Loading...I have been discussing various ways that Paul understands the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus for salvation, and have focused on the judicial and participationist models – mainly because these are the two that Paul most frequently appeals to (without calling them the judicial and participationist models!). I need to clarify a few points before moving on to speak of yet other models that Paul appears to use.
First, several readers have seemed to think that I have a personal relationship to these models. Several have asked how I could possibly believe such a thing. And one has asked what right I have to talk about “sin” if I’m not a Christian and so do not believe in sin. So let me clear: I’m not affirming or denying anything Paul says in any of his writings. I’m simply describing what it is he says. Some people have trouble understanding the difference between description and prescription, but there’s a big difference.
If this question is foolish I apologize. I have read in your books that not all of the Paul writings were actually authored by Paul. We’re all of them written in the mid First Century, or were some later? Is there informed speculation about who may have authored the others?
Yes, you should read my book Forged where I deal with this. Most scholars date all the letters to the first century (the 6 deuteroPaulines to the end of the century); but we have no idea who the actual authors were.
What I am going to ask may not be possible to answer, and may only be based on my understanding or misunderstanding of what Paul is saying about salvation and what Jesus is saying, or not saying about it.
I contend that Jesus and Paul express different “theologies.” Jesus doesn’t seem to speak of salvation, and if he does, it seems not to be in the same sense at Paul…that is, an “atonement sacrifice for original sin.” … at least in the synoptic gospels.
Jesus seems to be speaking more in terms of the here-and-now and the coming of God’s kingdom during his life time. I do not get a sense of an atonement theology in what Jesus teaches in the same way as Paul. For Jesus it seems salvation is now, the kingdom is now (“within you”), and in the future, and the kingdom ethics are to be practiced now here on earth (“on earth as in heaven)..
Paul seems to be more cosmic in his understanding of the salvation event…more of a spiritual thing and not an earthly event.
*** Question:*** Is my perception wrong on this…that there is a difference in what Jesus taught and what Paul taught as his gospel given to him by the risen Christ. regarding salvation?
***Suggestion:*** you might want to give a brief overview of the basics of what Jesus taught on this and what Paul taught if the messages are significantly different.
It seems that the average person in the pews think the message is the same throughout the new Testament. I see many differences.
Thank you.
I agree they are very different. That’s where I’m heading with this series of posts in fact!
Very good…thank you
And one has asked what right I have to talk about “sin” if I’m not a Christian and so do not believe in sin.
This troubles me.
Sin: an offense against religious OR moral law.
Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior.
Observation: One need not be religious to be moral.
As Bart said, ‘sin” comes from Adam’s disobedience to God in Eden. This is considered “original sin” and affects ALL human whoever they are. Sin is estrangement from God. It is a breakdown of the unity of God and humans and God and the whole cosmos, a harmonious unity that God originally intended it to be. “sins” are immoral actions we do because we are no longer united with God based on a code of conduct usually established by a religious organization..
That is a simplification of the original story found in the Genesis myth. I personally do not believe in that myth and do not believe that all humans are born into sin…that is, a baby is not evil and estranged from God.
Therefore salvation from sin is not needed and the atonement is not needed.
I am not a Christian in that sense, though the great majority of Christians adhere to that atonement / salvation format…that Jesus / Christ died for our sins in place of us being punished. That position was formally adopted by the early church in 325 AD / CE at the Council of Nicaea.
In my opinion one need not be religious to be moral, (many religious people are very immoral) and on a practical level hundreds of thousands and more non-religious people, and non-Christian people are loving, compassionate, and practice a positive moral code.
Just my opinion.
makes sense to me too
Makes sense to me.
What is your view on Universal Salvation?
As an agnostic, I don’t believe in salvation. But if I did, I would want it to be universal!
“Paul often describes salvation as a “redemption,” in which a person’s life is “purchased” by God through the price of Christ’s blood, much as a slave might be purchased by gold (Rom 3:24; 8:23). Never does he explain, however, from whom or what the person is being purchased (the cosmic forces? the devil? sin?).”
Again, liberation, nothing there about being purchased. And, elsewhere, where Paul does speak of our being purchased, it is indeed clear from what we have been saved, namely from the curse of the law (Gal 3,13 4,5): Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου … ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ …
Dr Ehrman, please clarify this point according to Paul’s understanding of salvation: If as you say above, complete salvation will only be achieved when Christ returns again and there is massive, cosmic destruction and his Kingdom is restored on earth, then is it true that the person who has entered into a union with Christ through baptism and has faith in the resurrection, has not yet achieved full salvation. Is it partial salvation? Is that person on the right road to salvation? Has that person put him/herself on the right path to salvation? I don’t think many people understand this aspect of Paul, rather they think that if they faith in Christ and his resurrection and are baptized, they are saved. I appreciate your taking time to respond.
The person is not “on the road” as if something else needed to be done to inherit it. But salvation itself would not be complete until the end comes. In the meantime, we’re just waiting for the inevitable.
Is it true that Paul contradicts his testimony of how he converted?
No — it’s that Acts has three different accounts, with discrepancies.
I hate to be off topic, but I have a ton of questions about Paul, and since said you won’t be writing any books about him, I’ll take this opportunity. Paul says he went to Arabia for three years after his conversion. Is he talking about what we know as Arabia today?? Sinai Peninsula? What was his purpose? Were there band of Christians there at the time he went to study with, or was he just retreating to the desert to meditate and study for himself? Or, maybe even escape persecution from those he was allied with when he was persecuting christian him self?
I’m very intrigued by Paul, and would love to know more about him, historically. It’s a pity you won’t be doing a book about him.
Thanks
Good questions. I’m not sure I have good answers. I think usually it is thought (if someone knows I’m wrong about this — let me know!) that Paul means the northern part of what we think of as the Arabian peninsula, an inhabited region, and that he was in urban settings there. Doing what, I don’t know! Maybe figuring everything out. The reason he stresses this in Galatians is that he wants his readers to know that he was nowhere near Jerusalem or the other apostles, so that he did not get his message from them.
WOW! What a convoluted mishmash of deductive reasoning, this road to salvation! I just don’t get how intelligent, reasoning, learned people can consider this as a serious possibility. Are people really this desperate and hungry for an answer?
Idumea adjacent to Egypt- Arabian Peninsula- which explains the influence of all the Platonic mystification. If you read Eisenmann- the assertion was that Paul was “the spouting liar”, & he was fleeing from assassins & persecution. Given there is another assertion that Stephen & his entourage [in Acts 6] were all Hellenists, even though there was a sign dug up in Jerusalem somewhere, prohibiting admission of Hellenists beyond certain boundaries, stating temple access for Hellenists would cost them death. Stephen is no anomaly for Acts given all the other anachronisms & contradictions. Stephen even misquotes the passage in Genesis when giving a type of farewell speech (a Hellenist trying to recite Torah to Pharisees!? Give me a break!) Yet what Stephen said is remarkably similar to James the Just from Hegessipus. It has been suggested given James’ prominence & venerated position minimalized & obfuscated in the N.T.- that the account of Stephens was simplwy a cheap rip off… Then it would have been James who Paul helped beat.
“Father forgive them…” may have been later written in to Luke based on what James had said later than the crucifixion of his brother Jesus.
Have you heard of such an assertion? It is not completely blind. It iis a matter of suspicion & conspiracy, I understand. But that does not always discredit when conspiracy is a dark insidious fact of History. Not just mere repression & denial- but intentional suppression.
I’m afraid it’s so highly problematic that it is not taken seriously most NT scholars, let alone scholars of early Judaism.
Scholars did not take Faraday seriously either… perhaps why Jesus thnked God that He concealed from scholars what He revealed to babes- is relevant to this reason. What a paradox. Maybe bc the temptations for conceit- to be smug are greater challenges or obstacles for scholars if they take themselves & their espoused ideas too seriously.
I remember you writing or saying something you prefer to believe- as a scholar. of the N.T.- that your objective is not to destroy Christianity– but rather restore it the way it was probably viewed in the 1st century. Which maybe something you argued against in your debate about whether the “original” is lost. Nevertheless, I think there in lies an obvious problem– if the ovjective at hand is to restore the most likely original Christianity- & not destroy Christianity- yet without original manuscripts– How else do you plan on doing so without making assertions!? Impossible! You can talk with confidence about all these other convoluted themes & Hellenistic beliefs about Christ I.e. Gnosticism- except those are all of convoluted culture having little to do with an ideal “original”- but I think you will have a hard time setting out to restore what the original Christianity probably was like* without making an assertion.
But your Right about the lack of seriousness due to many problems. But the consequences have been so grave by those who have taken the wrong things too seriously- from Rome- through the dark ages- & to the middle ages- enlightenment- to the birth & secularization of America– the influence of the Bible and the preconceptions and misconceptions have made it all the way despite secular society & culture. You maybe able to appreciate that, seeing your bit you did on the history of the English Bible & the immense effect such literature has had on the people in this world.
Perhaps the notion of conspiracy i.e. intentional minimalization- adding & subtracting cannot be taken seriously– perhaps not because the history is unsubstantial- just that even scholars take polemical views- avoiding one side, impaling themselves on another pike- where our Faith is applied maybe different- nevertheless Faith is occupied in something- it is a human faculty. Certain things we are even to cautious to understand. I can see the lack of severity as a reluctance to investigate- thus even scholars that make their living in these subjects of Divinity take polemical views– & in doing so bi-productively obfuscate, minimalize, & even marginalize what they think ought to be important.
We should not take ourselves & our views so seriously that we idol them. The universal aspect I find attractive- but perhaps bowdlerising- Build your house on Rock- Faith ought to be foundational yet flexible.
Professor Ehrman,
My understanding regarding these and other subjects basically relevant to modern Christianity (not to mention impact on much of modern civilization!) as treated in your various works is that there was a considerable early “iceberg” of written material that is not available for historical examination, although somewhat of an inkling has emerged.
Regarding the above subject, are there references for best estimate of the context, background, philosophical, inculcational, etc. history relevant to the scriptural through 400 CE Christian development of salvation ideas?
sorry — I’m not sure what you’re asking! If you’re asking if scholars have ideas about where various understandings of salvation came from and what they maintained, then the answer is a clear yes!
Yes, thank you! My impression is that practically all of early Christian ideas were known or available from sources at the time such as Jewish, Greek and others, and were put forward and discussed prior to or concomitant with the known or “accepted” scriptures, but which are now largely lost or undiscovered.
I was wondering if there is an authoritative and comprehensive reference for the layman (perhaps your own!) that details such things as salvation as found in early sources and writings and as best as can be elicited from Dead Sea & the other discoveries.
Nothing that I know of. But if you want to see what the DSS say, there are great books, for example by James Vanderkam.
What I’m basically occupied about are the overall ramifications of Christian doctrines. Among more pertinent are political & etc. claims of miraculous stature of some aspects of Christian tenets, which are thus concluded to be singularly portentous.
However, badly paraphrasing Conan Doyle: ‘Eliminate everything that’s naturally explainable before concluding about miraculous’.
Seems like a good hypothesis to investigate would be how much of Christianity was essentially in place at the time, and which was subsequently rephrased and/or expatiated by Yeshua and especially his followers.
As I understand you to point out, apparently much historical material pertinent to the above has dematerialized, except for fractions turned up. My question is to what extent can the approximately 30 CE religious habitat and environment be pieced together to reasonable validity. Seems to me a narrative about the ideological ‘atmosphere’ if not hardcore dogmatism floating around at the founding of Christianity would be highly enlightening – from eventual Christian subjects of salvation to “malice toward none and charity toward all” – no complaint there, of course.
To me, it seems like the book of Hebrews takes a hard line against apostasy and sinning after you’ve become a christian; no second chances at salvation even if you want, which is a very terrifying thought. Could you please clarify the teachings of Hebrews on salvation and how it fits in (or clashes) with Paul’s thoughts on Salvation?
Yes, esp. in chs. 6 and 10 he warnes his raders against falling away. Paul appears to have a similar view, e.g., in Galatians where he indicats that the Galatians who receive circumcision may fall from grace, and he certainly thinks that hte Christian missionaries teaching such things are lost.
Yes, esp. in chs. 6 and 10 he warnes his raders against falling away. Paul appears to have a similar view, e.g., in Galatians where he indicats that the Galatians who receive circumcision may fall from grace, and he certainly thinks that hte Christian missionaries teaching such things are lost.
What about the idea of willful sin in Hebrews 10:26? Is that referring to apostasy, or does it refer to any sin that a christian might commit while knowing it is wrong, or does it refer to something else? So many Christians seem to have different opinions on it, and they include verses from other passages in the new testament to incorporate into their interpretation of this verse, and it’s all so convoluted. In summary, what does Hebrews 10:26 mean?
It appears to be indicating that if someone returns to a life of sin they will lose their salvation. See Heb. 6:4-6 as well.