Board index ‹ Jesus

[Captain John Smith]

Jesus was a revolutionary apocalyptic zealot who was crucified for his crimes against the state. His death was not a "sacrifice".

In this post, I want to examine some things that Jesus said and did within the wider context of 1st century Jewish culture.

1) During the first century AD, the Jews were looking for someone who could free them from Roman rule. The Jews were not looking for someone who would "die for their sins."

2) Many of the things that Jesus said and did only make sense within the context that Jesus taught that God was going to establish a kingdom on Earth within the lifetime of the disciples. Indeed, Jesus said:

"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds. And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.” -Matt. 16:27-28

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my message, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in his glory and in the glory of the Father and the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Kingdom of God.” -Luke 9:26-27

If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”' - Mark 8:38 -9:1.

3) Jesus's teaching of an imminent "Kingdom of God" presented a threat to the ruling Romans. Additionally, Jesus was viewed as insurrectionist because he caused a riot in the temple (Matt. 21:12-13).

With these things in mind, it makes sense why the Romans crucified Jesus—they viewed Jesus as an enemy of the state. Indeed, the punishment of crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the state, pirates, and treason.

Additionally, when Jesus was crucified, above his head was written, "this is jesus, the king of the jews." (Matthew 27:37)

This makes it clear that the Romans considered Jesus to be an insurrectionist who was a threat to the Roman state, leading to his execution.

4) There was nothing "sacrificial" about Jesus's death. Jesus was a criminal according to the Roman laws, and he was a blasphemer according to the Pharisees. Jesus was killed for his own crimes.

5) Nowhere in the 4 gospels does it say that Jesus would die for people's sins. Substitutionary atonement is not found in the gospels. Jesus does say that he would die and rise from the dead, but he does not say that his death would be a payment for humanity's sins.

The concept of substitutionary atonement is developed in Romans 6-7, not in the gospels.

6) The gospels and Paul's letters contradict each other. Jesus said that nothing would disappear from the law. But, Paul says:

6.1 substitutionary atonement, in Romans 6-7

6.2 Christians are under grace, not the law, in Romans 6:14, Galatians 5:4

6.3 Jesus fulfilled the law, Romans 10:4

These 3 concepts contradict the law in the OT. The concept of substitutionary atonement did not exist in Jewish culture. (This is one of the main reasons that Jews rejected Christianity).

[jimwalton]

1) You're right that the people were expecting political salvation, not spiritual salvation. No question there.

2) First of all, these 3 quotes are all the same reference in 3 Gospels. Therefore, it's not *many of the things Jesus said,* but one. In addition, you've misunderstood that one by not reading the context. (That's the problem when you just pull out verses.) Jesus is talking about having in mind the concerns of God, not the concerns of this earth (viz., political aspirations). HIs point is sacrifice and resurrection, not political ambition or establishing a kingdom on earth. He calls his followers to self-denial and sacrifice. Faithfulness will be rewarded. There are different interpretations to what Jesus meant when he said, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," but none of them are in the political realm. The most likely reference point is his transfiguration that will come the next week, but other possibilities are the resurrection (of which he spoke at the beginning of the passage), Pentecost, or even the Second Coming. No one, except you, interprets this text that Jesus envisions political establishment.

3) Jesus was not viewed as an insurrectionist for his "riot" in the Temple. The Romans couldn't have cared less; the Antonia guard was not summoned. There is no indication that the Romans were even aware of his action. Even the chief priests didn't view it as such, but engaged him in confrontational debate about his authority and identity. There is no expressed perception of insurrection.

The sign over his head at crucifixion was not a Roman assessment, but a Jewish one (Mark 15.12). It was a label of mocking (Matt. 27.30). Pilate found him innocent of any crime (Matt. 27.23-24).

4) Jesus was not a criminal according to Roman laws (Matt. 27.23-24; Luke 23.13-16). Neither Pilate nor Herod convicted him.

5) Matthew 26.28; John 1.29

6) This is a completely different question that has nothing to do with your premise or your first 5 points. But we can still discuss it.

Jesus, in Mt. 5.17, claimed that he didn't come to abolish the law at all. He never said that the law would no longer be in effect. On the contrary, Mt. 5.17-20 Jesus made an uncompromising affirmation of the eternal validity of the Law. He claimed that the Law would be filled up in himself. Jesus did what the Law failed to do: showed people how to live godly lives. God wanted his people to have certain attitudes, and He did that by commanding certain actions with the idea that the people would see the attitudes behind them as well. The people failed. But Christ did not. He not only preached the attitudes, but he lived them; he not only preached obedience to God in actions, but he lived it. He fulfilled it.

Paul also agrees that the law has been fulfilled, but it's still in effect. He said that faith doesn't nullify the Law, but upholds it (Rom. 3.30), and that the Law is spiritual (Rom. 7.14). In Romans 13.8-10 he agrees with Jesus in saying that love is the fulfillment of the Law (see Jesus in Matt. 22.37-40 where he says the same thing). Both Paul and Jesus say that the Law has not been abolished but has been fulfilled.

In Eph. 2.15 Paul says that Jesus has established once and for all that salvation is by grace through faith and not by obedience to the Law. Thus the Law is no longer a barrier, keeping Gentiles out of the Kingdom of God. The barrier that the Law was has been abolished so that all humans can come to the Father through Jesus (cf. also Jn. 14.6).

In Romans 7.25 Paul talks about being a slave of the Law in his mind, and a slave to sin in his sinful nature. He continues in Romans 8 to explain how salvation has set him free from his slavery to sin, but he says nothing about being set free from the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law is still in effect, it just doesn't lead to salvation (Gal. 3.24). We're not under the Law's supervision (Gan. 3.25-4.7), just as Jesus said (Mk. 2.28 and other places).

Therefore your conclusion fails. Paul and Jesus were in agreement that the Law would never be abolished, but it was filled up in Jesus, and thus is was a temporary guardian that had served its purpose but was going to be subsumed under the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Captain John Smith]

1) You're right that the people were expecting political salvation, not spiritual salvation. No question there.

2) First of all, these 3 quotes are all the same reference in 3 Gospels. Therefore, it's not many of the things Jesus said, but one.

That doesn’t matter. Jesus still said it, and it didn’t happen.

> His point is sacrifice and resurrection, not political ambition or establishing a kingdom on earth.

What are you talking about? Jesus said that he would return with angels, judge everyone, and establish a kingdom?

> There are different interpretations to what Jesus meant when he said, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," but none of them are in the political realm.

The interpretations by Christian “scholars” always try to deny the political ramifications of what Jesus actually said. However, many scholars admit that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. See:“Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”

> The most likely reference point is his transfiguration that will come the next week, but other possibilities are the resurrection (of which he spoke at the beginning of the passage), Pentecost, or even the Second Coming.

Neither the transfiguration nor Pentecost involve God judging everyone.

> Jesus was not viewed as an insurrectionist for his "riot" in the Temple. The Romans couldn't have cared less; the Antonia guard was not summoned. There is no indication that the Romans were even aware of his action. Even the chief priests didn't view it as such, but engaged him in confrontational debate about his authority and identity. There is no expressed perception of insurrection.

I disagree with everything that you’ve written there. Do you have any sources to support this, or is this just your opinion?

> The sign over his head at crucifixion was not a Roman assessment, but a Jewish one

No. The Romans put those signs there to tell people what crime the person committed. Also, you can’t use the Bible to support the Christian narrative. Use objective source.

> Jesus was not a criminal according to Roman laws (Matt. 27.23-24; Luke 23.13-16). Neither Pilate nor Herod convicted him.

I don’t think any serious scholars consider the story of the “trial” of Jesus, as recorded in the gospels, to have actually happened. The trial in the gospels is pure mythology.

5) Matthew 26.28; John 1.29

Matthew 26.28: This says nothing regarding Jesus’s death relating to substitutional atonement.
John 1.29: This verse also says nothing about Jesus’s death and relating to substitutional atonement.

6) This is a completely different question that has nothing to do with your premise or your first 5 points. But we can still discuss it.

No, it isn’t a different question. It is relating to the fact that substitutionary atonement contradicts the OT and also the fact that Jesus says nothing about substitutionary atonement. My point here is that when Jesus talked about the “Kingdom of Heaven,” he was referring to a literal “kingdom” on earth, not a kingdom that involved dying and going to heaven. The gospels and Paul’s epistles present different theologies regarding the location of the kingdom of heaven. Paul re-imagined the location of the kingdom of heaven as being outside the earth, but this contradicts what Jesus actually said. Your other paragraphs aren’t relevant since they don’t nullify the fact that Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was imminent (within the disciples’ lifetimes) and that everyone would be judged according to their deeds.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the response. First of all, may I make clear that there were deep and intense political ramifications to Jesus' teaching, but not as a threat to the Roman Empire. Foo instance, the birth of Jesus itself, as recorded in Luke 2, was a direct affront to the Priene Inscription about Caesar Augustus. The meaning of Jesus' birth was to break the bondage of his people. The Gospel writers, and even Jesus himself, allude to Psalm 2 about establishing a kingdom. There are a hundred more examples, but Jesus is very clear that his kingdom is not of this world (repeatedly in Matthew: The kingdom of heaven; repeatedly in Mark and Luke: The kingdom of God; and directly to Pontius Pilate in John 18.36. Of course Jesus prophesied that one day he will return, but that will be the end of history, not involvement in it, and he was clear about that as well. For sure his return would involve judgment of the world, but that was at the end. Right before one of the texts you quoted, Jesus specifically said that his intent was to build a church (Matt. 16.18), not an empire.

> I disagree with everything that you’ve written there. Do you have any sources to support this, or is this just your opinion?

I already supported it.

1. The Antonia Fortress was at the north end of the Temple Mount, overlooking it, so soldiers could intervene when necessary at a moment's notice. There was no intervention that day.

2. In every telling of the story, the chief priests and teachers of the law do not interpret Jesus' actions as insurrectionist. Instead, they view them as Messianic (Matt. 21.23-24 = Mark 11.27-28 - Lk. 20.1-2; John 1.18).

And what evidence do you have for your supposition that his actions were considered an insurrectionist threat to the Roman Empire? Either biblical, Jewish, or Roman records will do. Let me see what you have.

> The Romans put those signs there to tell people what crime the person committed.

You're right that this was "technically" his crime. It's what the Jewish leaders used to twist Pilate's arm. The Jews' accusation against him was blasphemy (Mt. 26.65-66). But the accusation they brought to Pilate, so Rome would act, was "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15.9-10). Pilate was aware, however, of Jesus' messianic claims as the real sticking point with his Jewish accusers (Mt. 27. 17).

> you can’t use the Bible to support the Christian narrative. Use objective source.

Well, this shows an odd and ironic bias. You are claiming that Jesus was an insurrectionist based on Jesus' words recorded in the Gospels, but you say it's unfair for me to use Jesus' words recorded in the Gospels to explain my rebuttal. That's a double standard, my friend, and self-defeating, if not even self-contradictory.

> The trial in the gospels is pure mythology.

What objective evidence leads you to this conclusion?

> Matthew 26.28: This says nothing regarding Jesus’s death relating to substitutional atonement.

To understand the doctrines of Scripture we must read all of the Scripture. Jesus, by prophetic pronouncement (Jn. 1.29) is the Passover (substitutionary) lamb of God who takes away (atonement) the sin of the world. In Mark 10.45, Jesus says he will give his life as a ransom, and John 3.16 tells us his death is to bring people to life instead of them perishing. Matthew 26.28, by Jesus' own words, his blood is the declaration of the covenant that will be ratified by his death achieving forgiveness of sins. Jesus has come to be the savior of the world (Matt. 1.21)—to save them from their sins, not from Rome. You'll notice I used all Gospel references here, and not Paul's writings.

While there is little to suggest that the sacrificial institution was understood to have a principally vicarious or substitutionary element, it does appear in Ex. 12.7 (the Passover; also cf. Lev. 16.3; Isa. 53.4) and the redemption of the firstborn, both of which are noticeably part of Jesus theology.

> when Jesus talked about the “Kingdom of Heaven,” he was referring to a literal “kingdom” on earth, not a kingdom that involved dying and going to heaven.

Mt. 5.10-12: To the persecuted belongs... a kingdom on earth?
Mt. 5.3: To the poor in spirit belongs...a kingdom on earth?
Mt. 7.21: Those who do the will of the Father enter...a kingdom on earth?
Mt. 8.11: The feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will take place...on earth?
The parables of Matthew 13, all about political rule on earth?

I'm sorry, but you are gravely misunderstanding Jesus' teachings.

[Grrrr]

The Paschal lamb has absolutely zero to do with sin or forgiveness.

[jimwalton]

In a sense, you're right, but there is more going on in the Passover than is apparent on the surface. The Passover was originally an act of protection from death and a commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt. Therefore it was a recognition of judgment for the "godless" and salvation for the "godly". Therefore, what it observes is redemption from death by the blood of the lamb. It has all the imagery of substitutionary atonement, though technically it was a remembrance of deliverance.

Isaiah built on that imagery with prophecies about the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53, that the suffering servant would be like a lamb who died a substitutionary death of atonement for the sins of the people. The New Testament then appropriated both the imagery of Isaiah 53 and the symbolism to the Passover, finding a perfect "filling up" of the symbolism in the death of Christ, identified as a substitutionary atonement (Matt. 26.28; 20.28), and Jesus identified as the Lamb (Jn. 1.29).

When Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples, he identified himself as the broken body of the lamb, and the cup after supper (the cup of redemption) as his blood, "poured out for...the forgiveness of sins." Interestingly (and I believe intentionally), Jesus died at 3:00 on Friday of Passover, the exact moment when the lamb of the Passover was slain in the Temple courts.