(21 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
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 the speeches delivered by the apostles in the book of Acts. As you probably know, Acts is about the spread of the Christian church throughout the Roman Empire after Jesus’ death and resurrection. About a fourth of the book of Acts consists of speeches by its lead characters, and a number of these speeches are delivered to non-Christian audiences in order to get them to convert. You will find such speeches, for example, in chapters 2, 13, and 17.
It is widely recognized by scholars of ancient history that ancient historians almost always composed the speeches they record – that is to say, they are not giving the speeches that were *actually* delivered on this or that occasion. They are figuring out what (in their opinion) would have been appropriate for a speaker to say on the occasion, and then composing a speech that fit the bill. One reason we know that this is what historians did is that one of the very first, the great Greek historian Thucydides, actually *tells* us that this was his procedure. Another reason is that there is no other way an author would know what a person said in his speech.
Think about it for a second. Many of you heard Biden’s State of the Union address. OK, so write it out for me. You obviously can’t do it, even though it happened less than two years ago. Ancient people couldn’t do it either. But suppose you did want to write out his address. You’d have to come up with something. Or make it more like the situation with Luke. Luke is writing about 55 years after Peter would have delivered a speech (if he did deliver a speech) in the year of Jesus’ death (around 30 CE). So suppose you wanted to give, from memory (without any written materials to base it on), JFK’s first State of the Union address, and you had no written record of it. How would you do it? You’d have to compose it yourself.
The downside is that we can’t really know what any speech-givers in antiquity actually said. But the upside is that you can study speeches found in ancient histories (whether Thucydides or Luke or anyone else) and you can see what *they*, the authors, wanted to emphasize.
When you do that with Luke’s speeches in Acts, it is very interesting. Jesus’ death is regularly discussed. And it is never called an atonement. Then why did Jesus die?
For Luke, Jesus died because he was a great prophet of God who was rejected by his own people. They, the Jewish people, were ignorant of what they were doing. They didn’t realize who Jesus was. But in fact he was completely innocent of all charges brought against him. The people who are hearing the speeches are told all this, and they are told that they too are responsible for the death of God’s great prophet and messiah. This makes them feel their own guilt for their own sins. When they realize how sinful they are, they are driven to turn to God and beg for his forgiveness. And he gives it to them, so they are saved.
To make the matter as succinct as possible, for Luke, Jesus’ death drives people to repentance. It is an occasion for forgiveness.
Here is my key point: there is a difference between an atonement for sins and the free forgiveness of sins. Mark thinks Jesus’ death is the first (as does the apostle Paul, for example); Luke thinks it is the occasion for the second.
Here’s the difference between atonement and free forgiveness. Suppose you owe me a thousand dollars. But you don’t have a thousand dollars to pay me back. There are two ways we could deal with this (apart from my taking you to court). On one hand, you could find someone who would be willing to pay your thousand dollars for you. If they did so, I would accept the payment and then let you off the hook. I wouldn’t care who paid the money, so long as I got paid. Alternatively, on the other hand, I could simply tell you not to worry about it, that I don’t need the money and you don’t have to repay me.
The first option is like atonement. Someone pays a debt owed by another. The second option is like forgiveness. I forgive you and your debt and no one pays it.
Mark, and Paul, have a doctrine of atonement. Jesus’ death is a death “for the sake of others.” He dies in the place of others. His death is a sacrifice that pays the debt that is owed by others. Luke does not have a doctrine of the atonement. For him, Jesus’ death makes you realize how you have sinned against God and you turn to God and beg his forgiveness, and he forgives you. No one pays your debt; God simply forgives it.
Jesus’ death, then, continues to be vitally important to Luke. Jesus is God’s messiah, his very Son, the final great prophet sent here at the end of time to deliver God’s message of forgiveness. But rather than accepting him, the Jewish people rejected him and killed him. When you realize with horror what has happened, you turn to him – and to the God who sent him – and ask for forgiveness for your sins. God forgives you, and you then have eternal life.
Are there manuscripts or ancient copies of Acts that express 20:28 differently than modern translations?
That’s a very good point. Acts 20:28 has Paul saying that Jesus’ death had a purchasing power (“the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son”). Like Mark’s version of Jesus puts it: “a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
Very interesting!
A bit of a throwback, but related to the “who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” webinar from a bit back… when did the idea of later composition dates for the gospels really become accepted among scholars? Especially Matthew and Luke which went from ~40-65 to ~75-90. I get the vague impression it was the late 1800s with Adolf von Harnack leading the charge that this shift happened, but maybe I’m early / late.
That’s a great question. I don’t know when to pinpoint the shift but yes, almost certainly in the 19th century and increasingly in the 20th.
Great material, Dr. E.
Dear Bart, do you think the Johannine Jesus, in Jn. 12.47, differentiated himself from the entity Logos which “deifies” men chosen as messengers (Jn.10.35), like Moses for example (Ex.4.15-16) authorizing them to act as “flesh and blood” representatives of the one true Deity (the Johannine “Father”, Jn.17.3). Do you think later Logos incarnational Christology as developed in Justin Martyr and others was somehow imposed by tradition as the only “correct” reading?
One of the interesting things aobu the Gospel of John is that the Logos doctrine of 1:1-18 does not appear again later in the Gospel (Jesus is never later identified as the incarnate Logos). Justin’s Logos theology is based on 1:1-18 (and other htings).
Pursuant to my comment on the previous post, couldn’t one “synthesize” the two views by saying that, since both Jesus and the Father are God, God simply “forgave” the debt by “repaying” the debt to himself?
I’m intrigued by the idea that it “costs” God something for him to forgive us. Perhaps it’s a metaphor for God absorbing some of the suffering caused by sin so that humans don’t have to bear all of it.
Yes, it could be that the ancient Xns didn’t have a clear differentiation in their heads — i.e. that they didn’t realize that repaying a loan is not the same thing as forgiving it.
Question 1: Was the author of the Gospel of Luke the first proponent of the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement?
According to this theory, the purpose and result of Jesus’ death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Jesus died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that his death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement
Question 2: Isn’t possible and even highly probable that Jewish Christians in general and the Jerusalem Church of James the Just (brother of Jesus) in particular were adherents to the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement while Paul was the first proponent of the Substitutionary Theory of Atonement?
1. I don’t think he was the first opponent of the view because I don’t think the view had come into existence yet (so he couldn’t oppose it) 2. No, I don’t see any evidence of that. Paul himself indicates that the apostles before him taught that the death of Jesus was “for our sins” (not to make us improve morally)
I was arguing that the author of the Gospel of Luke was a PROponent of the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement, not an OPponent of it, before it was named as such centuries later.
Question 1: What is the difference between the author of the Gospel of Luke’s view of the theological significance of Jesus’ death and the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement (or Moral Example Theory of Atonoment)?
Question 2: Are the letters in which Paul indicates this undisputed?
Question 3: Could Paul have been misrepresenting the views of the apostles?
It sounds like you’re useing the “Moral Example Theory of Atonement” as a technical term; I’m not familiar with it. But if it means that Jesus’ death makes people realize they need to begin to behave morally, I’d say that’s not quite it. For Luke, the death of the final prophet of God at the hands of his own people makes them realize their enormous guilt before God and drives them to repentance, and once they repent God forgives them. It’s not moral rectitude that saves but repentance leading to forgiveness. Paul’s views of sacrificial atonement are found in his undisputed letters And yes, it’s absolutely possible that Paul misrepresented the views of others. As with all claims about anicent writings, anyone who thinks it’s a misrepresentation would need to provide some evidence/ reasons for thinking so.
Is there a term assigned to the second view of Jesus’ death that we can use as a starting point to read further about this school of thought, like we have Substitutionary Atonement of Christus Victor assigned to each of the atonement theories?
Doctrine of repentance? Of forgiveness? These are all much later categories not familiar, as terms, to the early Christians.
All the converts in Acts are baptized. If Luke believes in forgiveness upon repentance, what role does baptism play in his thinking?
It is the natural corollary of belief — “believe and be baptized” is a unit that together makes one a member of the community of JEsus’ followers, in a sense replicating the ending and beginning of his own work of salvation in reverse order (begins with baptism, ends with death; followrs believe in his death and also get baptized)
Dr. Ehrman I’m sorry to keep asking questions, but have you read The Jesus Legend by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Greg Boyd? They are saying that there is historic reliability for Jesus and that he wasn’t a failed apocalyptic prophet.
I glanced at it. I’d say that is a very common view among Christians.
I understand the distinction between atonement and free forgiveness that you lay out here, but I don’t quite see how it necessarily applies. Don’t both Mark and Luke say that forgiveness of sins is conditional on repentance? Did any early Christians think that any of the gospels indicated that Jesus’ death and resurrection were about a universalist salvation independent of repentance?
I don’t believe Mark says anything about repentance leading to forgiveness based on the death of Jesus. And Paul, for example, does not have a doctrine of repentance leading to forgiveness.
In spite of my issues with John, it was the story of the Man Born Blind (John 9 1-34) that caught my eye. (You have to pay attention to both ends of that one). I later found, Matt 12; 22-27, Mark 3; 22, Luke 11; 15-19 and Luke 5; 18-26 showed similar defaults in how they determined those that were not fit for the Kingdom. (There are many others). I also noted his disputes with the Pharisees. If these are actual signs of their twisted viewpoint, just how bad was it? After you put this in the back of your mind, while you read his Sermon on the Mount and how he jammed it up their nose on other derangements of their leadership both in Matt and Luke just prior to his Last Supper, it all falls into place. He allowed himself to be taken, 1) So he alone, (not his followers) would be harmed and 2) so the cruel and twisted evils of their own faith rulers, could be seen, for what they really are. This is why he was teaching them to bypass the Pharisees and pray to the Father directly, thus his reason for The Lord’s Prayer.
Paul talks about atonement all the time. But in Mark you pointed out only very few sentences. Would you say that Mark would agree with all, or most, of what Paul says about atonement? If so, why does Mark talk so little about it?
I think Mark does agree with it, but he doesn’t talk about it a lot because he is telling a narrative not developing a theological treatise, putting the theology in the account itself rather than explicating it in an abstract way (the way, say, Paul does)
Two questions Professor; 1) So if the Jewish people had accepted him and not killed him, would there still be a need for Jesus to die 2) For me, Luke’s version seems more ideal rather than Mark’s and Paul’s, but considering the latter, which I find it difficult to understand, why did God require to create a son and then sacrifice him to atone for everyone else ? The two versions,atonement/forgiveness seem to imply, the price is paid for you and you must accept and seek God. They both seem interchangeable. BTW, in the years I spent in churches, atonement was emphasized more often than forgiveness.
Do you mean for LUKE? I’d say yes, for Luke Jesus’ death is a motivation for repentance because the Jewish people rejectd him. If they hadn’t rejected him, he would not have had to die. That is very different from Paul’s view, that he had to die for an atonement, so I don’t think they are compatible.
Unrelated. Dear professor, do you find 1 Thessallonians 2.15 and charge of Jews being the Christ killers authentic? NRSV has a footnote and find it also odd, as it is the only passage of that sort in Pauline letters, even though Paul has many charges against the Jews (why wouldn’t he say that more often?). Thank you
I think it’s authentic — it’s in all the manuscripts. Scholars have wanted to claim it was added later because they can’t figure it out or just don’t like what it says, but these as a rule are not compelling criteria.
Thank you. Does this authenticity of 1 Thessallonians 2:15 lends credibility of the tradition started/preserved in Mark & other gospels that Romans “didn’t really want to kill Jesus, but Jews made them”?
YEs, early on the followers of Jesus blamed Jews, not Romans — at least so far as we can tell from the surviving record.
just to clarify about the two versions, atonement and forgiveness. The former seems applicable to every one while the latter only to those who seek/accept God will be granted forgiveness.
Atonement *could* apply to eveyrone. Or it could apply only to those who accept the sacrifice. The latter is howmost Christian theologians have understood it over the years.
Excellent presentation. The idea that Jesus did not die for atonement merges with a gospel that Jesus Christ did not die at all— the Docetic view that became predominant among Nazarenes and Ebionites, as described by Epiphanius. The change from atonement to prophet had political incentives.
Hey Bart. Very interesting, but It seems to me to be a relatively subtle difference of emphasis from the atonement theology stemming from Isaiah 53: 6, 10,12 to the more simple ‘we esteemed him not’ and ‘we esteemed him smitten’ from Isaiah 53: 3-4. The purchasing of the ecclesia with his blood, (Acts 20:28) rather like a ransom, seems to be a further aspect with different emphasis. Luke must have been aware of the atonement doctrine and surely he only changed the emaphasis away from atonement to make the theology palatable to non-jews? What do you think Jesus thought about his impending death? Don’t you think he saw himself as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?
I don’t think there’s anything to suggest that Jesus himself saw himself in light of Isaiah 53; my view is that he was not planning or expecting to be executed.
Hey Bart. OK, if we take it to be the case that Jesus wasn’t expecting to be executed, then he wasn’t expecting that supper to be the *last* supper. He wouldn’t have made the elaborate preparations; he wouldn’t have said I won’t be drinking the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom comes; he wouldn’t have this is my body, let alone this is my blood. He wouldn’t have predicted Judas’s treachery. That doesn’t leave very much! Are you saying the last supper including Paul’s rendition of the supper in 1 Corinthians 11 23-26 is a complete fabrication from beginning to end?
The same goes for Gesthemene, the Markian messianic secret motifs, the sign of Jonah with it’s associated clever pun on pulling down the temple Jesus rebuilding it in 3 days without human hands (a reference to the Kingdom of God as a rock not cut with human hands of Dan 2:45 – very Jesus-like!), the lamb of God in John 1:29, it’s all got to go! Funny though that it all happened at passover. Isn’t all this too much to concoct as a retrospective post-crucifixion re-worked narrative?
Yes, the predictions of Jesus’ death for salvation were not originally thngs Jesus talked about. (For what it’s worth, this is not a strange view among historical scholars!)
Jesus certainly had a last meal. But the words recorded starting with Paul were not things Jesus actually said, no. They are Christians reflecting later on Jesus knowing what was to happen to hinm (he *had* to know, right??) and the significance of it.
Hey Bart, you say, with complete conviction, as if talking about incontrovertible facts, that “predictions of Jesus’ death for salvation were not originally things Jesus talked about […….] and the words recorded starting with Paul were not things Jesus actually said”. Is this simply the view of a historian making a best bet on the evidence available from the texts? Or is it a mixture historical method, focused by a belief system that rules out even just a simple non-supernatural intrepretation by Jesus, of his destiny according to the suffering servant servant of Isaiah 52 & 53, let alone any possibility pre-cogniton? I’m sure you accept that Jesus was familiar with the scriptures attributed to Moses, David, Daniel, Enoch Isaiah, Jonah and the other prophets. You presumably accept that Jesus would have known Isaiah 52 and 53 and other passages in deutero-Isaiah such has Isaiah 61? We know that the Essenes (?those visting the temple from their wilderness hideaways being the NT “Scribes”) thought Isaiah was important and the dead sea scrolls self-glorifcation hymn is arguably evidence of a pre-Jesus messianic intrepretation thereof, as previously debated on the blog’s No1 most commented post https://ehrmanblog.org/readers-mailbag-does-isaiah-53-predict-the-death-and-resurrection-of-jesus/
Yes, every statement about the past by a historian is simply based on what strikes them as a highly probably reconstuction of what happened (Mickey Mantle played for the Yankees; Caesar crossed the Rubicon; Jesus had disciples)
Do you accept that Jesus believed in the veracity of prophecy and that he made reference to prophecy when teaching his disciples and the crowds and when arguing with the scribes, the Pharisees and the Saducees? Isn’t it quite reasonable, historically, to take the view that at least when things looked bleak eg at “the last supper” Jesus might, at least at that point in time, have interpreted his destiny in accordance with Isaiah 53?
As to the resurrection, I think that you have been prepared to accept that it is consistent with the historical evidence, that visioanary ressurection appearances to the disciples, Mary and others, may have occurred, just as Paul relates his own experience in 1Cor 15 and just as, throughtout hisitory, such visionary experiences of Jesus, Mary, other holy people and relatives of bereaved people, have occurred commonly. Surely the view that these are non-veridical and “psychologically induced” as you have argued, is a view driven by a phsyicalist or materialist personal philsosphy rather than by historical argumenatation?
I don’t think we can make broad statements about Jesus’ view or use of the prophets. We need to look carefully at specifically what he is said to have said, then evaluate which of those sayings probably do go back to him, and then draw particular conclusions. It si worth noting, for example, that Jesus never does quote Isaiah 53 — so if someone wants to argue that he interpreted his life ni light of it, I’d say they have a pretty tall hill to climb. I’m not saying it’s unclimbable, but I’m saying ti would take a detailed analysis to be convincing. It would not take nearly as much analysis to argue that Jesus preached about God’s coming kingdom and the need to repent in light of it, since that is found independently attested throughout multiple sources of information abou his life (as opposed to explicit use of Isaiah 53 which never is found in any of them). See what I mean?
Hi Bart, yes I do see what you’re saying. Off the hoof, without going back and studying everything Jesus is reputed to have said in each of the gospels, I would say that the Markian messianic secret motifs are explicit statements by Jesus about Isaiah 53.
There’s clearly plenty of both implicit and explicit references to Isaiah 53 in Jesus‘s words recorded in John’s Gospel starting with John The Baptist’s explicit statement ‘behold the Lamb of God ‘ and finishing with Tetelesti “it is completed” (a quote from the very last verse of psalm 22 (“assahh”). But of course you argue that these are not things that Jesus originally said. How can you be sure that your argument is not circular? In other words is your historical approach biased by your theological approach?
I would say there’s a very big difference betweeen Mark and John’s portrayal of Jesus and what we can reconstruct about the life of Jesus itself. That difference is at the heart of scholarship on the New Testament.
Well….. If Shakespear could know what Marc Antony said at the forum at Julius Caesars funeral, then surely Luke knew verbatum the speeches he wrote out. LOL..
I was just thinking about Atonement this past week.. (no kidding) so much appreciated topic…
Off Topic Question…
What was Pauls opinion of Jesus’s physical relatonship with God? Did he believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were 3 in one? Could he have believed that Jesus was a man who rose from death and ascended to heaven like Elijah.. I’m wondering if Greek mythology such as Hercules had a bearing on trinity doctrine?
Also off topic..
Which Thessalonians might be authentic? 2 Thess professes to be true letter with Pauls own handwriting. How possible is it that 1 Thess is the forgery?
Paul did not have a dotrine of the Trinity, no. The difference between Jesus and Elijah is the Elijah never died. No one, for Paul, had ever been raised from the dead. Hercules wasn’t either. In my book Forged I try to explain why 1 THessalonians appears to be authentic but 2 Thessalonians not.
My reference to Hercules, is the parallel with Jesus. Both offspring between devine and mortal. The story of Hercules birth also parallels Mathew’s story of Harod (as compared to Juno). Hercules also returned from the underworld. (12th labor as opposed to Jesus preaching to dead then rising from the dead).
So I was wondering how influential the Story of Hercules may have been in the Gospel writings and Pauls belief in who Jesus was. Did Paul believe that Jesus was the “Son” of God like Hercules was the Son of Jupiter/Zeus? Did such myth originate the idea of a Trinity?
It’s hard to say. There were lots of versions of stories about Heracles/Hercules and many versions of the stories about Jesus. None of the Gospel writers, e.g., says anytihng about Jesus going to the underworld after his death. Paul doesn’t know anything about Jesus being the union of a mortal and an immortal at hist birth, or about the story of Herod. Mark and John don’t either. So it may be that some Christian storytellers may ahve seen some parallels and modelled their stories accordingly, but it’s impossible to make a broad/general characterization (such as: the stories of Jesus were modelled on stories of Hercules”)
If Luke used Mark as a source, but changed and deleted Markan texts that support atonement theology, then would it be correct to say that the writer of Luke not only had a different theology (free forgiveness), but that he also was aware of atonement theology and actively rejected it?
Related, are there any indications that the writer of Luke was aware of Pauline letters (in addition to Mark’s gospel)?
Yes, I believe so. And no, oddly, even though Paul is his hero, he does not show any evidence of knmonwing Paul’s letters (or even that Paul wrote letters)
Aren’t both debt forgiveness options the same as atonement?
If I forgive you your debt to me and say there’s no need to pay it, then in effect I have repaid your debt. If I write off what is owed to me I have repaid your debt to myself.
If god forgives sins he writes off the debt and has in effect atoned for sins?
The outcome is the same, yes; but the action that brings it about is different. If the differences don’t matter then I suppose on one level theology itself doesn’t much matter. All you’d need to say is “it worked!” That’s fine, of course, for those not interested in understanding the mechanics of soteriology.
Fantastic post – this question has plagued me ever since I have ready about Luke not having a theology of atonement. It is so sensible (and retrospectively obvious) but I never thought to go to the speeches in Acts!
Hi Bart,
It is my belief that Jesus died (and knew He would die) so that He could be resurrected, which shows it is possible to have life after death. And scripture indicates that Jesus has been given the power to allow people to literally be born again as humans (which the act of baptism represents) and that Jesus has been given the authority to decide (judge) who will be born again.
Dennis
I understand the difference between atonement & forgiveness. My question is about the process of ancient historians inventing the speeches they record … I understand the necessity and logic of it … I’m wondering if the same or similar process is at play in Jesus’ famous speech “on the Mount” or “on the plain” containing the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer? Are those the words of Jesus or a historian? How can we know what, exactly, Jesus really said and really taught?
Yes, I think it’s absolutely the same. No one was taking notes. The author who give us, say, Matthew 5-7, was writing 50 years later. There’s no way he could know what Jesus said on the occasion, if there were an occasion. Just imagine if I asked everyone on the blog to write out what Biden said in his inauguration speech just a couple of years ago. How would they do with Nixon in 1972? (!) And we have written records — they didn’t.
This argument about Luke and the cross from Dr. Ehrman has been important to me since I first encountered it here: “Did Luke Have a Doctrine of the Atonement? The Bart Ehrman Blog (2017).” I published an article about it here: https://infidels.org/library/modern/a-critique-of-the-penal-substitution-interpretation-of-the-cross-of-christ/ . Incidentally, you’re always welcome on Freethinker Podcast Bart
I note that different authors favour different definitions of “atonement”, and that in topics like this it’s sometimes necessary to differentiate between debates over semantics and debates over matters of substance. For example, William Barclay wrote that the concept of atonement in the New Testament “simply says that Jesus Christ died to do something for our sins, to do something to help our sinful condition”. If Jesus died in order to show people that they need to repent, that is still atonement, as it is still ultimately for the purpose of bringing about reconciliation. (Barclay goes on to say “the church has never had any one orthodox theory of the Atonement”, which is plainly false, I think “the church” has at times been quite adamant about it!)
(Quotes are from _The Plain Man Looks At The Apostle’s Creed_.)
I take it that Jesus reported comments on forgiveness, that God will forgive your sins if you forgive others who sin against you, is “free forgiveness”- so does the doctrine of the Atonement come from humanity’s inherited sin in Genesis?
In some forms of Christian theology, yes; the sin of Adam required the atonement of Christ. And you’re right: that ain’t the same as forgiveness. (Forgiveness does not require a “payment”; atonement does)
Rather than “Jesus died to save us” is it more accurate to say, ” In saving us (showing the way to salvation) Jesus died (was put to death”.
It completely depends on what your personal theological beliefs are!
Except for the author of Luke-Acts, did all the other authors of the New Testament believe in atonement?
Is it possible to distinguish between those who held the doctrine of atonement and those who did not?
How did those who didn’t believe in atonement would interpret “died for our sins according to the scriptures”?
All except the ones who don’t talk about Jesus’ death at all (James doesn’t mention it one way or the other). Jesus could “die for our sins” in a number of senses: he could die because “our” sins killed him (human sins led to his death); he could die for our sins in teh sense that when we realize he was willing to die for the sake of the truth we decided to commit ourselves to God; or we decided then to ask God to forgive us. etc.
Bart… Isn’t Paul quite plain as to the purpose of Jesus’s death in Romans 1:3-4? That his resurrection was testiment of being the “Son of God”. “Believers” in Acts are those who believe Jesus did raise from the dead. The qualification to replace Judas was that the person must have been a witness to the resurrected Jesus. Paul claims his authority though his witness of a living Jesus. I’m skeptical in any belief, that belief in an afterlife was common in 1st century. In Theophilus of Antioch’s letters to Autolycus, Jesus is not even mentioned, but Theophilus points out that Autolycus (a philosopher) does not believe in afterlife. A belief in afterlife seems to me, to be the one thing that separates the early Gentile Christians from all other religions.
Wouldn’t atonement be a specific concern of Jews and jewish Chistians “after” 70ce with the destruction of the temple and no longer able to give sacrifice? Didn’t repentence, then take the place of attonement after 70 ce? Wouldn’t such lend to a dating of the synoptics somewhat later than 70ce requireing time to develope such theology? Is that why the inclusion of John the Baptist and repentence in the synoptics?
It’s not clear if you’re referring to what Acts is trying to say or historically, that hte replacement of Judas had to be an eyewitenss to the resurrection. In Acts, yes, it had to be a person who witnessed the resurrection. Historically there are enormous difficulties to solve: did there continue to be “twelve”? Was there some kind of election. Were all the disciples convinced of the resurrection? Did they stay together as a group? Etc. etc.
I’d say there wer lots of things that separated Gentile Christians from pagans. Belief in one God for one thing. Afterlife is certainly part of the larger package.
And atonement is around long before 70. It’s clearly in Paul and he indicates that it was the view of the apostles before him, which would mean the earliest believers.
Mark 9:1 says, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Why would the author of Mark include this when he knows that it is untrue (since the disciples had probably died by then, yet God’s kingdom still had not arrived)?
I suppose for the same reason people quote it today and think it’s true. They’re taking it as referring to their own time. Doesn’t make much sense that it is, but then again, welcome to biblical interpretation!