Jesus was a typical cult leader:
(A) He tried to isolate people from their families. We read in Matthew that:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. – Jesus (Matthew 10:34-38)
(B) Also, for new initiates, Jesus taught in parables to put them in a state of confusion (which would make them more ready for the cult’s teaching by breaking down their rational defences).
Jesus’ parables were meant to confuse, not encourage reflection.
Many Christians believe that Jesus taught in parables to make His message clear, but that is not biblical. Even His disciples were in the dark and did not understand. Repeatedly, they asked Jesus to explain the parables to them.
Mark writes:
“And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable. And He said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.
“That seeing they may see, and not perceived: and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them. And He said unto them, Know ye not this parable? And how then will you know all parables?” Mark 4:10-13
This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand.
As a typical leader of a brainwashing cult, it was of the utmost importance for Jesus to isolate potential disciples from their families. This would increase their dependency on Jesus and the cult. For example, in Luke 14:26 we read that: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)”
I think it is an interesting topic, but I wonder whether it is anachronistic to credit Jesus with knowledge of brainwashing techniques. I don’t know much about the history of cultic practices. You reference the “typical” practice of a cult isolating potential disciples from their families. Was it typical at the time? I don’t know.
If Jesus was using such brainwashing techniques, how does that fit in with the rest of what we know about him? If Jesus was brainwashing people, what was his motive? I think Professor Ehrman is probably right about Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet. An apocalyptic prophet can also be a cult leader. David Koresh comes to mind. I do not mean to claim that Jesus had a lot in common with David Koresh. I’m just trying to understand the context for Jesus as a cult leader.
I don’t think it’s fair to apply modern day ideas of cults to cultures 2,000 years removed from our own. Have you tried researching this verse or are you just interpreting it literally with modern ears? There are several sayings of Jesus and parables that don’t really make much sense to us today, but would have made perfect sense to Jews 2,000 years ago —- and not in the ways that we might expect.
I agree we should not impute modern knowledge to early Christians, but it is still a valid question why some of their conduct resembles modern cults. I’m particularly disturbed by the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Scripture states church members laid their money at the apostles feet. Acts 4: 35; 6:2-4. “Great fear seized the whole church” after God killed Ananias and Sapphira when they failed to lay all their money at Peter’s feet. Acts 5:1-11. I have tried researching this story and have come up dry. It is like there’s a conspiracy of silence. Is there any literature about early Christians that discusses Ananias and Sapphira? I cannot help thinking about cult. What else are we supposed to make out of church members laying all their property at the leader’s feet?
Early Christians may not have had modern knowledge, but human nature was pretty much the same. Just as some ministers today live pretty high off the hog, the same avaricious aspect of human nature might have motivated some early Christians to profit from prophecy. This is not anachronistic because contemporary critics made the same observation. “Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.” Lucian of Samosata: The Passing of Peregrinus, chapter 13.
Scripture also refers to avaricious conduct. Peter, the same Peter that presided over the death of Ananias and Sapphira, exhorted church elders that they should not tend to the flock of God “for sordid gain.” 1 Peter 5:2. Peter would not warn against something that never happened. Paul says the disciples did not need to work for a living, and I don’t believe he intended it as a compliment. 1 Corinthians 9:5-6.
Lawyerskeptic said
Scripture states church members laid their money at the apostles feet. Acts 4: 35; 6:2-4. “Great fear seized the whole church” after God killed Ananias and Sapphira when they failed to lay all their money at Peter’s feet. Acts 5:1-11. I have tried researching this story and have come up dry. It is like there’s a conspiracy of silence. Is there any literature about early Christians that discusses Ananias and Sapphira? I cannot help thinking about cult. What else are we supposed to make out of church members laying all their property at the leader’s feet?
When I Google Acts 5:1-11 I do find commentary on the story. I even find that Walter Bauer (a big time German scholar whose focus was the very early church) felt that except for “hatred” towards Ananias and his wife the rest of the story wasn’t historical. I couldn’t find his exact words so I don’t know the details. I find plenty on their act and punishment, but no one mentions the laying of money at the feet of Peter. I think this goes to the heart of what I said earlier. I can see where someone with modern eyes could read something cult-like into that act, but perhaps 2,000 years it was how things were done and it had no symbolic meaning other than giving something to a leader.
Regarding 1 Cor 9:6 my Anchor Bible commentary on 1 Corinthians says that the Greek word for “work” in this verse means to toil with one’s hands, ie. manual labor, and that Jewish teachers did not perform manual labor. This was a cultural thing, not a “privilege” for apostles. I’ve read a fair amount on Paul and labor and his profession and there is a lot to be considered than just this one verse (read through modern eyes 
).
gmatthews said
When I Google Acts 5:1-11 I do find commentary on the story. I even find that Walter Bauer (a big time German scholar whose focus was the very early church) felt that except for “hatred” towards Ananias and his wife the rest of the story wasn’t historical. I couldn’t find his exact words so I don’t know the details. I find plenty on their act and punishment, but no one mentions the laying of money at the feet of Peter. I think this goes to the heart of what I said earlier. I can see where someone with modern eyes could read something cult-like into that act, but perhaps 2,000 years it was how things were done and it had no symbolic meaning other than giving something to a leader.
Thank you for your comments. I should not have said there seems to be a conspiracy of silence about Ananias and Sapphira. There is plenty of commentary, most of which says that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down for lying to God. However, I’m just not buying that. Perhaps what I should’ve said is I can find no modern commentary with which I agree. Look at the facts.
- Church members must sell their property and put all their money at Peter’s feet. In the New Testament, foot washing may signify humility, but placing money at someone’s feet seems like subservience to me. “For ‘God* has put all things in subjection under his feet.’” 1 Corinthians 15.27.
- Peter and/or God kills Ananias and Sapphira when they do not turn over all their money. To me, this is not a minor point. In any society, killing people for money has always been very very bad.
- Great fear seized the whole church when they heard these things. How do you put lipstick on this pig? The church is not glorifying God for punishing deceitful people, but they are in great fear because the same thing might happen to them. How can it ever be a good thing that people are afraid of being killed if they don’t turn over all their money?
Please forgive me if I’m ranting, but I’m frustrated. What I’m wondering is “where’s the outrage?” So far as I know, killing people for money and placing the rest of the group in great fear has always been a bad thing. One recent article says:
The story’s apparent moral injustice has long offended biblical interpreters. In the third century, a Greek “philosopher,” most likely Porphyry, condemned Peter’s rebuke as hypocritical and irrational: the apostle, who perjured himself by denying Jesus three times (Luke 22:31-34, 54-62), ritually murders the couple for doing a much lesser sin, if indeed the couple’s action was a sin. Albert Harrill, Divine Judgment against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11): A Stock Scene of Perjury and Death, Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2, 351-52 (2011).
However, I cannot find any modern interpreters who are so offended.The reference to Porphyry comes from The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, ** you do not have permission to see this link **. CHAPTER XXI, Objection based on S. Peter’s treatment of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1-11). Reimarus condemned the murder of Ananias and Sapphira in the 1700s. Why is it that no one today seems to be concerned about their murder? To me this is a huge matter, a big black mark in the middle of the New Testament. Why does everyone else seems unconcerned about killing people over money and placing the rest of the group in great fear?
Cult is a loaded word and not easy to define. There are some cases where it’s clear that the leader has no boundaries with respect to their followers. And as you allude to, they typically prevent or discourage their followers from thinking independently or maintaining or establishing friendships with outsiders, including family. I would agree this is generally unhealthy and dangerous, but it is often a matter of degree and not so easy for an outsider to determine.
Consider the many modern Indian gurus. While I think it’s in the nature of the guru/devotee relationship that it’s easy for the guru to abuse his power if he is so inclined, I would not necessarily assume that they all always do so or are all equally bad. Although there are famous cases of extensive and severe abuse, including criminal activity. Satya Sai Baba, no longer living, comes to mind. And he had a huge following. Pretty much everyone in India knew of him and either hated him or loved him.
But I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that Jesus was similarly abusive, even if he actually did tell his followers to renounce their families and their old lives. In my opinion, an important component of learning about and judging the damage and harm caused by a modern cult is to interview people who have managed to escape. I don’t think we have any testimony of that for Jesus’ day. Which doesn’t prove anything one way or the other: They would most likely not be literate and even if someone wrote down their complaints, the Christian scribes would not be interested in preserving such accounts.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)