No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
PseudoPaul
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:12 pm

No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by PseudoPaul »

This is a fascinating look at the absence of any atonement theology in the Gospel according to Luke. This is actually just one of several ways that Luke is quite distinctive from other gospels.

https://ehrmanblog.org/scribes-who-inje ... es-gospel/

One of the most striking theological features of the Gospel of Luke and its accompanying volume the book of Acts is that they do not portray Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sins. That seems very strange indeed to people who get their theology from other parts of the New Testament (e.g., Paul, and the other Gospels). But when read on their own, Luke-Acts have a different understanding of the significance of Jesus death.

And that may be why scribes altered the words Jesus spoke at his last supper in Luke 22 – the textual variant I began discussing yesterday. I have a very long discussion of the issue in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and a much shortened and simplified version in Misquoting Jesus. Here is what I say in the latter.

For proto-orthodox Christians, it was important to emphasize that Christ was a real man of flesh and blood because it was precisely the sacrifice of his flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought salvation – not in appearance but in reality. One textual variant in Luke’s account of Jesus’ passion emphasizes precisely this reality. It occurs during the account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. In one of our oldest Greek manuscripts, along with several Latin witnesses, we are told the following:

And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves, for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.” And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body. But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table” (Luke 22:17-19).

In most of our manuscripts, however, there is an addition to the text, an addition that will sound familiar to many readers of the English Bible, since it has made its way into most modern translations. Here, after Jesus says “This is my body,” he continues with the words “‘which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; And the cup likewise after supper, saying ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.’”

These are the familiar words of the “institution” of the Lord’s Supper, known in a very similar form also from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Despite the fact they are familiar, there are good reasons for thinking that these verses were not originally in Luke’s Gospel, but were added in order to stress that it was precisely Jesus’ broken body and shed blood that brought salvation “for you.” For one thing, it is hard to explain why a scribe would have omitted the verses if they were original to Luke (there is no homoeoteleuton, for example, that would explain an omission), especially since they make such clear and smooth sense when they are added. In fact, when the verses are taken away, doesn’t the text sound a bit truncated? Precisely the unfamiliarity of the truncated version (without the verses) may have been what led scribes to add the verses.

And it is striking to note that the verses, as familiar as they are, do not represent Luke’s own understanding of the death of Jesus. For it is a striking feature of Luke’s portrayal of Jesus death — this may sound strange at first — that he never, anywhere else, indicates that the death itself is what brings salvation from sin. Nowhere in Luke’s entire two volume work (Luke and Acts), is Jesus’ death said to be “for you.” And in fact, on the two occasions in which Luke’s source Mark indicates that it was by Jesus’ death that salvation came (Mark 10:45; 15:39), Luke changed the wording of the text (or eliminated it). Luke, in other words, has a different understanding of the way Jesus death leads to salvation from Mark (and from Paul, and other early Christian writers).

It is easy to see Luke’s own distinctive view by considering what he has to say in the book of Acts, where the apostles give a number of speeches in order to convert others to the faith. What is striking is that in none of these instances (look, e.g., in chapters 3, 4, 13), do the apostles indicate that Jesus’ death brings atonement for sins. It is not that Jesus’ death is unimportant. It’s extremely important for Luke. But not as an atonement. Instead, Jesus death is what makes people realize their guilt before God (since he died even though he was innocent). Once people recognize their guilt, they turn to God in repentance, and then he forgives their sins.

Jesus’ death for Luke, in other words, drives people to repentance, and it is this repentance that brings salvation. But not according to these disputed verses which are missing from some of our early witnesses: here Jesus’ death is portrayed as an atonement “for you.”

Originally the verses appear not to have been part of Luke’s Gospel. Why then were they added? In a later dispute with the second century “heretic” Marcion, Tertullian emphasized:

Jesus declared plainly enough what he meant by the bread, when he called the bread his own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in his blood, affirms the reality of his body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. Thus from the evidence of the flesh we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. (Against Marcion 4, 40).

It appears that the verses were added in order to stress Jesus’ real body and flesh, which he really sacrificed for the sake of others. This may not have been Luke’s own emphasis, but it certainly was the emphasis of the proto-orthodox scribes who altered their text of Luke in order to counter docetic Christologies such as that of Marcion.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by Philo Sofee »

Thanks for bringing this interesting theme to our attention! In light of Dennis R. MacDonald's Dionysian Gospel and Carl Ruck's Apples of Apollo, and Brian Maruresku's The Immortality Key, this dovetails in remarkable ways! Mark H. Gaffney's Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes: The Initiatory Teachings of the Last Supper, brings in Indian Kundalini practices and themes in the Naassene Gospel which Hippolytas preserved for us in his Refutation of All Heresies, as well as the so-called "Pagan Continuity Hypothesis" of Ruck, Maruresku, and MacDonald... So much more to the New Testament than I ever learned in Mormonism! The one thing to keep our eyes peeled for is the serpent. As symbol it is rambunctiously omnipresent! Wise as serpents, harmless as doves theme in Jesus, and almost always present in every single ancient mythology available. Most fascinatingly it is prevalent in the Naassene Gospel as well! Just truly fascinating stuff! I shall post more later. Tonight I gotta get my video review of the great RFM vs. MM debate up online. Been workin on it since it ended Saturday night. Gonna be GOOD...
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by huckelberry »

As nearly as I can remember the widespread modern ( last millennium or so) concept of atonement hardly exists in the New Testament at all. Of course there is not just one idea of what is going on with atonement in the first century or now. "This is my body" is widely understood as participation in life with Jesus. It does not make any clear statement of suffering in payment for the sins of others. (though perhaps there is a connection to the instruction that we are to pray that God forgive our sins as we forgive others, an act on our part which could involve some suffering,, perhaps Jesus as agreed to share that suffering with us)

Paul in Romans makes some extended comments about how we are saved in conjunction with Jesus. After those ther is a cryptic comment about saved by his blood which of course has become a stepping stone toward atonement theories.

Myself I cannot avoid feeling some uncertainties about modern atonement thinking such as Jesus experienced the pain of all our deserved punishment. I think such notions are unclear at best.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by drumdude »

All this means is that the Great Apostacy happened between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospel of Luke.

The restoration restored everything that was lost.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by huckelberry »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 am
All this means is that the Great Apostacy happened between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospel of Luke.

The restoration restored everything that was lost.
drumdude, you might be suggesting that LDS thinking about atonement reflects Protestant thinking developed in the more recent past.
User avatar
PseudoPaul
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:12 pm

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by PseudoPaul »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 am
All this means is that the Great Apostacy happened between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospel of Luke.

The restoration restored everything that was lost.
I assume this is sarcasm?

Interestingly the scribes that get blamed for changes to the "pure and precious truths" of the gospel are the ones that put atonement back into Luke.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by Kishkumen »

Thanks for sharing this, PseudoPaul. The Last Supper is one of the most intriguing aspects of Christianity, and, as Philo Sofee says in his own inimitable way, a great place to look at Christianity within its historical context. The relationship between all of these divine banquets is certainly worthy of further investigation. For example, I note that in Suetonius it is often in cenis that Romans, particularly emperors, are imitating the gods, and in Augustus’ biography in particular we see the emperor assimilated to a divine being in his last days of life, banqueting on the isle of Capri. The timing and the implied apotheosis are intriguing. Of course there is the grand eschatological banquet after the final battle, where the great beasts such as Leviathan, having been slain in the battle, become the great feast for the righteous. No doubt there is a lifetime of scholarly work that could be invested in these things. It took me a long time to realize even just a little the extent to which the divine banquet of antiquity endures in our present Christian communion/liturgy/mass/sacrament. The banquet with Jesus is where we partake of him in order to be reunited with him in anticipation of the future, permanent reunion with the god. It does not really require any notion of Jesus paying for our sins at all.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by drumdude »

huckelberry wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:08 pm
drumdude wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 am
All this means is that the Great Apostacy happened between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospel of Luke.

The restoration restored everything that was lost.
drumdude, you might be suggesting that LDS thinking about atonement reflects Protestant thinking developed in the more recent past.
Protestant thinking reflects the ancient events of the Book of Mormon.
User avatar
PseudoPaul
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:12 pm

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by PseudoPaul »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:47 pm
Thanks for sharing this, PseudoPaul. The Last Supper is one of the most intriguing aspects of Christianity, and, as Philo Sofee says in his own inimitable way, a great place to look at Christianity within its historical context. The relationship between all of these divine banquets is certainly worthy of further investigation. For example, I note that in Suetonius it is often in cenis that Romans, particularly emperors, are imitating the gods, and in Augustus’ biography in particular we see the emperor assimilated to a divine being in his last days of life, banqueting on the isle of Capri. The timing and the implied apotheosis are intriguing. Of course there is the grand eschatological banquet after the final battle, where the great beasts such as Leviathan, having been slain in the battle, become the great feast for the righteous. No doubt there is a lifetime of scholarly work that could be invested in these things. It took me a long time to realize even just a little the extent to which the divine banquet of antiquity endures in our present Christian communion/liturgy/mass/sacrament. The banquet with Jesus is where we partake of him in order to be reunited with him in anticipation of the future, permanent reunion with the god. It does not really require any notion of Jesus paying for our sins at all.
It's interesting, there seems to have been two competing eucharist traditions in early Christianity:

1) The familiar body/blood symbolism of the bread and wine (Paul and the author of Mark for instance are both guardians of this tradition, which seems to have elements in common with pagan mystery rites)

2) The eucharist tradition preserved in the Didache, which gives an altogether different interpretation of the bread and wine. Instead of representing the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, they represent Jesus' Davidic line and the coming Kingdom of God on earth. This tradition is much more in keeping with the actual teachings of the historical Jesus.
Concerning the eucharist, give thanks thus:

First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory forever.

And concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory forever.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and has been gathered to become one, so gather your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. (Didache 9.1-4)
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... st-ritual/
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

Post by Kishkumen »

PseudoPaul wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:21 am
It's interesting, there seems to have been two competing eucharist traditions in early Christianity:

1) The familiar body/blood symbolism of the bread and wine (Paul and the author of Mark for instance are both guardians of this tradition, which seems to have elements in common with pagan mystery rites)

2) The eucharist tradition preserved in the Didache, which gives an altogether different interpretation of the bread and wine. Instead of representing the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, they represent Jesus' Davidic line and the coming Kingdom of God on earth. This tradition is much more in keeping with the actual teachings of the historical Jesus.
Concerning the eucharist, give thanks thus:

First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory forever.

And concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory forever.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and has been gathered to become one, so gather your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. (Didache 9.1-4)
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... st-ritual/
Yes! I remember being quite surprised by the Didache's Eucharist the first time I read it. I am not so keen on its Davidic focus, but it is, nevertheless, very interesting given the likely date of the document. I do not see the historical Jesus, if there was one, being Davidic as the builder from Galilee, but it must be the case that somewhere along the line stressing his Davidic lineage became important for a number of Christians.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply