luke liked and included?
Seems like an issue that I haven’t seen anyone address. It seems inconsistent to say the speeches of Peter, Stephen, and Paul in Acts are Lukan creations, but not the teachings of Jesus in volume 1. And this regards more than just the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, but also the words of John the Baptist, Pilate, the disciples, and others. Maybe you address this in your new book?
I know!! But it’s absolutely just as relevant. I suppose most “critical” scholars think certain rules of oral tradition apply to Peter and Paul (not to mention Stephen!) but not to Jesus in the Gospels. BUT, the other point worth considering is independent attestation, not for verbatim agreements but for the KINDS of things Jesus says — something not available for the material in Acts.
Hi Bart. Thanks for these very informative posts.
In Matthew and Mark Jesus tells his disciples “For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matt 6:14 – not in Luke) Even the Lord’s Prayer contains basically the same concept. Why is Jesus’ death as atonement even required in the minds of Matthew and Mark? It seems that forgiveness of sins is a straightforward (but difficult) process.
It’s because they had t oexplain why God would have/require his Chosen One to die, and the natural conclusion (for people from their background) ws to assume it must have been “necessary” as a sacrifice.
Tangential question: Did Jesus believe that repenting for your sins was enough for God’s forgiveness?
It was my understanding that the historical Jesus preached that you had to repent and make good with God before the end came. This meant keeping the Jewish laws, which probably wouldn’t have been relevant to Luke’s community since it was mostly made of Gentiles. I was wondering if Luke’s theology was a return to Jesus’s original message or something slightly different.
I don’t think Jesus’ emphasized the Jewish laws (for example kosher/sabbath/etc) as much as the importance before God of helping others in need. He seems to have thought that even gentiles could do that and enter into the kingdom (Parable of the SHeep and Goats in Matthew 25, which I think probably goes back to Jesus himself.)
My understanding has been that Jesus did believe that repentance was enough for divine forgiveness and salvation — since that seems to have been what John the Baptist was teaching. In Matthew 6 Jesus says that people who forgive others for their sins will be forgiven by God for their sins. Did Jesus really think that all of the people who responded to John the Baptist’s message, by repenting and being baptized by John’s ministry, did not have justification/salvation and were not ready and prepared for the upcoming apocalypse and judgment day? Dr. Ehrman, what do you think about this and about how Jesus of Nazareth and his followers viewed John’s followers?
I think the historical Jesus agreed with John. Those who repented and turned back to God would enter the kingdom.
That makes me wonder then what happened to the early Christians who were practicing this forgiveness theology. Are there any recorded accounts beyond Luke where this shows up? As a non-Christian I like this idea better because it feels more human and believable; I think it requires that you have less faith in the supernatural. I could see to the early Christians though that for these reasons it strips something significant away from Jesus’s sacrifice. Perhaps that’s why it got swept aside by the prevailing atonement view. Maybe it was just due to the success of Paul. Thanks for pointing all this out in Luke. It’s one of those things like other topics where it’s there all along in the text but you don’t see it until it’s said by someone.
It’s no where else in the NT — or in other early Xn writings either so far as I can recall.
“He was pierced for our transgressions.” Does that mean Jesus was raped before He was crucified?
I believe the term is “wounded.” And it’s from Isaiah 53, not from the Gospel narratives.
Fascinating how atonement is central to the preachings of Paul, but denied by the biography of Paul (Acts).
Any thoughts on why Luke rejected the atonement for sins explanation for Jesus’ death?
My best guess is that he preferred it! (So do I…)
Bart,
Do you think Luke was going back (somehow) to Jesus’s teaching which was in alignment with ancient Judaism: God forgives repentant sinners (Ps 51 for example)? If so, it’s interesting that Luke is a follower of Jesus but rejects the growing version of Christianity that demands a blood sacrifice (atonement) for sin. I thought that was Peter and James’s viewpoint, in agreement with Paul (Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures). So, how or why did Luke backflip over Mark and Paul and end up back with Jesus?
Yup, Luke appears to return to the views of Jesus. It’s hard to imagine how he *knew* they were the teachings of Jesus, but presumably the church he was in or the things he had read differed among themselves? As to why he accepted the other view, my hunch is simply that he thought it wsa preferable! (As have many others…)
Dr. Ehrman,
I need help with something. You said Luke was trying to present Jesus as innocent of the charges against him. Agreed.
As for the actual charges, if I recall correctly, in Luke the charges from the Sanhedrin were that Jesus was calling himself the Messiah and the son of God. (!!!)
Isn’t that exactly what many Christians for many years have considered Jesus to be?
Doesn’t this mean the Sanhedrin was actually correct in their assessment of his claims? And if they were correct, doesn’t that mean Jesus was indeed guilty of the charges against him?
I’m kind of lost here…
I was referring to the charges that led Pilate to condemn him, which can be found in Luke 23:1-5.
I’m not challenging you. I’m asking for guidance.
What do you need guidance on?
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Why did people early christians even invent the idea of the empty tomb could they not just have Jesus resurrect from the mass grave?
The empty tomb became “proof” that Jesus had been raised.
Regarding the question about the empty tomb… For me personally, this is a very important detail and principle of life. We’re told Jesus passed through walls to enter a locked room to be with his disciples, so we know he could have simply escaped the tomb without the stone being rolled away. As Dr Ehrman suggests, I believe God wants his children to discover truths for themselves (“proof”) and not be handed them on a plate. Doesn’t this apply to all aspects of life? Science reveals how God created the world, how life evolved, and so on (dear to my heart since I’m a physicist by training). It’s so exciting to discover new forms of life in the ocean’s depths, for example. Isn’t it just the same as we try to uncover the original teachings of Jesus from a complex array of ancient document fragments? God could have given us originals, but why? It would be so contrary to the human spirit and our God-given intelligence. I rather think God enjoys watching us figure out the details! (This is my first post since joining a short while ago, so apologies for taking a bit of a tangent.)
Should I be surprised? No sign of my comment on this blog. Hey, I’ve only published four books on the historical Jesus and half a dozen papers on Academia.edu. So what’s to gain from a few more words from somebody as low on the ladder as me, right? Bart, as for your confidence that Matthew 19:28 has veracity based on Judas being counted as one of the 12…I be lieve you’re on thin ice. The entire passage is likely a later supplement to enhance the Jerusalem cadre’s sanctity. By making it look pre-crucifixion, they had no problem including Judas–after all, so did Jesus.
Abram Epstein
Sorry, I don’t know what yuu mean about your comment not showing up?? I post every comment I receive unless it is offensive to others or not relevant to the topics we deal with on the blog. Click on Help and see if we can rectify it.
I don’t know what you mean that Matthew 19:28 is a later supplement. Do you mean it is a scribal additoin to the text? There aren’t any textual variants there among our manuscxripts that I’m aware of.
Thank you for your concern. Yes, one of my prior comments was either deleted or vanished. Moving on. I am suggesting the text unique to Matthew mentioning “twelve thrones”–upon which you rely as evidence this is an authentic statement by Jesus because it includes Judas–is logically on thin ice. Why? Because, the pericope could easily have been enhanced post-crucifixion to glorify the Jerusalem group at that pre-Crucifixion phase of their relationship, when the only way it would make sense would be to describe the Disciples as numbering twelve.
It’s certainly possible. But it doesn’t seem to be an enhancement for the Jerusalem group to have the betrayer as an equal partner of the future rule of the earth. I would think they would have worded it differently.
My take is this: From Matthew’s inclusion of Judas we become aware his perception of Jesus is NOT as an omniscient figure. Whatever his messianic endowments are, this passage strongly suggests, in my opinion, Judas’ betrayal (according to Matthew) was something Jesus did not foresee.
Dr. Ehrman, your reasoning about Luke and the Jesus-died-for-your-sins issue is simply, plainly elegant, structurally and intellectually.
Paul had no authority to promulgate the atonement doctrine, but modern clerics still preach it.
Thank you for your quality scholarship.
Eric Smith
Annapolis, MD
Your idea about what Luke thought was the reason for Jesus’ death is intriguing and attractive — but it leaves me with a question. Doesn’t this interpretation remove any sense of the uniqueness of Jesus’ sacrifice, and thus of the idea that it is ESSENTIAL to accept Jesus (whatever one means by that) in order to be saved? If true and complete repentance for one’s sins is the only necessary condition for salvation, could not some other event, apart from Jesus’ death, also be a catalyst for such repentance? If I witnessed, for instance, some other admirable and innocent person being betrayed, tortured, and executed, could not that also shock me into realizing my own sins, repenting for them, and sincerely asking God for forgiveness?
In short, if you remove the atonement, don’t you also remove the idea that belief in/acceptance of Jesus is the one path to salvation?
Yup, I think it probably does logically. Luke seems to be in a bind. He believes that only followers of Jesus are saved, but he has abandoned the idea of atonement. My sense is that he thinks anyone who truly believes in God will recognize that Jesus wsa the final prophet sent by God and commit themselves to following his teaching.
The story of Jesus is a classic “hero’s journey” in which the hero gets the girl(Israel/church), slays the dragon(Satan), and gets the kingdom. The cross demonstrates His love and obedience to God and His love for man(He loves His enemies even while crucifying Him.) It demonstrates His worthiness to rule, to judge, to be given a kingdom, and throne, to be exalted to the right hand of God. The cross is about Jesus being “perfected” (lk 13:32). It’s about Him humbling himself and showing He is worthy to be exalted(Lk 14:11). His trials(worthiness demonstrated within the trials) are the basis upon which He is given a throne.) On the basis of the cross, the Father grants to the Son the power and authority to pour out the spirit into the world. The obedience of the Son delights the Father and the Father rewards the Son with power, authority, a kingdom, throne, etc. The Son then uses the power and authority to save, redeem, judge, set all things right. The delight of the Father in the Son also gives the Son the standing before God to be an advocate, priest, and intercessor.
If there was some form of “Proto-Luke” that the Gospel writer was using, could it be that this “no atonement” theology came from that, and our current Gospel author simply chose to continue it? That would be reason for asserting that “Proto-Luke” was very early, perhaps earlier than Mark.
It’s possible. But unfortunately we can’t really say what would have been in Proto-Luke if it was a source or earlier version.
I find it very interesting to propose that Luke was espousing the essential message of Jesus & John/B….repent and go directly to God for forgiveness….while supposedly writing to a Gentile audience and making Paul the hero in Acts. Especially given that Paul himself had taught a theology of Atonement! Why make Paul the hero, and yet not represent his theology? Seems strange! One would think that all of the churches started by Paul would recognize this disconnect. Therefore, who exactly was the audience Luke was writing for?
Who was Luke writing for. Good questoin! Presumably members of his own church, principally gentiles, who claimed to follow Paul but possibly didn’t know actually what his theology was. May seem odd, but one could argue that’s been true for the vast majority of Paul’s followers over the centuries. (There’s a great old academic line: “In the second century, no one understood Paul, except Marcion, and he *misunderstood* him” !)
IMHO every teaching of Jesus reflects Mk 3:35//Mt 12:50//Lk 8:21//Th 99 (to reference just *one,* multiply-attested quote.)
Where in his ministry does the “Incarnate Word” ever say that anything more than heeding his divinely-inspired words is needed to “not perish but have eternal life”?
Self-identifying as “Christian” might arguably require recognizing Jesus as the divine emissary, the “Son of God,” who came into this world to bring us the “Good News” that “salvation” (i.e., becoming one with the “Father,” the animating force that breathed life into otherwise inert matter), is available to everyone.
However, he explicitly warned *against* such misapprehension [Mk 10:18//Lk 18:19 — though Matthew obviously disagreed since he clearly redacted this pericope], perforce repudiating the idea that this had anything to do with salvation.
I couldn’t say how or why “Luke thought that Jesus had to die,” though he does seem to have shared this strange presupposition with all the other earliest Christians (or, at least, all whose writings managed to escape the Holy Roman pyres to enter the canon.)
The $64,000 question is: Does any “Why did Jesus die?” exegesis stand on anything *he* actually taught? Or do they all derive *entirely* from post hoc, church doctrine?
My view is that Jesus did not preach about his own death, so that every attempt to understand it comes from after the fact.