Dr. Bart Ehrman presents a provocative thesis in his recent YouTube presentation that strikes at the heart of Christian theology: that Jesus originally taught simple repentance and forgiveness without the need for sacrificial atonement. Still, his followers later reinterpreted his death to introduce atonement theology. While Dr. Ehrman's scholarly credentials demand serious consideration, his argument fundamentally misunderstands both the historical evidence and the theological trajectory from Jesus through the early church. Using sound historico-grammatical hermeneutics and addressing this concern with pastoral sensitivity for those questioning their faith, we can demonstrate that Jesus' message was never abandoned but rather fulfilled in ways that align perfectly with partial preterist eschatology.
This response will examine Dr. Ehrman's claims through careful biblical exegesis, historical analysis, and theological reflection, showing that far from abandoning Jesus' core teaching, the early church correctly understood and proclaimed the unified message of God's redemptive plan as revealed through both testaments of Scripture.
Understanding Dr. Ehrman's Core Argument
Dr. Ehrman's thesis rests on several interconnected claims that require careful examination. First, he argues that Jesus' original message centered exclusively on repentance and divine forgiveness, requiring no sacrificial payment or atonement¹². According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that "if a person turns back to God, they will be forgiven" without any need for sacrificial intervention². He compares this to a parent forgiving a child who apologizes, suggesting that God, as a good father, simply forgives when people turn back to him².
Second, Ehrman contends that Jesus never taught that his death would serve as an atonement for sins. He acknowledges that the gospels contain predictions of Jesus' death and references to it serving redemptive purposes, but argues these were later additions by gospel writers who "believed that Jesus' death and Resurrection brought about salvation"³. For Ehrman, the historical Jesus was "taken by surprise" at his crucifixion, and the theological interpretation came only after his followers concluded he had been raised from the dead³.
Third, Ehrman argues that the shift to atonement theology occurred because the early Christians needed to make sense of Jesus' unexpected death³⁵. When they became convinced of his resurrection, they reasoned that "if he's the chosen one of God, why in the world did he get crucified, it must have been part of God's plan"³. This led them to conclude that "he must have had to die" as "a sacrifice" for "the sins of others"³.
Finally, Ehrman sees this transformation as creating "a religion about Jesus that developed was very different from the religion of Jesus"³. Where Jesus' message was "God will forgive your sins," the new message became "Christ had to die for your sins"³. This represents, in Ehrman's view, a fundamental theological discontinuity.
The Flawed Foundation
Dr. Ehrman's argument suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw: his approach to biblical interpretation lacks the rigor demanded by sound historico-grammatical hermeneutics. The historical-grammatical method, which "strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text," requires careful attention to "the historical context and the grammatical forms of the biblical text"⁴. This method recognizes that Scripture must be interpreted according to its "literal sense," but understands that "literal" means correctly identifying literary devices and understanding them "according to the normal rules of the text's literary genre"⁴.
When applied properly, the historical-grammatical method reveals that Ehrman's sharp distinction between Jesus' teaching and later Christian interpretation cannot be sustained. The method requires us to examine the "historical context" by asking, "Who is the author? Who was the original audience? Do any cultural allusions in the text require further investigation?"⁴. It also demands attention to "grammatical forms" by "studying the meaning of words, understanding syntactical relationships, and recognizing the literary constructions of the text"⁴.
Ehrman's methodology appears to prioritize source-critical assumptions over this more foundational interpretive approach. He assumes that because atonement language appears more prominently in certain gospel passages, these must represent later theological developments rather than authentic Jesus tradition. However, this approach fails to consider that Jesus, as a first-century Jewish teacher, would have been deeply immersed in the sacrificial theology of the Hebrew Scriptures and would have understood his mission within that framework.
The historical-grammatical method also emphasizes that "the three most important words to remember when interpreting the Bible are these: context, context, context"⁴. Ehrman's interpretation violates this principle by extracting individual sayings of Jesus from their broader scriptural and redemptive-historical context. When we examine Jesus' teaching within its proper Old Testament context, the continuity between his message and atonement theology becomes apparent rather than contradictory.
Jesus' Self-Understanding Within the Old Testament Sacrificial Framework
A proper historico-grammatical analysis reveals that Jesus' teaching and self-understanding were deeply rooted in Old Testament sacrificial theology. The sacrificial system was not merely ritualistic but was "a divinely instituted prefiguration of Christ's ultimate sacrifice"⁵. These sacrifices were "integral components of God's eternal plan, designed from the very beginning to point forward to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross"⁵.
The concept of substitutionary atonement finds its foundation in the Levitical system, where "the idea of substitution was clearly taught as the sinner laid his hands on the animal that died in his place"⁶. The animal sacrificial system taught that "God is holy, man is sinful, and that God was willing to judge an innocent creature as a substitute in place of the sinner"⁶. This was not merely symbolic but pointed to the reality that "forgiveness is secured by substitutional sacrifice"⁷.
Jesus would have been thoroughly familiar with this theological framework. When he spoke of forgiveness, he did so as someone who understood that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22)⁸. The historical context demands that we understand Jesus' words about forgiveness within this sacrificial framework rather than as a departure from it.
Furthermore, the "Suffering Servant" passages in Isaiah 53 were well-known in first-century Judaism and were understood by many as referring to the coming Messiah⁹. These passages explicitly describe one who "was wounded for our transgressions" and "by his stripes we are healed"¹⁰. The historical Jesus would have been aware of these prophecies and their implications for his messianic mission. To suggest that he taught forgiveness without sacrifice ignores this crucial historical and theological context.
The Consistency of New Testament Atonement Theology
Contrary to Ehrman's claims, the New Testament presents a remarkably consistent theology of atonement that spans multiple authors and literary contexts. While Ehrman focuses on alleged differences between the gospels, particularly Luke's supposed lack of atonement theology, careful analysis reveals underlying unity in the early Christian understanding of Jesus' death.
Even in Luke's Gospel, which Ehrman claims lacks atonement theology, we find clear evidence of substitutionary themes. Luke presents Jesus as the "new Adam" who succeeds where the first Adam failed¹¹. This theological framework inherently involves substitution: "What Jesus, in his innocence, has done, is to reopen the way to God closed by Adam—something only God's Son could do"¹¹. The centurion's declaration of Jesus' "innocence" in Luke 23:47 serves not merely to exonerate him from criminal charges but to establish his qualification as the sinless substitute¹¹.
Luke's unique theological contribution does not negate atonement but presents it through the lens of Jesus as the second Adam who "remained innocent of sin, unlike Adam, who gave into temptation"¹¹. This framework fully supports substitutionary atonement: "the sacrifice of God's Son who was without sin may substitute or atone for the sins of the guilty that repent"¹¹. The thief on the cross who receives Jesus' promise of paradise exemplifies this theology in action¹¹.
Paul's writings, which Ehrman acknowledges teach atonement, demonstrate the early and widespread nature of this understanding. Paul's letters represent some of our earliest Christian documents, written within two decades of Jesus' crucifixion¹². His detailed theology of substitutionary atonement in passages like Romans 3:21-26 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 reflects not later development but early Christian conviction about the meaning of Jesus' death¹³¹⁴.
The author of Hebrews provides perhaps the most systematic treatment of how Jesus' death fulfills the Old Testament sacrificial system⁴. This detailed theological exposition demonstrates that early Christians did not abandon Jesus' teaching but understood it as the fulfillment of the entire sacrificial framework: "What the Old Testament sacrifices symbolized the Lord Jesus actually accomplished in his saving work"⁷.
Addressing the Alleged Discontinuity: Understanding Jesus' Predictions of His Death
Dr. Ehrman acknowledges that the gospels contain predictions of Jesus' death but dismisses them as later Christian interpolations. However, this approach fails to account for the historical plausibility of Jesus' understanding his mission in sacrificial terms from the beginning of his ministry.
The Gospel of Mark, widely recognized as the earliest gospel and likely written within forty years of Jesus' death¹⁵¹⁶, contains multiple passion predictions that are integral to its narrative structure. Jesus declares that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45)². This saying demonstrates Jesus' self-understanding in explicitly substitutionary terms: he came to give his life as a "ransom" (λύτρον) for "many" (πολλῶν).
The historical plausibility of these predictions increases when we consider Jesus' knowledge of Old Testament prophecy, particularly Isaiah 53. The "Suffering Servant" passages were recognized in ancient Judaism as messianic prophecies⁹. The Babylonian Talmud identifies the Messiah with the suffering figure of Isaiah 53:4, calling him "The Leper Scholar" because "surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted"⁹.
Jesus' predictions of his death align perfectly with his understanding of these prophetic passages. His declaration at the Last Supper that his blood represents "the new covenant" (Luke 22:20)⁸ demonstrates his awareness that his death would inaugurate the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This was not later Christian theologizing but Jesus' own understanding of his mission within the framework of biblical prophecy.
The Partial Preterism: Solution to Ehrman's Chronological Concerns
One of the most significant weaknesses in Ehrman's argument becomes apparent when we apply a partial preterist understanding of biblical eschatology. Partial preterism, which maintains that "most... prophecies of The Bible have already been fulfilled" in the first century while preserving future elements like Christ's final return and resurrection¹⁷, provides crucial insights into the timing and nature of Jesus' prophetic ministry.
Jesus' eschatological teachings, particularly in Matthew 24, are best understood as referring primarily to events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD¹⁸¹⁹. This partial preterist reading recognizes that when Jesus spoke of the coming judgment and the establishment of God's kingdom, he was referring to events that would unfold within "this generation" (Matthew 24:34)¹⁸. This understanding resolves apparent tensions in Jesus' teaching about the timing of God's kingdom and judgment.
Within this framework, Jesus' message of repentance and forgiveness takes on greater urgency and clarity. He was calling people to repent in anticipation of the coming judgment on Jerusalem and the temple system. His death and resurrection would vindicate his message and establish the new covenant community that would survive the coming catastrophe. The atonement he provided through his death was not a later theological construct but the necessary foundation for the new covenant community that would replace the temple-centered system.
This partial preterist perspective also illuminates the rapid development of early Christian theology. The early church's understanding of Jesus' death as atonement was not a gradual theological evolution but a recognition of the prophetic significance of events they witnessed. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, occurring within the predicted generation, confirmed Jesus' prophetic authority and validated the early Christian understanding of his death as the ultimate sacrifice that replaced the temple system¹⁸.
The partial preterist framework thus reveals that there was no fundamental discontinuity between Jesus' message and early Christian theology. Rather, the early church correctly understood that Jesus' teaching about repentance and forgiveness was fulfilled through his atoning death, which established the new covenant and made possible the forgiveness he had proclaimed.
The Theological Unity of Scripture: Forgiveness and Atonement as Complementary, Not Contradictory
Dr. Ehrman's argument rests on a false dichotomy between forgiveness and atonement, as if these concepts are mutually exclusive. However, sound biblical theology recognizes these as complementary aspects of God's redemptive work. The historical-grammatical method reveals that Scripture presents a unified theology where divine forgiveness is grounded in substitutionary atonement.
In the Old Testament sacrificial system, forgiveness was never divorced from sacrifice. Leviticus repeatedly declares that through proper sacrifice, "he shall be forgiven" (Leviticus 5:10)⁷. The Day of Atonement ritual, where the high priest would "lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel," demonstrated that forgiveness required substitutionary sacrifice⁷. The symbolic action signified "the transference of sin to the animal," which would "bear all their iniquities on itself"⁷.
This Old Testament pattern provides the theological framework for understanding Jesus' death. He functions as both the priest who offers the sacrifice and the sacrifice itself²⁰. The author of Hebrews makes this explicit: Jesus "entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf" (Hebrews 9:24)²⁰. His death was not an abandonment of the forgiveness he preached but the means by which that forgiveness becomes available.
The theological unity extends to the practical outworking of salvation. When Jesus forgave sins during his earthly ministry, he was not contradicting the necessity of atonement but anticipating its accomplishment. His authority to forgive was grounded in his identity as the one who would provide the ultimate sacrifice. This explains why the religious leaders questioned his authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:7)—they recognized that forgiveness required proper sacrifice, but they failed to recognize Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice²¹.
Paul's theology in Romans 3:21-26 demonstrates this unity perfectly. God's righteousness is revealed "through faith in Jesus Christ" because God "put forward [Jesus] as a propitiation by his blood" (Romans 3:25)¹⁴. The forgiveness that Jesus proclaimed is made possible by the atonement he accomplished. There is no contradiction between these concepts, but rather perfect theological harmony.
Historical Evidence for Early Atonement Theology
The historical evidence contradicts Ehrman's claim that atonement theology was a later development. The earliest Christian documents consistently present Jesus' death in substitutionary terms, suggesting this understanding was present from the beginning of the Christian movement.
Paul's letters, which date to the 50s and 60s AD, contain fully developed atonement theology¹². His statement that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3) indicates that this understanding was already traditional when he wrote, pointing to an even earlier origin. The phrase "according to the Scriptures" suggests that early Christians immediately understood Jesus' death within the framework of Old Testament prophecy, particularly Isaiah 53²².
The early dating of Mark's Gospel (likely 65-75 AD)¹⁵²³ places its atonement theology within the living memory of Jesus' ministry. Mark's presentation of Jesus as one who "came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) reflects early Christian understanding rather than later theological development².
Even more significantly, the consistent testimony across diverse early Christian communities suggests that atonement theology was not a gradual evolution but an original component of Christian proclamation. The geographical spread of early Christianity and the theological consistency across different regions argue against Ehrman's evolutionary model. Churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, and other locations all demonstrate familiarity with substitutionary atonement concepts, suggesting this was part of the original apostolic message¹³¹⁴.
The preservation of Jesus' words at the Last Supper across multiple gospel traditions provides additional historical evidence. The saying "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28)²⁴ represents early Christian memory of Jesus' own interpretation of his impending death. The liturgical preservation of these words in early Christian worship suggests their authenticity and early origin.
The Christological Foundation: Jesus' Divine Authority to Forgive
A crucial weakness in Ehrman's argument is his failure to adequately address the christological implications of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The Gospel accounts consistently present Jesus as exercising divine prerogatives that were understood in first-century Judaism as belonging exclusively to God.
When Jesus declared to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5), the scribes immediately recognized the theological significance: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7)²¹. Ehrman attempts to dismiss this as merely an "anti-priestly polemic," suggesting that Jesus was claiming authority superior to the temple priests²¹. However, this interpretation fails to account for the fundamental difference between the priestly pronouncement of forgiveness after sacrifice and Jesus' direct declaration of forgiveness without sacrificial ritual.
The historical-grammatical method reveals additional significant details in Mark's account. Jesus demonstrates supernatural knowledge by "perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves" (Mark 2:8)²¹. This divine attribute of knowing human thoughts was recognized in Scripture as belonging exclusively to God (1 Kings 8:39; 1 Corinthians 2:11)²¹. Jesus' demonstration of this knowledge supports his claim to divine authority in forgiving sins.
Furthermore, Jesus validates his authority to forgive by healing the paralytic, demonstrating that his forgiveness is effective and his authority genuine. The healing serves as a visible sign of the invisible spiritual reality of forgiveness. This pattern suggests that Jesus understood his authority to forgive as grounded in his divine identity rather than merely his role as a teacher or prophet.
The Christological foundation of Jesus' forgiveness authority points toward the necessity of atonement. If Jesus could forgive sins because of his divine identity, his subsequent death was not an unfortunate interruption of his ministry but the ultimate expression of his divine authority. As the God-man, he possessed both the authority to forgive and the ability to provide the necessary satisfaction for sin through his sacrificial death.
The Temple Context: Jesus and the Sacrificial System
Dr. Ehrman's argument also fails to adequately consider Jesus' relationship to the Jerusalem temple and its sacrificial system. Rather than teaching forgiveness apart from sacrifice, Jesus demonstrated the inadequacy of the temple system and pointed toward its fulfillment in his own sacrificial death.
Jesus' cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-19) was not merely a protest against commercial corruption but a prophetic sign pointing to the temple's obsolescence²⁵. His declaration that the temple would be destroyed and rebuilt "in three days" (John 2:19) was understood by the early church as referring to his death and resurrection⁷. This indicates that Jesus saw his death as the replacement for the temple sacrificial system, not as unrelated to it.
The timing of Jesus' death during Passover is theologically significant²⁶. Passover commemorated God's deliverance of Israel through the sacrifice of unblemished lambs whose blood protected the firstborn from death²⁷. John the Baptist's identification of Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)²⁶ places Jesus within this sacrificial framework from the beginning of his ministry.
The Gospel accounts consistently present Jesus' death as occurring during Passover, suggesting that the early church understood the theological connection between the Passover sacrifice and Jesus' death²⁷. This was not a later theological interpretation but recognition of the divine timing that connected Jesus' sacrifice with its Old Testament prefiguration.
Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal further demonstrates his understanding of his death in sacrificial terms²⁴. By identifying the bread and wine with his body and blood "given" and "poured out," Jesus explicitly connected his death with sacrificial language. The reference to "covenant" blood (Matthew 26:28) evokes both the Mosaic covenant ratified with blood (Exodus 24:8) and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34²⁴.
Addressing Textual Concerns: The Unity of the Synoptic Tradition
Dr. Ehrman's argument relies heavily on alleged differences between the synoptic gospels, particularly Luke's supposed lack of atonement theology. However, careful textual analysis reveals underlying unity in the synoptic tradition's presentation of Jesus' death as sacrificial.
While Luke may not emphasize sacrificial language as prominently as Mark and Matthew, this reflects his particular theological emphasis rather than fundamental disagreement¹¹. Luke's presentation of Jesus as the new Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed provides a different but complementary perspective on substitutionary atonement¹¹. The theological framework remains the same: an innocent substitute (Jesus) succeeds where the guilty party (Adam/humanity) failed, thereby providing redemption for those who believe.
Luke's account of the crucifixion emphasizes Jesus' innocence precisely to establish his qualification as the sinless substitute¹¹. The centurion's declaration "Certainly this man was innocent!" (Luke 23:47) serves the same theological function as Mark's "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:39). Both declarations establish Jesus' unique qualification to serve as the atoning sacrifice.
The differences between the gospel accounts reflect the diverse theological emphases of the evangelists rather than fundamental disagreement about the meaning of Jesus' death. Mark emphasizes Jesus' suffering and abandonment, Matthew highlights the fulfillment of prophecy, and Luke focuses on Jesus' victory over temptation as the new Adam. All three perspectives contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the atonement while maintaining essential theological unity.
The synoptic tradition's consistency in preserving Jesus' words at the Last Supper, his predictions of his death, and his understanding of his mission in sacrificial terms argues against Ehrman's evolutionary model²⁴. The theological interpretation of Jesus' death as atonement appears to be original to the tradition rather than a later development.
The Pauline Evidence: Continuity with Jesus' Teaching
Dr. Ehrman acknowledges that Paul teaches atonement theology but suggests this represents a departure from Jesus' original message. However, Paul's connections to the Jerusalem apostles and his claims to continuity with Jesus' teaching argue against this interpretation.
Paul explicitly states that he received the gospel tradition "from the Lord" and that it was consistent with what the other apostles preached (1 Corinthians 15:3-11)²². His summary of the gospel—"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"—presents atonement theology not as his innovation but as the commonly received Christian message²².
Paul's interactions with the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter, James, and John, demonstrate theological continuity rather than conflict (Galatians 2:1-10)¹². If Paul's atonement theology represented a fundamental departure from Jesus' original teaching, we would expect significant opposition from those who knew Jesus personally. Instead, Paul reports that they "added nothing" to his gospel and recognized his apostolic authority¹².
Paul's detailed exposition of Old Testament sacrificial imagery in his letters demonstrates that his atonement theology was grounded in the same scriptural framework that Jesus would have known²⁸. His description of Jesus as "our Passover lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7) and his reference to Jesus as a "propitiation" (Romans 3:25) draw directly from Old Testament sacrificial concepts²⁶¹⁴.
The chronological proximity of Paul's conversion to Jesus' crucifixion (within a few years) argues against the possibility of significant theological evolution¹². Paul's atonement theology reflects early Christian understanding rather than later development, suggesting that this interpretation was present from the beginning of the Christian movement.
The Eschatological Framework: Jesus' Teaching in Light of Partial Preterism
The partial preterist framework provides crucial insights into understanding Jesus' message that resolve apparent tensions in his teaching about forgiveness and judgment. When Jesus spoke of the coming kingdom of God and the need for repentance, he was addressing the imminent crisis that would culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD¹⁸¹⁹.
Jesus' urgent call for repentance takes on new significance when understood within this eschatological framework¹⁸. He was not merely offering general spiritual advice but calling people to prepare for the divine judgment that would fall on Jerusalem within a generation. His offer of forgiveness was not separate from but dependent upon the atoning sacrifice he would provide through his death.
The partial preterist understanding of Matthew 24 reveals that Jesus' predictions of tribulation, cosmic signs, and the coming of the Son of Man primarily refer to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem¹⁸. The "sign of the Son of Man in the heavens" (Matthew 24:30) represents his vindication through the judgment of those who rejected him, not his final return¹⁸. This interpretation shows that Jesus' eschatological teaching was intimately connected with his understanding of his death as the decisive moment in salvation history.
The rapid spread of Christianity in the decades following Jesus' death supports the partial preterist framework¹⁸. The early church's missionary expansion and theological development make sense when understood as the outworking of Jesus' teaching about the coming kingdom. The destruction of Jerusalem validated Jesus' prophetic authority and confirmed the early Christian understanding of his death as the sacrifice that inaugurated the new covenant¹⁸.
This eschatological framework demonstrates that there was no fundamental shift from Jesus' original message to early Christian theology. Rather, the events of 70 AD confirmed that Jesus' teaching about repentance, forgiveness, and the coming kingdom was fulfilled through his atoning death and the subsequent establishment of the new covenant community.
Manuscript Evidence and Early Christian Worship
The early manuscript evidence provides additional support for the authenticity of atonement theology in the earliest Christian tradition. While our earliest complete New Testament manuscripts date to the fourth century, the fragmentary papyri from the second and third centuries consistently preserve passages that contain atonement theology²⁹³⁰.
Papyrus P52, dating to the early second century, preserves portions of John 18:31-38, which includes Jesus' trial before Pilate³¹³². This early witness to the passion narrative demonstrates that the crucifixion account, with its theological implications, was being copied and preserved within decades of the original composition. The preservation of these specific passages suggests their importance to early Christian communities.
The early Christian liturgical traditions provide additional evidence for the antiquity of atonement theology²⁴. The words of institution at the Last Supper were preserved not only in the gospel accounts but also in Paul's letters (1 Corinthians 11:23-26), indicating their use in Christian worship from the earliest period²². The liturgical preservation of Jesus' words about his blood being "poured out for many" demonstrates that early Christians understood his death in sacrificial terms from the beginning of their worship practices.
The consistency of atonement language across diverse early Christian documents—gospels, letters, liturgical formulas—argues against Ehrman's evolutionary model. If atonement theology were a later development, we would expect to find traces of earlier, non-sacrificial interpretations. Instead, the evidence points to the originality and centrality of substitutionary atonement in early Christian thought.
The geographical spread of early Christianity also supports the early origin of atonement theology¹³¹⁴. Churches in widely separated locations consistently demonstrate familiarity with sacrificial interpretations of Jesus' death, suggesting this was part of the original apostolic proclamation rather than a regional theological development.
The Problem of Sin and the Necessity of Atonement
Dr. Ehrman's argument also fails to adequately address the theological problem of sin and why atonement is necessary for genuine forgiveness. His analogy of a parent forgiving a child who apologizes oversimplifies the biblical understanding of sin and its consequences².
The biblical concept of sin involves more than personal wrongdoing that can be resolved through a simple apology. Sin represents rebellion against God's holy character and violation of his righteous law¹³. The consequence of sin is not merely divine displeasure but spiritual death and separation from God (Romans 6:23)¹³. This fundamental problem requires more than human repentance; it demands a divine solution.
The Old Testament sacrificial system taught that sin creates a debt that must be paid⁷⁶. The repeated phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22) reflects this theological principle³⁶. Forgiveness is not merely a divine decision to overlook wrongdoing but a divine provision of satisfaction for justice.
The substitutionary principle was embedded in the sacrificial system: "an innocent victim dying in place of the sinner"⁵. This was not an arbitrary divine requirement but a reflection of the moral order that God maintains. Justice demands that sin be punished; mercy provides a substitute to bear that punishment. Jesus' death satisfies both divine justice and divine mercy¹³.
This theological framework explains why Jesus' teaching about forgiveness necessarily points toward his atoning death. His authority to forgive was grounded not in his role as teacher but in his identity as the one who would provide the ultimate sacrifice for sin. The forgiveness he offered during his earthly ministry was real because of the sacrifice he would accomplish, not despite the lack of sacrifice.
Historical Reliability and the Early Church's Understanding
The historical evidence strongly supports the continuity between Jesus' teaching and early Christian atonement theology rather than the discontinuity proposed by Dr. Ehrman. The rapid development and widespread acceptance of atonement theology in early Christianity argue for its apostolic origin rather than later evolution.
The Jerusalem church, led by those who knew Jesus personally, consistently proclaimed his death as sacrificial¹². Peter's sermon in Acts 2 presents Jesus' death as fulfilling divine purpose rather than human accident: "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)³⁷. This early apostolic preaching demonstrates that atonement theology was not a later development but the original apostolic message.
The theological consistency across diverse early Christian documents argues against evolutionary development²²¹⁴. If atonement theology were a gradual theological innovation, we would expect to find transitional stages or competing interpretations. Instead, the evidence points to remarkable consistency in understanding Jesus' death as a substitutionary sacrifice from the earliest period.
The preservation of Jesus' teaching within the framework of sacrificial interpretation suggests that the early church correctly understood rather than abandoned his original message. The disciples who lived with Jesus and heard his teaching consistently proclaimed his death as atonement, indicating that this interpretation was faithful to his original intent rather than a departure from it.
Comfort for Questioning Faith
For those wrestling with Dr. Ehrman's arguments and experiencing doubt about their faith, it is important to recognize that these challenges, while intellectually serious, do not undermine the historical foundation of Christian faith. The evidence consistently supports the reliability of the New Testament witness to Jesus' understanding of his mission as sacrificial atonement.
The scholarly consensus, even among critical scholars, affirms the historical reliability of the basic facts about Jesus: his existence, his teaching ministry, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the early Christian conviction about his resurrection³⁸. These core facts provide a solid foundation for faith even amid scholarly debates about specific interpretations.
The unity between Jesus' teaching and early Christian theology about atonement provides comfort for believers. There was no fundamental shift or abandonment of Jesus' original message but rather faithful preservation and development of his teaching. The early church's understanding of his death as sacrificial was not a theological innovation but an accurate interpretation of his mission.
The partial preterist framework helps resolve apparent tensions in Jesus' eschatological teaching and demonstrates the coherence of his message about the coming kingdom¹⁸¹⁹. Understanding that many of Jesus' prophecies found fulfillment in the events of 70 AD confirms his prophetic authority and validates the early Christian interpretation of his death and resurrection.
For those struggling with intellectual objections to faith, it is important to recognize that Christianity has always been intellectually robust and capable of addressing scholarly challenges. The historical-grammatical method of interpretation provides reliable tools for understanding Scripture within its proper context, and the evidence consistently supports the reliability of the biblical witness to Jesus Christ.
The Theological Coherence of Atonement
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement demonstrates remarkable theological coherence that addresses fundamental human needs and divine attributes. Rather than being a later theological construct, atonement theology reflects the logical working out of biblical revelation about God's character and humanity's condition.
The atonement satisfies divine justice while expressing divine love¹³. God's holiness demands that sin be punished, but his love provides the means for that punishment to fall on a substitute rather than the guilty party. This theological framework maintains both divine attributes without compromising either one.
The substitutionary nature of atonement addresses the human inability to satisfy divine justice through personal effort³⁹. The biblical testimony consistently presents human beings as incapable of earning salvation through good works or religious observance. The atonement provides what humans cannot accomplish for themselves: perfect satisfaction of divine justice.
The historical specificity of Jesus' death demonstrates that atonement is not merely an abstract theological concept but a historical reality³¹. The crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate provides a specific time and place where divine justice was satisfied and human redemption was accomplished. This historical grounding distinguishes Christian atonement theology from philosophical speculation.
The universal scope of atonement addresses the global nature of human sinfulness²². Jesus' death as "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) demonstrates that the atonement provides sufficient satisfaction for all human sin. This universal scope reflects the comprehensive nature of God's redemptive purpose.
Conclusion:
Dr. Bart Ehrman's argument that Jesus' followers abandoned his core teaching fundamentally misunderstands both the historical evidence and the theological trajectory of biblical revelation. When examined through the lens of sound historico-grammatical hermeneutics and understood within the framework of partial preterist eschatology, the evidence demonstrates remarkable continuity between Jesus' teaching and early Christian atonement theology.
Jesus' message of repentance and forgiveness was never separate from the necessity of atonement but was grounded in his understanding of his mission as the ultimate sacrifice for sin. His authority to forgive sins during his earthly ministry was based on his identity as the one who would provide the perfect sacrifice through his death. The early church did not abandon his teaching but faithfully preserved and proclaimed the unified message of God's redemptive plan.
The Old Testament sacrificial system provided the theological framework within which Jesus understood his mission and taught about forgiveness⁷⁵. The Hebrew Scriptures consistently taught that forgiveness requires sacrifice and that sin creates a debt that must be paid through substitutionary atonement⁶. Jesus' teaching about forgiveness must be understood within this context rather than as a departure from it.
The consistency of atonement theology across the diverse witnesses of the New Testament—gospels, letters, liturgical traditions—demonstrates that this understanding was original to Christian faith rather than later development²²¹⁴. The geographical spread of early Christianity and the theological unity across different regions argue for the apostolic origin of atonement theology rather than gradual evolution.
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement stands not as a theological innovation but as the faithful interpretation of God's eternal purpose revealed through both testaments of Scripture. From the first sacrifice in Eden to the ultimate sacrifice on Calvary, God's plan has always involved the provision of a substitute to bear the penalty that justice demands while extending the mercy that love desires to give.
In addressing Dr. Ehrman's challenge, we find no reason for doubt but cause for greater confidence in the reliability of Christian faith. The evidence consistently supports the traditional understanding that Jesus came not merely to teach about forgiveness but to provide the atonement that makes forgiveness possible. His death was not an unfortunate interruption of his ministry but the climactic accomplishment of his mission. The early church correctly understood that in Christ's sacrifice, God's justice and mercy meet, providing the foundation for the eternal hope that transforms human hearts and reconciles sinful humanity to their holy Creator.
The scholarly examination of these questions ultimately strengthens rather than undermines faith by demonstrating the historical and theological integrity of the Christian message. Jesus Christ remains what the early church proclaimed him to be: the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the great high priest who offered himself as the perfect sacrifice, and the risen Lord whose victory over death validates his atoning work and ensures the ultimate triumph of God's redemptive plan.
Notes
¹ Why Jesus' Followers Abandoned This Teaching with Bart Ehrman, YouTube, September 2, 2025
² Jesus Never Taught His Death Was Atonement for Sins!!!, YouTube, August 14, 2025
³ Did Jesus Have to Suffer? Trying to Make Sense of a Dangerous Teaching, YouTube, May 20, 2024
⁴ What Is Hermeneutics?, Ligonier Ministries, July 18, 2023
⁵ Old Testament Sacrificial System as Christ's Divine Prefiguration, Pastors.AI
⁶ Jesus' Substitutionary Atonement in Salvation, Thinking on Scripture, November 10, 2023
⁷ The Theology of Sacrifice, The Gospel Coalition, July 10, 2024
⁸ What is the meaning of the blood of Christ?, Got Questions, April 14, 2025
⁹ Is the "The Suffering Servant" prophecy in Isaiah 53 about Jesus?, Got Questions, June 26, 2023
¹⁰ Isaiah 53 and The Passion of Jesus, CBN, January 14, 2023
¹¹ Luke and Atonement, The JDN Blog, October 16, 2015
¹² Earliest Source for Jesus, YouTube, April 26, 2025
¹³ What is the substitutionary atonement?, Got Questions, September 5, 2023
¹⁴ Paul's argument about the atonement of Israel in Romans 3-4, Post-OST, October 11, 2012
¹⁵ Gospel According to Mark, Britannica, July 19, 1998
¹⁶ Summary of the Gospel of Mark, Got Questions, April 11, 2024
¹⁷ Why I'm A Partial Preterist, Cerebral Faith, August 28, 2019
¹⁸ Sixteen Ways to Read Matthew 24 with the Grain of Scripture, David Schrock, February 5, 2025
¹⁹ Is partial preterism biblical?, Got Questions, August 12, 2025
²⁰ The Accomplishment of Biblical Theology on Atonement, Cedarville University Digital Commons
²¹ Bart Ehrman's Bad Arguments Go On Tour, Catholic Answers, August 7, 2023
²² We Have Now Received the Atonement, Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, June 17, 2001
²³ Gospel of Mark, Wikipedia, October 18, 2001
²⁴ My blood of the covenant (Matthew 26:28), Allen Browne Blog, April 9, 2021
²⁵ Did Jesus Disregard the Sacrificial System?, Desiring God, June 13, 2025
²⁶ Topical Bible: The Foreshadowing of Christ's Sacrifice, Bible Hub
²⁷ Chapter Two - The Cross Prefigured, David Servant Ministries, September 16, 2024
²⁸ The Sacrificial Idea in Paul's Doctrine of the Atonement, Third Millennium Ministries
²⁹ Dating the Oldest New Testament Christian Manuscripts, Biblical Archaeology Society, February 12, 2023
³⁰ List of New Testament papyri, Wikipedia, May 7, 2007
³¹ Rylands Library Papyrus P52, Wikipedia, July 21, 2004
³² The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, Bible Archaeology Report, February 14, 2019
³³ Isaiah's Prophecy about Jesus, Bart Ehrman Blog, June 25, 2025
³⁴ The Binding or Sacrifice of Isaac, Biblical Archaeology Society, September 10, 2025
³⁵ The grace of Old Testament symbols and acts, CrossMap, March 7, 2024
³⁶ "The Blood of the Covenant" - Hebrews 9:15-28, Harvest Presbyterian Church, October 2, 2021
³⁷ Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels, NPR, March 11, 2010
³⁸ Bart Ehrman on the Existence of Jesus - Great Quotes, Sean McDowell, May 21, 2018
³⁹ Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution, BioLogos, June 8, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment