Did Jesus die for our sins?

[unshinbop]

Paul certainly taught this, but he doesn’t count for now because he is a johnny-come-lately, and it is the conduct of the earlier apostles that makes this question controversial.

In Acts 21, James and the elders are worried about Paul arriving in town, because they realize their congregation of converted Jews are still “zealous for the Law” and have heard a rumor that Paul was telling Jews abroad to abandon the customs of Moses.

Curiously, neither James nor Paul attempt to suggest that a simple speech from Paul calling the rumor false would suffice. James’s only suggested solution to quell a potential uprising is for Paul to pay the expenses of 4 others who plan to do a Nazarite vow ceremony, and if he does, then James’s converts will know the rumor is false.

Here is the problem: The “law” includes animal sacrifice as atonement for sin, Leviticus 16, and the Nazarite vow in Acts 21 involved animal sacrifice. It is very clear that James’s converted Jews see no remission of sins in the death of their Messiah. I have to wonder, what words did James use to preach the gospel to them before they converted? Did he say “Jesus died for your sins”? If so, doesn’t their zealousness to keep doing the law after converting testify that their conversion was inauthentic?

Let’s not forget that James and the elders give every sign of being worried for Paul that their converted Jews may start a riot or other violence due to Paul being in town. If this is true, it refutes those who say James and the others continued doing temple ceremonies and sacrifices merely to avoid giving offense to non-Christian Jews. If James’s description of his congregation’s potential to do violence against Paul be true, then James’s congregation is full of converts who still sincerely believe that animal sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin. I must ask, how can they seriously believe this without James or other leaders disfellowshipping them for failure to confess true doctrine? Could it be that what looks like a bunch of converts to James, are really just insincere non-Christian Jews pretending to convert to James? How else can we explain their shocking ignorance of Paul’s view of the Cross?

The point is that the ignorance of the meaning of Jesus’ death on the part of James’s original converts is so staggering that it cannot be explained by simply carping that God hadn’t fully revealed the significance of the Cross just yet, or that they were slow to change their long-standing customs. Their ignorance is so inexplicable that room is made for the theory that they continued to do animal sacrifices as atonement for sin after Jesus died because the gospel James preached, to which they converted, neither expressed nor implied that Jesus’ death was a once for all payment for their sins.

I don’t find anything immediately problematic with this last assertion, because at no time in any of the 4 gospels does Jesus ever explain that the new covenant created by his death, or the “remission of sins” created thereby, was supposed to do away with the animal sacrifce system.

In other words, I have a problem with the later portions of the NT saying Jesus’ death was a final atonemtn for sin intended to replace the animal sacrifice system (book of Hebrews), because that is not what Jesus taught and it is not the earliest belief of his original 12 disciples. Paul’s view of the Cross appears at best to a later theological development that was never taught or anticipated by Jesus and the original 12.

If then, Jesus’ death was not intended to replace the animal sacrifice system, then whatever he meant by saying his death ushered in a new covenant in his blood for the remission of sins, he was either wrong, or he didn’t mean what most people think he meant. Or…Paul’s understanding of the Cross is incorrect. At the end of the day, the shocking ignorance about the significance of the Cross on the part of James’s converts in Acts 21 is not subject to a quick “they-just-didn’t-realize-the-full-implications” or “God-had-not-yet-revealed-all-truth-about-the-Cross-at-that-time” excuse.

The reason why I think those excuses fail is based on the same argument I make against Dispensationalists: There is one passage of the gospels that prevents Paul’s later understanding from being correct, and the words allegedly come from Jesus after he rose from the dead:

Matthew 28:19-20
19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Because Jesus never said his death was intended to replace the animal sacrifice system, whatever teaching of Jesus on his death that you convey to the world in the attempt to obey v. 20 can never include any statement that the old covenant is done away. Indeed, how could you obey v. 20 if, after Jesus died, stuff changed and now many of his pre-cross teachings are irrelevent to Gentiles?

I conclude that because neither James nor any of his original converts thought the animal sacrifice system was done away in Christ, then, short of a theory that James and his congregation were theological stupid (in spite of previous inspiration of the Spirit in a might way such as Acts 2), there is no possible way that Jesus could have taught this. Hence, when you tell unbelievers that Jesus died for their sins, you are preaching a Pauline heresy, not something Jesus believed about his own death.

 

[Heuchler]

Well, just because Christ died for our sins does not mean we need to stop any attempts at forgiveness and attonement. We are constantly sinning which is why the Catholic Church preaches the forgiveness of sins through confession. The animal sacrifices of the time would be similar to penance and would have the same effects. So, while Christ did die because we sinned, we still need to seek forgiveness and penance for what we have done.

 

[Catholic1954]

Sorry, you lost me at “Paul doesn’t count”.

 

[HPM1984]

I would echo my Brother “Paul does not count” and regarding your post that later writings of Paul (if I read you correctly) are “heresey”. From my standpoint that puts your post at odds with the RCC teachings and 99% of Protestant theology. Whether you like it or not your post is at odds with 99.99% of Christian theology by guess. Does that make you wrong? Well, if you are at odds with Billy Graham, The Holy Father, Calvin, Luther, Augustine of Hippo, John Wesley, and virtually every important figuren in the RCC and Protestant Churches, you have really managed to accomplish something (by calling Paul’s later writing heresey). Congratulations! you have done something few have- aligned yourself against virtually (but I admit not all) all of Christendom.

 

[The_Scott]

“Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” - John 1:29

That was from John the Baptist, who knew Christ personally. Seems like that should answer your question.

 

[unshinbop]

Well, just because Christ died for our sins does not mean we need to stop any attempts at forgiveness and attonement. We are constantly sinning which is why the Catholic Church preaches the forgiveness of sins through confession. The animal sacrifices of the time would be similar to penance and would have the same effects. So, while Christ did die because we sinned, we still need to seek forgiveness and penance for what we have done.

But you haven’t answered the question of whether the ignorance of James’ converts in Acts 21 makes it safe to infer that they knew nothing about Jesus dying for everybody’s sin. If that inference is safe, then Paul is a heretic for teaching that which Jesus never did. If that inference is not safe to make, then the ignorance of James and his converts to the atoning significance of Jesus’ death needs to be explained.

 

[unshinbop]

Sorry, you lost me at “Paul doesn’t count”.

then read the full sentence and realize that because I was attacking Paul’s theology, it would be begging the question on your part to simply quote Paul to refute me.

Paul certainly taught this, but he doesn’t count for now because he is a johnny-come-lately, and it is the conduct of the earlier apostles that makes this question controversial.

You are not going to defend Paul by quoting what he believed, any more than you could defend a Judaizer by quoting what these legalists believed. If Paul was correct, it was for reasons other than his personal opinions about himself and his beliefs.

Your refusal to engage merely because I say Paul doesn’t count, is yet another proof that today’s Christianity has more to do with Paul and less to do with any other character in the NT especially Jesus. What the original Jewish apostles believed means nothing, everything centers on Paul.

 

[TimothyH]

Here is the problem: The “law” includes animal sacrifice as atonement for sin, Leviticus 16, and the Nazarite vow in Acts 21 involved animal sacrifice. It is very clear that James’s converted Jews see no remission of sins in the death of their Messiah. I have to wonder, what words did James use to preach the gospel to them before they converted? Did he say “Jesus died for your sins”? If so, doesn’t their zealousness to keep doing the law after converting testify that their conversion was inauthentic?

The Jews present at the last supper and the crucifixion would have seen Jesus’ execution as a passover sacrifice, and not just some random roman execution, because of the way in which Jesus celebrated the passover.

One example, is how Jesus refused the fourth and final cup of wine at the passover meal. The meal effectively didn’t end, until he took the fourth and final cup while on the cross, in the moment just before he died. This would have been striking to those present, a clear indication to devout Jews that Jesus had extended the pasover meal to his cross and execution.

Another exmaple is the tens of thousands of lambs which were sacrificed on the afternoon and evening of the passover. They were slaughtered in the temple and then strung on skewers to be skinned and gutted. A skewer would have been placed horizontally through it’s front legs and another from it’s mouth to it’s buttock. Picture tens of thousands of lambs on crosses and you get the picture!

For those who witnessed it, Jesus death was clearly a passover sacrifice of himself. To a jew watching it, it must have been surreal.

To say that James said, “Jesus died for your sins” and that this didn’t suffice to the Jews is a prettey wild oversimplification of what was taking place. These people lived for 1500 years under the mosaic law. They studied the Law and the Prophets for hours in the Synagogue on the Sabbath. As Children, they were taught to read and write using the Book of Leviticus. Converting to Christianity meant an abandonment of their entire belief system and way of life. Other Jews would not do business with them and thier families would ostracize them. They were zealous for the law in the same way Americans are zealous for freedom and liberty. It’s part of our culture. It’s who we are, and we have only been doing it for 230 years. They had 1500 years of tradtion behind this.

I could go on but it is late and you seem like a good guy. Your post is lucid and well thought out. You obviously thought this through and put much effort into typing it out. So as one who is clearly interested in the topic, I strongly urge you to get a copy of “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre. It is a very interesting read for anyone interested in the question you raise.

-Tim-

 

[unshinbop]

I would echo my Brother “Paul does not count” and regarding your post that later writings of Paul (if I read you correctly) are “heresey”. From my standpoint that puts your post at odds with the RCC teachings and 99% of Protestant theology. Whether you like it or not your post is at odds with 99.99% of Christian theology by guess. Does that make you wrong? Well, if you are at odds with Billy Graham, The Holy Father, Calvin, Luther, Augustine of Hippo, John Wesley, and virtually every important figuren in the RCC and Protestant Churches, you have really managed to accomplish something (by calling Paul’s later writing heresey). Congratulations! you have done something few have- aligned yourself against virtually (but I admit not all) all of Christendom.

I am an atheist. I see no merit to the defense that says attacking Paul’s claim to be a true apostle places me against most Christian authorities. Yes, Paulism is very popular in the Church. So? Since when does popularity argue for truth?

The issue is whether I can show from the New Testament that Paul was a liar and heretic. If I can show that, then whether my position disagrees with Augustine, Calvin, Pacwa, or anybody else, doesn’t matter. Right?

 

[Trishie]

Paul certainly taught this, but he doesn’t count for now because he is a johnny-come-lately…

In saying this I’m afraid you lose credibility as you reject the Bible as the inspired word of God.
Jesus Himself called Paul into the service and teaching of the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Heuchler]

But you haven’t answered the question of whether the ignorance of James’ converts in Acts 21 makes it safe to infer that they knew nothing about Jesus dying for everybody’s sin. If that inference is safe, then Paul is a heretic for teaching that which Jesus never did. If that inference is not safe to make, then the ignorance of James and his converts to the atoning significance of Jesus’ death needs to be explained.

I see nothing in that verse to suggest that they did not believe Christ died for people’s sins. They were trying to ease the jewish people’s mind who had heard rumors of what Paul was teaching to the gentiles. They thought he was against the law so they arranged for him to practice one of the laws to show he had not rejected them. It has nothing to do with the redemption on the cross and only of the mentality of the Jewish people at the time. You are making a mountain out of a molehill with this verse and your assumptions that Paul was a heretic.

 

[unshinbop]

“Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” - John 1:29

That was from John the Baptist, who knew Christ personally. Seems like that should answer your question.

That doesn’t answer anything.

First, I was talking about Jesus’ death being an atonement for sin. There is nothing in the immediate context of John 1:29 to suggest that John the Baptist was foretelling of Jesus’s death in saying Jesus would take away the sin of the world. That’s your Paulism forcing you to read the gospels a certain way instead of letting them speak for themselves.

Second, even if John the Baptist believed Jesus would die for the sin of the world, there is nothing in the immediate context of his statement to indicate that Jesus shared that view. Annanis also said “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins…”, Acts 22:16, but there is nothing in the text to indicate that Paul agreed with this theological viewpoint. If I said “help this little girl from drowning and show what a good atheist you are”, would your helping the little girl require that you were assenting to the truth of everything else I said?

Third, the synoptics regularly have Jesus forgiving sins verbally, with no expressed or implied connection to any future death for sins. So there is a perfectly reasonable biblical sense in which Jesus can be said to take away the sin of the world that has nothing to do with his death.

Fourth, even if John 1:29 proved what you think, then what John the Baptist believed, does absolutely nothing to explain how it could be that James and his converts in Acts 21 make clear that they think animal sacrifices still atone for sin long after Jesus died.

 

[unshinbop]

The Jews present at the last supper and the crucifixion would have seen Jesus’ execution as a passover sacrifice, and not just some random roman execution, because of the way in which Jesus celebrated the passover.

One example, is how Jesus refused the fourth and final cup of wine at the passover meal. The meal effectively didn’t end, until he took the fourth and final cup while on the cross, in the moment just before he died. This would have been striking to those present, a clear indication to devout Jews that Jesus had extended the pasover meal to his cross and execution.

I don’t understand how you are getting a refusal of Jesus to take a drink from the fourth cup, out of the fact that he takes the cup and says he will not drink of it again until he does so in the kingdom of God. Many times when I was a kid sharing soda with my sisters, I’d take a final sip and hand it to them saying “I don’t want this anymore”. That statement did not mean I didn’t first take a sip.

Another exmaple is the tens of thousands of lambs which were sacrificed on the afternoon and evening of the passover. They were slaughtered in the temple and then strung on skewers to be skinned and gutted. A skewer would have been placed horizontally through it’s front legs and another from it’s mouth to it’s buttock. Picture tens of thousands of lambs on crosses and you get the picture!

If your argument is correct, then you are saying the death of Jesus would be viewed as a sacrifice for sin his followers right when it happened, not merely years later when they learned more about its theological significance. Fine. Why didn’t James get the picture? Why did he continue believing that the animal sacrifice system continued to make atonement for sin long after Jesus died? How can he have risen to such a high leadership position among the apostles so that he was the one to “render a decision” about the Judaizer question in Acts 15, if it be true that he still did not know that Jesus died for everybody’s sins (Acts 21)? Aside from the fact that your faith forbids you from accepting my theory, is there any OBJECTIVE reason why my theory (i.e, that the concept of Jesus dying for sins was a later embellishment upon what was originally just another normal death) must be wrong? You can cite Paul, but my argument is attacking Paul’s theoloy. You can no more quote Paul to vindicate his Cross theology, than you can quote the book of Mormon to vindicate the Mormon view of that book.

For those who witnessed it, Jesus death was clearly a passover sacrifice of himself. To a jew watching it, it must have been surreal.

Same answer.

To say that James said, “Jesus died for your sins” and that this didn’t suffice to the Jews is a prettey wild oversimplification of what was taking place. These people lived for 1500 years under the mosaic law. They studied the Law and the Prophets for hours in the Synagogue on the Sabbath. As Children, they were taught to read and write using the Book of Leviticus. Converting to Christianity meant an abandonment of their entire belief system and way of life. Other Jews would not do business with them and thier families would ostracize them. They were zealous for the law in the same way Americans are zealous for freedom and liberty. It’s part of our culture. It’s who we are, and we have only been doing it for 230 years. They had 1500 years of tradtion behind this.

First, do you believe James told the converts mentioned in Acts 21 that Jesus died for their sins? If not, this supports my theory. If yes, then why did he continue observing animal sacrifices? You have blocked your only exit door with your previous argument that anybody keeping company with Jesus during the last supper and his crucifixion could not have missed that he was dying for sin. Why did James miss it and continued missing it as late as Acts 21?

The Jewish tradition you mention means nothing after Acts 2, where the Holy Ghost overcomes any problems of strong Jewish tradition and incites many Jews from the synagogues to believe the gospel, Acts 2:41. If such movement of the Holy Spirit was so powerful that thousands of Torah-obsevant synagogue-attending orthodox Jews often converted in a single day, then you can no longer argue that it was difficult for Jews to part with their long tradition of following Mosaic Law.

Unless…you agree with me that the gospel they were converting to in Acts 2 and afterward…did not teach that the Mosaic animal sacrifice system was now useless. That seems clear from the fact that there is no dying for remission of sins anywhere in Acts 2. If the Cross is central to the gospel as Paul says, why are none of the original 11 apostles attributing salvific significance to it in Acts?

My speculation about whether James had said “Jesus died for your sins” to the Jews, need not be included in my OP. As I read Acts 2 in the last few minutes, (i.e., the entire first sermon of Peter), I found that he preached about Jesus rising from the dead, and about the listeners converting, but nothing about Jesus dying as a sacrifice for their sins. Indeed, I can find no evangelism-speech by any of the original 11 disciples anywhere in Acts where the death of Jesus is portrayed as a payment for sin. HIs death in such contexts counts for little more than the pretext needed to launch into a tirade about his resurrection. Dying for sin is eerily absent from the original Holy Spirit filled gospel preaching of the original 11 apostles.

I strongly urge you to get a copy of "

Thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out.

 

[unshinbop]

In saying this I’m afraid you lose credibility as you reject the Bible as the inspired word of God.
Jesus Himself called Paul into the service and teaching of the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

I disagree with your belief that a person needs “credibility” in order to set forth an argument they have constructed out of New Testament data. All that matters is whether you can answer my argument. Truth is independent of the claimant. If that weren’t the case, then where two equally credible catholics interpret a single bible verse contrary to one another, both interpretations are equally true, which is nonsense.

 

[unshinbop]

In saying this I’m afraid you lose credibility as you reject the Bible as the inspired word of God. Jesus Himself called Paul into the service and teaching of the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

What does credibility have to do with argument? If Einstein was dishonest in personal life, would that be a reason to reject E=MC2?

Can you imagine a jury who declares a murder suspect not guilty, because they found out that the prosecutor committed adultery last week and hadn’t yet gone to confession?

I know some Mormons that are brutally honest and willing to help even when it hurts their finances or impinges on their quiet and family time. No credibility problems. Does their credibility do ANYTHING to argue in favor of the trustworthiness of the Book of Mormon? Not at all.

Most bible scholars have equally high credibility, yet they disagree how to interpret single bible verses and passages. Obviously, somebody is wrong, and it has nothing to do with their credibility.

Truth is independent of the claimant.

 

[unshinbop]

I see nothing in that verse to suggest that they did not believe Christ died for people’s sins. They were trying to ease the jewish people’s mind who had heard rumors of what Paul was teaching to the gentiles. They thought he was against the law so they arranged for him to practice one of the laws to show he had not rejected them. It has nothing to do with the redemption on the cross and only of the mentality of the Jewish people at the time. You are making a mountain out of a molehill with this verse and your assumptions that Paul was a heretic.

If James believed that Jesus brought an end to the animal sacrifice system of Moses with his death on the Cross, why do his converts remain zealous to continue the Mosaic ordinance of atonement by animal sacrifices (i.e., “zealous for the law”)?

 

[Heuchler]

If James believed that Jesus brought an end to the animal sacrifice system of Moses with his death on the Cross, why do his converts remain zealous to continue the Mosaic ordinance of atonement by animal sacrifices (i.e., “zealous for the law”)?

It was used in the same way as confession and penance, while Christ instituted a new way, there was nothing wrong with the old way at the time. His converts were also all good Jews who would have been terrified at breaking away from the law (which is why they tried to kill Paul when they found out that he brought a gentile into the temple). I once again see nothing in there where anyone claims that Paul is preaching heresy. James doesn’t call him out and only the Jewish people attacked him (possibly some of the converts but probably a lot of the unconverted Jews in Jerusalem which is probably who the whole ceremony was for.)

 

[unshinbop]

It was used in the same way as confession and penance, while Christ instituted a new way, there was nothing wrong with the old way at the time.

You are not arguing that nothing was wrong with the old way for a time, you are simply asserting it. Anything is possible, what counts is whose theory to explain the data is more reasonable. The disciples allegedly had trouble believing that Jesus would rise from the dead, but according to the story, they immediately started preaching this scandelous truth some 50 days after seeing it. I simply cannot buy the typical excuse that we still find them sacrificing animals for atonement because they just didn’t “get” it as quick as Paul. From the context of Acts 21, there is no sign that they were merely continuing the animal sacrifice system merely as some extension of Christ’s death. The advice from James to Paul indicates that the entire Jerusalem church still held zealously to the law just as much as they did before they converted to Christ.

His converts were also all good Jews who would have been terrified at breaking away from the law (which is why they tried to kill Paul when they found out that he brought a gentile into the temple).

which is consistent with my theory that Jesus did not teach that his death would replace the animal sacrifice system, and that following him did not require Jews to abandon the Temple or Moses…that is…a very far cry from Paul’s gospel.

I once again see nothing in there where anyone claims that Paul is preaching heresy.

here it is, with the part you missed highlighted:

Acts 21:18-26
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
**21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. **
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

I guess the question now becomes…does that rumor about Paul say that he was preaching heresy? And the next question would be, was that rumor true or false?

James doesn’t call him out and only the Jewish people attacked him (possibly some of the converts but probably a lot of the unconverted Jews in Jerusalem which is probably who the whole ceremony was for.)

If you were highlight the fact that James does not rebuke Paul, and you were inferring that this silence indicate James had no problem with Paul’s theology, then the inference would be wrong. Although we might have thought that if the rumor was false, Paul need do nothing more than give a short speech to James’s congregation denying it, James clearly thinks that nothing less than Paul making a public showing of conformity to a Mosaic custom is necessary for his Christian congregation to realize that the rumor was false. Of course, the other problem is that although James predicted that Paul’s conformity with this ritual would prove to his congregation that Paul “walketh orderly, keeping the law”, actually his plan did not have that possibility, since Paul admits that he will pretend to be under the law, to those who are under the law, even though he himself isn’t really under the law:

1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

So the most James’s plan could have done was to give his congregation the deceitful appearance that Paul kept the law.

I don’t believe too much in Acts is historically real, but if it is, then I believe the reason Paul was attacked was because those Jews from Asia knew him previously, heard him encourage them to abandon Moses, but upon arriving back in Jerusalem, found him “playing to the crowd”, thus proving that they had been duped by a con artist. Acts says the reason they beat him was because he brought a Gentile into the Temple, but I say this is a lie, however, Acts could not afford to reveal the real reason for the riot, so he cooks up the Gentile-in-the-temple excuse to deflect attention from those things that make Paul look deceptive.

 

[Doxiemom]

In simple terms, yes.

When John declared that Jesus was " The Lamb of God" every Jew in ear shot knew just what he meant. Lambs were sacrificed for the atonement of sins.

Every second of Jesus’ life , death, resurrection, was perfectly orchestrated according to Jewish law and the Feasts.

 

[Pitcharan]

…Hence, when you tell unbelievers that Jesus died for their sins, you are preaching a Pauline heresy, not something Jesus believed about his own death.

Paul did not invent any new teaching but continued what our Lord taught. Our Lord Himself repeatedly said that He was going to die for our sins.