Loading...I have explained how the idea of resurrection arose within early Judaism, and now I want to talk about the idea of afterlife in the teachings of Jesus. To begin with, I need to stress that when Jesus talked about the coming kingdom of God – the core of his apocalyptic message – he was *not* referring to what happens to a person’s soul after she or he dies.
Here is how I explain Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom in my first-ever trade book for a popular audience, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
*****************************************************
The very first thing that Jesus is recorded to have said in our very earliest surviving source involves an apocalyptic pronouncement of the coming Kingdom of God. In Mark’s Gospel, after being baptized by John and tempted by Satan in the wilderness, in neither of which is he recorded as having said anything, Jesus comes into Galilee with an urgent message:
The time is filled up and the Kingdom of God is almost here; repent and believe in the good news! (Mark 1:15)
I take this to be an adequate summary of what Jesus himself actually preached. The saying about “time being filled up” is an apocalyptic image. Recall that for apocalypticists there were two ages of history – the present evil age that was running along its predetermined course and the glorious age to come in which God would establish his sovereignty once and for all. For Jesus, the time of this age was all but complete; the bottom of the sand clock was nearly filled. This age was near its end and the new Kingdom was almost here. People needed to prepare by turning to God and accepting this good news.
Later Christians, of course, took this very term “good news” and …
You will need to belong to the blog to read the rest of this post. And it would be worth it! Worth all seven cents or so it would cost, per day, to belong to the blog. And every one of those cents goes to charity. So JOIN!
When I was taking Bible courses at my fundamentalist Christian university, the professors there agreed with this interpretation, but they taught that this “kingdom” was in fact indicative of the age of the church. It’s a concept so deeply rooted in my mind (I always liked the idea that God was concerned with things on this earth rather than rooting for the apocalypse) that I have trouble disengaging from that interpretation. Could you provide your thoughts on this “loophole” as I see it?
I would say that is a theological interpretation that is trying to explain how Jesus’ words can be “true” even though things didn’t happen as he predicted. As a historian I am more interested in what he actually would have been saying to people in his own context.
Alfred Lord Dunsany wrote a novel called The King of Elfland’s Daughter, in which the Anglo-Irish fantasy author tried to reconcile the differing parts of himself–the part that loved Ireland and the Irish, and the part that loved England and the English. The part that was Christian, and the part that loved the ancient pagan myths of his homeland. The Anglo-Irish often show this split identity, particularly those who artistic sensibilities.
The story is about a land divided between the sunny prosaic world of men, and the mist-shrouded realm of the elves (yes, it sounds very twee, but he was a good writer, I swear). The young prince of the mortal realm falls in love with the daughter of the Elf King, and she comes to live with him in his world, but her ways are very different, and she is an alien there, rejected and alone. But to end the marriage is impossible–she has a child with the prince. They come from different worlds, and those worlds are incompatible, but neither can be happy without the other.
Seeing her misery, the King of Elfland casts a spell that somehow melds the two realms together, extending Elfland into the mortal human world, until, as Dunsany puts it, “They were no longer the fields we know.”
Jesus’ vision is perhaps not unlike this (and of course Dunsany read his bible, like a good Protestant, might well have picked up on this). He sees that we yearn for heaven, while clinging to earth. So God, his Elf King, will cast a spell that unites the two worlds, mingling them together, ending the contradiction. There will no longer be heaven and earth. There will no longer be living and dead. There will no longer be slave and free, Jew and gentile, Roman and barbarian. All contradictions resolved. HIS contradictions resolved.
It’s a beautiful fantasy. And it has done good in the world, I think. And that’s a good book Dunsany wrote. But these are still the fields we know.
It’s interesting that Jesus states his twelve disciples as having their own thrones to judge the tribes of Israel. If the disciples believed themselves to be *the* judges for the Kingdom of God, I’m wondering if Paul knew that too since he referred to them as The Twelve; a title of special endorsement. He knew he didn’t fit into that picture of special favor, so it’s no wonder he was at odds with them.
I’m also wondering if there was some jealousy involved with these titles (“The Rock,” “James the Just,” “Sons of Thunder”) because Paul spent a lot of his time stressing the importance of equality, something that he himself was fighting for.
Yeah, good point.
Some fundamentalist would say that Jesus is Instructing the disciples to take the gospel to all Jews throughout Israel. This was their honor and privilege.
I totally understand what you’re getting at and i find it all compelling in my continued search for understanding….but, if i’m being honest and critical, the passages below also refer to this kingdom as if it’s a mystery – as if it’s not what people think it is. If i’m to *over-read* what Jesus is saying here i might conclude that he’s actually aware of the Apocalyptic messages of his time. If i’m *over-reading* it and really putting in my own interpretation based on the rest of the Bible, i could say that Jesus knows that people will think he’s an Apocalyptic preacher and is constantly stressing (in later Gospels, but even here) that the kingdom (contrary to everyone’s expectations) is not what people thought it was.
Mar 4:11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,
Mar 4:30 And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
Mar 4:26 And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.
But yes, “…the kingdom of God is within you” doesn’t appear anywhere else except Luke… That lone example, though, doesn’t critically hold up to every other example in Mark which corroborates the kingdom of God being “within” (or, as you put it, “symbolically”). If you really wanted to, you could very easily read every last saying of Jesus regarding the Kingdom in Mark as symbolic/within…very easily…every last one. In fact, in more cases than not there really is no other way you could read it. This should be very evident, right?
In fairness, you do say that much of his sayings could be taken symbolically…but that some passages don’t seem symbolic – such as ruling in the kingdom, eating and drinking, etc. But why not? Is this passage to be taken literally?
Mar 10:37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” [this sounds literal, right?]
Mar 10:38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. [Theory: Jesus is saying that they think the kingdom will come on this earth like all the other Apocalypticists] Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” [This doesn’t sound so literal, as they thought it was, right?]
Mar 10:39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized,
Mar 10:40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
The latter part of the passage is kind of odd if you’re expecting there to be a kingdom only for those who repent. Jesus does not tell them if they will rule with him in whatever this kingdom is…but he’s very direct that they will do this cup-drinking and be baptised. Before Jesus is crucified/suffers he mentions having to drink a cup, but it seems self-evident that the cup is not a cup.
So, was baptism in preparation for entering the coming physical Kingdom Of God rather than Heaven? Obviously today, being baptized to go to Heaven is essential to a lot of Christian beliefs. It would be rather ironic if that’s not what Jesus was talking about.
John the Baptist’s baptism was for the coming kingdom; Jesus himself probably did not practice baptism — when his followers after his death did, the rite took on a different signfiicance.
Why do you think that Jesus did not practice baptism when it is considered historical that he was baptized by John?
My sense is that most people who are baptized don’t themselves baptize others.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that? It seems that if someone thought that baptism was important enough for himself to be baptized, then he would want those he teaches to do the same.
Well — why don’t *you* baptize people? It just isn’t something you do.
I baptized my son back in the day! lol
I was thinking more from the idea that Jesus somewhat took over for John after John’s death. John baptized so it seems to make sense that Jesus would expect his followers to be baptized and that he would even do some of the baptisms.
Well, it’s possible.
“… Jesus himself probably did not practice baptism …”
Isn’t it pretty amazing that Jesus followers would have taken up the practice of baptism if Jesus himself (nor his followers) did not practice baptism during his earthly ministry? Jesus must have at the very least endorsed the ongoing practice of something like John’s baptism by his followers during his historical ministry. Hard to imagine his endorsing some kind of continuing baptism without him also practicing it in some fashion.
Yes, he may have endorsed the practice. It’s an interesting issue why the rite became so central to the Christian movement: but it’s usually thought that if Jesus was baptized, his followers were to be as well.
Of course, there’s no way to *prove* Jesus actually said *any* of the things attributed to him! But the sayings themselves certainly do refer to a “real” Kingdom, believed in by the authors of the Gospels.
There’s maybe two verses out of 20 in the book of Mark that even remotely refer to the kingdom in some kind of physical terms. The majority…in Mark…are all symbolic…if not all. I guess I always thought this was without question….Jesus speaking in parables. He’s using symbolism…he even says he does that. He sets things up to let the listener know he’s using figurative devices. The kingdom is a man sowing seed…etc. Check all the kingdom verses in Mark again. There have been posts here on the Bible as mythology. And I totally agree with those. And to take all these clearly figurative sayings of Jesus and make them literal is just not something I can wrap my head around. Even a college literature professor who has no interest or understanding of the Bible would be able to read every verse in Mark regarding the kingdom and see it as figurative. The fact that Jesus was preaching during a time with apocalyptic thought and preachers only deepens the meaning and gives irony to his parables about the kingdom that I was not aware of.
When the KOG failed to materialise in the liftime of the first followers do we have any idea of the scale of deserters of the faith? How did believers continue to justify the lack of an earthly intervention by God?
Ah, good question. But it’s a complicated answer. I think I’ll add the question to my mailbag.
Super great question. I can’t wait to read the answer
In Mark 13 Jesus predicted he / the Son of Man would return in the clouds with great power and glory:
26 Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory.
He also predicted this would happen soon:
30 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
Do you think Jesus’ apocalyptic predictions in Mark 13 are directly associated with his prediction about the coming Kingdom of God? If so, it seems he got his prediction over the timings all wrong, because he did not return in the lifetimes of his disciples.
Most Christians I’ve heard teach about this get round this by claiming the Kingdom of God was inaugurated at Pentecost, whereas direct rule by Jesus himself will only occur after Judgement day when he returns. So, they claim, his disciples did witness the inauguration of the Kingdom of God at Pentecost, but we’ve yet to get to its final form. Is this teaching consistent with how the early church understood these matters?
I don’t think there was any one view among the earliest Christians.
If you’re looking at all of the verses in Mark regarding the kingdom as figurative (which is very easy), you could say that Jesus’ sayings are referring to the kingdom coming in power within or in the mind. In Mark, Jesus explicitly says the kingdom is a mystery. Why would he call a physical kingdom a mystery and then use figurative devices in all the verses about the kingdom…in Mark?
Taking a couple verses about the kingdom in Mark that I could read as apocalyptic but ignoring all the other verses that are clearly figurative and even at one point explicitly referred to as a “mystery” would not be critical or honest. And that’s why I’m here….because so much of Christianity is neither critical or honest
I’m reading your book, “Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament.” The Gospel of Peter is a Ufologists dream. A great voice (breaking of the sound barrier) came from the sky. The skies open up indicating something entering our atmosphere from above. Two men descend from the craft. They were bright, evidently due to the energy source around them or their space suits. This same energy source causes the stone to roll away. The men enter the tomb. The soldiers on watch are amazed and wake up the Centurion and elders who had fallen asleep while guarding the tomb.
Together, they watch as the two alien beings exit the tomb, supporting a third being, Jesus. There is a cross following from behind. Obviously, the cross is an energy source and very bright. Stare at any bright light and it inevitably takes the shape of a cross if only intermittently. The heads of the two reached up into the sky must be a reference to the wormhole they used to travel from their destination. But, the one they were leading, presumably Jesus, entered a different craft which used an alternate wormhole that appeared to travel deeper into space and to a different destination. At that point, the witnesses hear a voice from an entity which asks, “Have you preached to those who are asleep?” The cross containing energy and intelligence answers, “Yes.”
Afterwards, the skies open and a third spacecraft comes upon the scene. A being descends and enters the crypt. The next morning, Mary Magdalene and other women visit the tomb and see inside a beautiful young man who tells them that Jesus is risen and returned from where he came. The young man inside the tomb could actually be an enemy of Jesus, an intergalactic enemy, which would explain why the women fled in fear. What was he doing there? Confirming Jesus had risen and conquered death, which just gave Jesus’ kingdom a tremendous technological advantage in the eternal war.
Disclaimer: One possible interpretation.
That Jesus believed and preached a
> Kingdom, . . . principally . . .here on earth
doesn’t imply Jesus doesn’t believe in a afterlife realm for humans in
> place where God is enthroned
does it?
doesn’t seem like it to me . . .
granted quotes like
>Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and ,. . .reclining at table in the kingdom of God
could be interpreted as implying a belief in the resurrection, but it could also imply activities in an afterlife. plus of course these quotes are not theological treatise of Jesus on the existence or non-existence of an afterlife, but exhortations of his for people to change.
Many fundamentalists believe the kingdom of God are true believers who follow the Commandments of Jesus in this life.
This means complete submission, picking up your cross, counting the cost , don’t judge, love your neighbor as yourself, renouncing all.
Following a lifestyle as described by Jesus in the sermon on the mount.
You enter the kingdom when you become a true believer. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that started from a handful of believers to spreading throughout the entire world.
Is this similar to what you were taught when you were younger?
Yup!
Very interesting and relevant subject matter for this time!
You are correct. If you were to ask the typical church-going Christian what the Kingdom is, he would probably reference the destination that awaits at death. This, in spite of the fact that a focused reading of the Gospels reveals otherwise. (Again, Christianity has been blinded and bereft of a true understanding of its own Scripture. But thankfully, John 9’s “night” is coming to an end.)
What is interesting and important to note about the coming of the Kingdom is the “cosmic template” through which it manifests itself. Notice:
Anticipation > Delay > Fulfillment
We also see this with:
Christ temporarily in the world > Night when no man could work > Christ returns in power
Analyzing from a literalistic/historical perspective, it was ANTICIPATED that Christ would establish His Kingdom 2,000 years ago. But 2,000 years later, we obviously see that did not happen. (Refer to the conversation between Christ and the disciples in Acts 1:6-8.)
And yet again, there has been a RIDDLE behind all of this.
When Peter stood and spoke at Pentecost, he clearly spoke in a manner of anticipating that Christ would be returning in his lifetime to establish the Kingdom. But it is beneficial to understand that the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, at the beginning of the Church Age, was merely an EARLY PREVIEW of the arrival of the Spirit of TRUTH (John 16:13) that is going to be poured out at the END of the Church Age. Christianity, with its 30,000+ denominations, has clearly never been guided by the Spirit of Truth!
Holy Spirit at Pentecost > 2,000-year delay > Spirit of Truth
Early preview > 2,000-year delay > True fulfillment
Kingdom preached > Age of Christianity > Kingdom fully revealed
The age of Christianity has actually been one giant INTERRUPTION of the revelation of the true Kingdom!
All of this leads us back to comparing the beginnings of the Synoptic Gospels:
Matthew > Mark > Luke
Christ arrives to save from sin > Begins in the wilderness > Christ arrives to reign forever in His Kingdom
This obviously is in accord with the journey of the sons of Israel:
Freed from bondage through the Passover sacrifice > Wandered in the wilderness > Entered Promised Land
(Christianity has existed during a “wilderness dispensation.” Christianity is Mystery Babylon. Where then does Revelation 17:3 tell us John was taken to see the whore of Babylon? The wilderness! This is more “riddle-solving.”)
So again, the stories of the Bible are living parables that reveal the grand orchestration of the revelation of the Kingdom of God. This is regardless of how historically accurate or “literal” the stores are.
And it is not only by comparing the beginnings of the Gospels that we see the consistency of this “template” demonstrated, but also by comparing their endings. (Mark’s ending is an entire topic unto itself.) Why does Matthew not record Jesus’ ascension? (A glaring and peculiar omission, no?) Because His original followers at the beginning of the Church Age ANTICIPATED “ascending alive,” or being glorified into the Kingdom themselves – but they did not. Notice, however, LUKE’S unique ending:
Behold, I send out the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:49)
Luke applies to the end-time “awakeners” who will receive the long-withheld Spirit of Truth; “clothed with power from on high.”
It is also revealing that only in Luke, Christ blesses the disciples AS He ascends into Heaven (24:51). Of course, Luke regards those who will remain alive to see the coming of the Kingdom; those who will “ascend alive” themselves. This blessing represents that appointment with destiny! (Also take note that Luke concludes with the disciples “continually in the temple” [24:53]. Compare this to what is written to Philadelphia, the most beloved Church in Revelation [3:12]. Luke is the Gospel of the highly esteemed and beloved end-time overcomers who will help to lead humanity out of darkness and into the true Kingdom.)
All of this shows why the entire thematic structure of Luke is generally more “positive,” or uplifting, than the first two Synoptics; because Luke applies to the end of the long age of darkness and the soon-coming revelation of the true Kingdom!
Of course, this is all far from conventional Biblical interpretation, but the question is, who exactly determines what is “conventional” Biblical interpretation?
The Gnostic gospels just come right out and say it. While there may be riddles in many of the Apocryphal gospels, I find it interesting how they take the figurative sayings of Jesus in the Bible and outright say what they mean. I think you can arrive at the truths of the Apocryphal gospels (namely Thomas and Philip) without reading them but I find it interesting how they are forbidden.
They became forbidden for deliberate reasons centuries ago; now they are “forbidden” primarily due to the complete and utter spiritual ignorance and oblivion of mainstream Christianity’s participants. The Christian leaders of old wanted certain things kept from the masses, for fear the masses would see they have no need for those “leaders.” Now, these things are available to the masses, but they have been so conditioned by the so-called “teachers” of mainstream Christianity, they do not even consider them.
The Gospel of Thomas, more recently unearthed, expresses the Truth of man’s own intrinsic divine essence, and the need to return to it. And the masses dismiss it, because they have been trained to do so.
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees [Christian theologians and teachers], hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don’t enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.” (Mat. 23:14)
Is the word\s used for the term ‘good news’ in Mark 1:15 the same as that used in Mark 14:9?
If so (and if it is not an interpolation?) then is it not more likely that the intent of the author of Mark is to use it in the ‘gospel’ context, with the purpose of portraying that Jesus foresaw his death from the beginning? And foresaw that the story of the woman with the alabaster jar would always be told “wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world”
Interesting point. Yes, I think that is indeed what Mark had in mind. But I also think it is not what Jesus had in mind when he said the words now found in Mark 1:15. And I don’t think he said the words attributed to him in Mark 14:9.
I’ve been reading some of Vermes’s, Jesus the Jew, concerning the phrase “son of man.” If I’m understanding him correctly, he believes it’s an Aramaic phrase that Jesus most likely used when referring to himself. “Son of man” is a circumlocution for the word “I.” It’s either neutral or a way of showing humility and respect.
He also says that any “Son of Man” phrases used eschatologically in the NT are Christian additions due to Jesus’ followers reinterpretating events soon after the resurrection and that there’s no correlation between the phrase and Enoch.
He mentions that contemporary scholarship stating that it’s an important title have asked the wrong questions which lead to the wrong conclusions.
What’s your take on Vermes’s view?
He was a superb scholar. But I disagree with him on this. Jesus’ use of the Son of Man appears to reflect Daniel 7:13-14 and I think he didn’t use the term as a circumlocution for himself.
So just to clarify Professor, your saying that historical Jesus probably was referring to a Son of Man as *another* person to come etc…That (the historical) Jesus did not think himself as the Son of Man.
And of course early Christians; after Jesus’s death, then came to believe that he was in actuality the Son of Man, all that time, due to their belief in Jesus’s reserction…correct?
Which in turn “affected” the oral traditions of possible actual sayings of Jesus, specifically when he was being quoted talking about the Barenash/son of man….and then even more, where possibly followers were inventing sayings with this self proclaimed title.
Yup, that’s right.
Vermes discussed why Daniel 7:13-14 is not related to Son of Man. I’m guessing he was in the minority for this view.
I’m not sure about the majority view, actually.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that “Son of Man” was a term used in Jesus’ time in regard to the loose angelology of 1st century Judaism. Namely, the tradition up to that point was that certain prophets — such as Ezekiel and Daniel, in particular — saw visions of various angelic beings, some of whom took on animal features (reminiscent of the beastial angels of other Semitic cultures, cf. Assyrian Cherubim), but these prophets would single out one particular angelic being as looking entirely “human” (i.e. having no animal features), and in Hebrew one way to say “human being” is Ben-Adam (Bar-Enash in Aramaic), literally “a son of Adam” or “a son of a man”. So when apocalyptic Jews before Jesus would talk of the Son of Man coming at the eschaton, they initially meant the angelic Son of Man, or the angel who looked like a human being, who was a harbinger of the end times (Daniel speaks of the Son of Man as such a harbinger).
What it looks like happened, to me at least, is that this Son of Man angel became conflated with the Messiah at some point between the Maccabean revolt and the 1st century, so that by the time Jesus is talking about the Son of Man coming, many Jews assumed he was talking about the Messiah. As to whether Jesus himself was conflating the Son of Man with the Messiah, I suppose that’s debatable. From what I understand, Dr. Ehrman thinks Jesus believed that the Son of Man was different from the Messiah — that Jesus thought of the Son of Man in the original sense: a human-looking angelic harbinger, separate from the Messiah who was an actual human being.
As you can see, this gets awfully complex and difficult to unravel.
Hi Bart I didnt know where to ask this question so I picked this topic. I read somewhere that when the word god is used in the bible it refers to god and when lord is being used it is referring to jesus. Is this true?
No, “Lord” is a common term for God in the Bible.
It’s also a common form of address to a king, especiallty as “my lord.”
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
You’ve said there were other Apocalyptic Prophets than Jesus. Was it typical for the prophets to surround themselves with disciples? What was different about Jesus, rather than say Brian, that his cult grew into a new religion? We’re any of the other prophets crucified? Sorry for including the Brian reference but I couldn’t resist. I do hope you’ll still answer my questions. Thanx
Yes, I discuss all this in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Others did have followers and others were executed (or killed in conflict).
My understanding is the Greek /euangelion/ refers to an imperial proclamation, often announcing a tax holiday. (Is that where Bill O’Reilly gets the idea that Jesus came to lower our taxes?) If Jesus actually said, “Repent and believe the good news,” he didn’t say it in Greek, but Aramaic. What is the most likely Aramaic word for “good news” and what is its connotation?
Hmmm… Good question . Maybe someone else can answer: I’m out of town without a book in sight.
I don’t know about the Aramaic, specifically, but “good news” is a very common expression in Hebrew. In Hebrew, one would refer to B’sorot Tovot, or good tidings. Although “good tidings” is not a totally accurate translation of the Hebrew. A better translation would be a “welcome portend,” because the word B’sorot (B’sorah in the singular) comes from the same root as the word for augur, foreshadow, bode, etc. But, more importantly, it is also the root for the Hebrew word for a “herald” (M’vaser), i.e the guy who runs ahead of a king’s procession and proclaims the king’s imminent arrival. All of these words come from the same Semitic root: בשר.
What it appears happened is that Jesus (or, first, John the Baptist) sought to spread the announcement of the coming king, which, in their case, meant the Messiah. So by spreading the “good news,” what they originally appeared to mean was to spread the heralding of the messianic age. It’s like they were saying: “Hey, everyone, the Messiah’s herald has arrived! That means the Messiah is almost here!” Alas, however, if Jesus was the Messiah, then he did, indeed, come, but then he died, so…so much for the “good news” being a harbinger. Therefore, it was necessary for the early Christians to alter the meaning of “good news” to be not the arrival of the Messiah, but the death and resurrection of the Messiah. What was supposed to be the announcement of the grand arrival of the Messiah became a tepid, anti-climactic reinterpretation of the original pronouncement.
So, is the Lord’s Prayer -‘Thy kingdom come … on earth as it is in heaven’ the prime example of this apocalyptic message?
yes!
Neither prayers attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark but only in Matthew and Luke. And the “on Earth” not accounted for in Luke. This prime argument for the apocalyptic Jesus theory is not even in the apocalyptic book.
You’d be amazed at the things I have had to leave out of my books to keep them tight.
In reference to your book Jesus: The Apocalyptic Prophet, can you expound on a few things in the Readers’s Mail bag that you couldn’t include in the book—things that were part of his apocalyptic message?
Interesting idea. I didn’t deal much with lots of the parables, for example. One could write a big book just on them. In fact, many scholars have done so!
I understand and thanks, Bart!
I have the impression that Jesus was talking about only Jews in his New Kingdom, from his statement about the Prophets and his apostles ruling over the 12 tribes. Am I mistaken? His belief in the near future of this Kingdom seems connected with his statement to the apostles about some of them not dying before His return.
Yes, I agree.
You agreed with another poster’s saying, “I have the impression that Jesus was talking about only Jews in his New Kingdom, from his statement about the Prophets and his apostles ruling over the 12 tribes.”
So you think Jesus *didn’t* expect the Kingdom to include non-Jews? When you’ve said elsewhere that Jews who anticipated such a Kingdom *had* come to believe it would include all the world’s peoples? (If I understood you correctly…)
Or did you mean Jesus was only *talking*, at that point, about the Jews who’d be in the Kingdom, but assumed other peoples would be there as well?
Some of Jesus’ sayings indicate that others will come in while some Jews are left out. But my view is that Jesus took this message only to Jews, not to gentiles.
Are you planning to say anything about Jewish and early Christian beliefs in beforelife in your book about afterlife? Or maybe in its sequel The History of Beforelife? 😉
It was a rare belief in Christianity; I”m not sure if or where it could be found in Judaism — certainly not in classical Hebrew writings.
With early Christianity I’m referring to Valentinianism and Origen:
Theodotus: “But it is not only the washing that is liberating, but the knowledge of/who we were, and what we have become, where we were or where we were placed, whither we hasten, from what we are redeemed, what birth is and what rebirth.” (Excerpta ex Theodoto)
http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm
Origen: “we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.” (De Principiis III)
Origen: “this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm
With Judaism I referring to sources saying that…
“the traditional Jewish belief [is] that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d”
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
I don’t believe such a Jewish belief has any grounds in the old testament but I don’t think Jews have sola scriptura doctrine requiring such either.
But wound’t these kinds of beliefs proof that eternal punishment in Hell was not unanimously accepted doctrine. Some believers expected a second or third chance or a gradual advancement to perfection?
That’s right: eternal punishment was not a view held by everyone.
Do you have any explanation for why church kept on copying Origen doctrine (writings) about beforelife for all these years until the internet age and what made them to suppress Theodotus doctrine about the same during the early ears?
Well, they weren’t copied a *lot*. Most of his writings are not preserved in Greek, for example, but only in Latin translation. And many are lost. Why those who did copy them copied them is an interesting question. They continued to find his views valuable I suppose. Theodotus (the adopionist you mean?) was quite clearly a “heretic.”
I am not aware of any belief in “beforelife” in the traditional Jewish sources, but there may be some mystical (kabbalistic) speculations, and probably some homiletics among, say, the Hassidim.
Do you think Jesus also believe in an actual good and bad afterlife? When he talks about ‘the kingdom of God’, is he talking about one on earth? Is ‘eternal life’ referring to the afterlife? Or are these questions not so clear?
I’ll be getting to that!
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t Jews believe in an eventual Kingdom of God here on Earth…rather than souls going to heaven? I believe the thinking is that this was God’s original plan…before Adam and Eve screwed it up. Which makes sense to me. The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that God’s plan/will cannot be thwarted. So, it seems he would be trying to get back to that original plan. A utopia/kingdom here on earth rather than everyone playing harps in heaven.
It depends which Jew you talk to (or are talking about). There is not and was not just one Jewish view. (Just as there isn’t just one American view!)
The current Rabbinical form for Judaism subscribes to this idea (more or less), but the Judaism of Jesus’ day was far more varied. For instance, the Pharisees and Essenes seem to have believed something like this, but the Sadducees did not.
Bart,
You mentioned in the the blog that Jesus says the twelve were to be seated on thrones along side the throne of glory in judgment of Israel. Are we to assume Judas Iscariot was included in this as well? Would someone else fill the seat after the betrayal?
Yup: I posted on this last year (Nov. 23, 2016: https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-private-teachings-about-the-king-of-the-jews/)
Is there any clear indication that Jesus chose precisely twelve disciples in Galilee because he already had the idea of making them rulers over the twelve tribes in the new order of things?
Perhaps related, what was the Jewish understaning of the twelve tribes in 30 CE? Were there any representatives of the northern tribes of Israel that had been deported in 722 BCE left to rule over?
What do you think of NT Wright’s theory that the life and death of Jesus were seen as the inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth, not a fiery one-time return? That Christ’s life and death inaugurated the Kingdom in creating a new Israel which would do an about-face from Israel’s current path toward violence and destruction?
If you mean do I think this was the view of the apostle Paul, I’d say yes. If you mean “really” I’d say no (since I”m not a Christian)
There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. Luke – 13: 28
To the contrary, Dr. Ehrman, what happens to a soul after death is implied–what happens to the souls of all prophets. Add to this the Transfiguration. Life after death is a capability in the Kingdom of Heaven.
So, we have
1) all the prophets that had lived will be seen–alive is the implication
2) prophets that had lived appeared (in a living, more beautiful state) in the Transfiguration (Moses and Elijah)
3) I add, when Jesus or his apostles speak to the dead before calling them back into a physical body, life after discarnation is implied
Do you agree with all three?
Thank you,
Steefen
I’m afraid I’m having trouble following both your argument and your questions — and the logic behind them).
Your position is to stress that Jesus did not refer to life after death when he spoke of the kingdom of God.
I disagree.
I disagree because of a verse in a passage you cite.
You cite Luke 13: 23-29. I looked at Luke 13: 28 and call into question how you can say Jesus is not referring to life after death when he describes a scene in the kingdom of God involving life after death for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all prophets.
My first question is after reading Luke 13: 28 for what it says, do you agree that Jesus is describing life after death for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all prophets?
My position is Luke 13: 28 establishes life after death for those who will be seen (all prophets).
The second point of support that the Gospels establish life after death for all prophets is the Transfiguration account. Life after death for all prophets is a body in a more beautiful state, the transfigured bodies of Moses and Elijah.
The third point of support that the Gospels establish life after death not just for prophets but for those who have been resurrected not into a transfigured body but into the normal body. Using the example of Jesus resurrected Lazarus, Jesus calls to a person who answers by re-entering the body he left.
One way my three-part question can be answered is: I agree 1) Jesus is describing seeing long dead people who are transfigured back into life because they will be visible to those in the kingdom of God; 2) Jesus himself saw and conversed with long dead people (Moses and Elijah) who were transfigured back to life in a more beautiful state (one definition of the transfiguration); and 3) in the resurrection accounts, bodies had become inanimate objects because the animating soul/spirit/consciousness/life force had left the body but I do not agree because like with a robot, the human being was turned off, resurrection turned it back on; therefore, life between the on and off state does not prove spiritual existence.
Possible summary response: transfigured bodies appearing in the Kingdom of God and in the Transfiguration are what can happen in life after death, but life back into a non-transfigured body / non-resurrection body is a different matter.
Now that I have made my response easier to follow, has Jesus implied life after death for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah who were long dead but through some transfiguration would be visible to people in the Kingdom of God?
Luke 13:28 appears to be referring to what happens at the resurrection when the kingdom arrives: some are cast out, others included in.
What is your perspective on Ezekiel 20:25-26?
I wasn’t sure what the passage said, and so just now looked it up in my Bible. Long ago, I placed a question mark in the margin! I wasn’t sure what to make of it, and still am not.
What I’ve read is that it’s part of Yahweh’s punishment of Israel for rejecting him. Since they’re rejecting his good statutues, he’s punishing them with bad statutes like firstborn sacrifice, which is condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament.
Hello, Dr. Ehrman, hope you’re doing well. I’ve been lured into a discussion with Christians about seeing spiritual realities. Do you think the NT teaches that? Also, what would be meant by John 3:3 and John 11:40?
Thanks for any response.
1. It depends what you mean by spiritual realms: they certainly thought there were spiritual beings who did not live on earth. 2. I’m not sure what exactly you’re asking about these verses. John thought that a person needed to experience a heavenly birth in order to have eternal life in the heavenly realm after death.
Hello, Dr. Ehrman!
Without exact counts of the phrases, but from what I quickly looked, it seems that:
1. Mark is using the phrase “kingdom of God”
2. Matthew is using the phrase “kingdom of heaven”, with few exceptions
3. Luke is using the same phrase as Mark – “kingdom of God”
To me the 2 phrases look a bit different – “kingdom of God” sounds more like an earthly place, while “of heaven” sounds more like a heavenly place, outside earth. Therefore, it seems to me that the author of Mathew started shifting somehow the idea of earthly kingdom to an outside kingdom, thus going more towards the Greko-Roman worldview of what happens when you die(you go into heaven in the presence of gods).
What is your opinion? Are the phrases complete synonyms?
It sounds like that mainly because we are used to thinking of heaven as a place “up there.” It certainly can mean that in antiquity as well, but it can also refer to a kingdom that comes from heaven or a kingdom that reflects heaven and so on. It’s normally understaood to be simply a circumlocution for “God,” since even in Matthew the kingdom appears to be a place down here where there will be a king, and rulers, and banquets, and so on….
The Jesus quote regarding gnashing of teeth sounds more like early Christian communities influenced by the Greek concept of Hades. Do you believe that this quote was authentic to Jesus?
How could historical Jesus have taught an apocalyptic eschatology and simultaneously taught about God’s kingdom in the present form, like in Luke 17:20-21. Is this Jesus quote authentic?
I’m not sure there’s a lot of gashing of teeth in Greek Hades? In any event, these people are not in a realm of the dead. They realize they are not allowed into the kingdom and are terrbily upset about it.
My mistake; for some reason I thought Virgil mentioned gnashing of teeth in Hades. But I checked again and I was wrong. And your answer clarifies my confusion, thanks!
But I believe you missed my second question:
Jesus seems to support apocalyptic eschatology in many verses. But then, Jesus insinuates that the kingdom of God cannot be observed (Luke 17:20-21), seemingly supporting realized eschatology. Am I reading this wrong, or is this quote NOT authentic to Jesus?
Yes that’s right. The issue is always whether a saying of Jesus in the Gospels is original to him or has been put on his lips by later storytellers/Gospel writiers. In this case the theology of Luke 17:20f fits perfectly well with Luke’s views of the end otherwise, but not well with the views that we can establish as those of Jesus. So it’s probably not original (it’s not in any of our other ealry sources). I talk about this in my book Heaven and Hell; Luke minimizes a bit the apocalyptic character of Jesus’ proclamation.
Hello, what are your views on Luke 17 v21? I note some versions say ‘within’, some ‘among’. What do you interpret its meaning as? Thank you so much.
The word normally means “within” but the context of the saying clearly shows, in my judgment, that it has to be “among.” Jesus is certainly not telling his spiritual enemies the Pharisees that they, of all people, have the Kingdom residing within them. IN Luke’s Gospel, consistently, the kingdom has started to appear in the ministry of Jesus. It is already being manifest, here and now, among us.