Loading...Jesus believed that destruction was coming for some people, and salvation for others. So did the author of Revelation. So what’s the difference?
Big difference. In modern terms, Jesus’ views of who would be saved were non-discriminatory. That is, they were not based on who a person was, but what she did. It did not matter if she was a she or a he; if she was a Jew or a gentile; if she believed one set of things or another; if she came from one nation/nationality or another. What mattered was how she lived.
Other Jews at the time probably had similar views, but they are striking on the lips of Jesus. Salvation does not come necessarily to Jews by virtue of being the chosen ones. It comes to anyone who lives a life of love, caring for others, especially those in need.
To see this, consider two passages from the Gospel of Luke. First note
Eternal life? Seems important. Jesus’ view? Especially important. Want to keep reading? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
It’s this precisely, and little else, that leaves me clinging to the label of Christian, even though atheist, agnostic, materialist, or humanist fit me much better these days.
Jesus’ soteriology is actually not morally repugnant or logically contradictory just on its face. Karma comes for the cruel. Maybe Christians should read that guy sometime…
“If you cannot find Christ in the beggar by the Church door you will never find Him in the chalice.”
AstaKask,
I agree!
Mr. Ehrman, from Luke 13:30 that you cite and other passages in the Gospels, Jesus seems to endorse -sometimes indirectly, sometimes more clearly- humility, which is generally thought of as a core Christian value. If I’m not wrong with the aforementioned deductions, isn’t all that somewhat contradictory to Jesus expecting to be the King of the Jews, after the coming of the Son of Man?
It’s say it’s impossible to evaluate Jesus’ internal mental state or his level of humility, given the kinds of records of his words that we have…. But yes, normally someone who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world is not thought of as particularly humble.
I was always taught that Jesus humility was evidence of his love for mankind. He, gods son, came to earth because of his special love for humanity. He, the son of god, chose to lose his heavenly memories and knowledge of his heavenly life prior and be born and live his life as a lowly human. This in itself demonstrates immense humility. The other verses in the Bible would be additional proofs of his humility in a Christian fundamentalists view.
I no longer am a believer. But, that is the argument a Christian apologist would make.
Now, I find the verses more interesting. I wonder if certain early Christian personalities appeared to need reigning in or more humility. Are these passages there because they served a purpose in the early formation of the church?
“I was always taught that Jesus humility was evidence of his love for mankind. He, gods son, came to earth because of his special love for humanity. He, the son of god, chose to lose his heavenly memories and knowledge of his heavenly life prior and be born and live his life as a lowly human. This in itself demonstrates immense humility. The other verses in the Bible would be additional proofs of his humility in a Christian fundamentalists view.”
what about the father? he kept his kingly status
what about gods who became sheep, donkey, cow ?
and orthodoxy gives a contradictory message, jesus is and isnt .
Dear professor, I’ve been wondering for a long time, how do these “open society” passages comply with what seems to me as anti-gentile or anti-pagan bias, especially Mt 15:21ff & Mk 7:24ff, but also Mt 5:46-47, Mt 7:6, Mt 10:5,6,14,15, Mt 11:20-24, Mt 12:30, to name a few. These passages seems to be somehow at odds with what you point out. Could you help me make sense of it, professor?
The problem is that various authors have various perspectives and they all show up in the same Bible. But it’s also important to note that an author like Matthew thought that *JESUS* restricted his work to Israel, but that (in Matthew’s view) he (Jesus) directed his disciples then, after his death, to go on to take his message ot the gentiles.
Thank you doctor. So do you consider these “less open” passages less authentic? Let’s stick with the Canaanite woman story preserved also in Mark 7, in which Jesus sounds… to me… well… not so Sunday school like… And in direct contradiction to the sheep-goat message
Yeah, I doubt it they really happened.
Whoa, I mean… Is there a writing of yours in which you elaborate more deeply into this question, scholarly or popular, professor? Is it widely held view?
Sorry — when I get a comment I don’t get the entire link to see what it is referring to (and either do others). So for everyone (including me) to make sure we know what you’re asking about, you’ll need to give a brief summary again of “this question” and then ask about it. See what I mean?
Of course, professor, my bad. I first asked how do stories of Good Samaritan and sheep and goats comply with other traditions (really traditions?), in which Jesus sounds less open minded and if not hostile towards gentiles and pagans, especially the Canaanite woman story in Mk 7 & Mt 15 (where Jesus acts, pardon my French, as an utter jerk). You then said you doubt these other stories really happen, i.e. questined authenticity or “historicity” of those passages. That was a shock for me, as some of these other traditions seem to be scattered around the gospels. My following question thus is, if the NT scholars share your doubting view, and/or if you elaborate further on authenticity of these passages in some popular or scholarly book or article, if there´s a blog post about it etc. I understand it´s difficult to adress such a the topic in a comment section. Thank you professor.
What do you think about statements of Faith? Do they constrain the scholars who have to stick by them? Does it affect your view of their scholarship?
It certainly can and often does. And it depends on what they’re saying in their scholarship. There are some kinds of scholarship even on teh Bible that can absolutely be done without being guided by statements of personal belief.
I needed this today. I’ve been struggling lately with an overly-evangelical parent who is mired in bigotry and exudes an attitude of smug entitlement. I’ve tried to explain ad nauseam that all Jesus requires for salvation is that we love each other, and we love God (as we understood Him) as well. The rest, I say, ie: church / worship formality, is bluster. My thoughts are generally met with a diatribe that concludes in her damning me to hell. Thank you for this, Dr. Ehrman.
I’m glad it helped. My own experience with a parent like that was to come to a mutual agreement to love each other completely and talke about basketball instead of religion….
Did Paul get the wrong message about salvation being brought about by faith in Jesus apart from the law?
That would be a theological question (of whether he was right or wrong). If you’re asking if his message was the same as that of Jesus — that’s a historical question (in other words, he could be right and still differ with Jesus). MY view is that it is indeed a very different message.
Forgive me for posting twice, but I’m new here and eager to learn. My belief is Jesus’ teachings on the law invited ambiguity on the part of his disciples once he died. Had he been decisive and clear that the law was to be followed, Paul’s ministry would have been much more controversial than it already was. Compromise at the Council of Jerusalem would have been impossible. Most historians seem to think the historical Jesus did indeed ban divorce and the swearing of oaths, both of which are allowed (under certain circumstances) in Torah. My point is, if Jesus had been clear about gentiles and the law, James and Peter would simply have told Paul he was wrong. Instead, the historical Jesus seems to have had a rather idiosyncratic approach to Torah, but there is no evidence (to my mind) he ever deemed the entire law obsolete. My question to you is this: if the historical Jesus heard what Paul was preaching in, say, 50 C.E., how would he have reacted? I’m assuming it wouldn’t have been the same as what was shown in The Last Temptation of Christ!
Yeah, probably not. But I think he would have been flabbergasted that a religion wsa being based on his death and resurrection. My view is that Jesus never ever anticipated gentiles would join the people of God without becoming Jews, but also that he never would have any occasion to talk about it with his disciples, since it was not within his realm of thinking….
I’m a bit puzzled. In Meier’s “Marginal Jew” (Vol 5, p. 199-209), the Good Samaritan parable fails rigorous criteria of authenticity. At best, it expresses a Lucian version of Jesus. And yet you speak of what Jesus “really” meant.
Do you disagree with Meier’s criteria? In what way are your’s different from his? Are you setting aside the “historical Jesus” (at best an educated guess) for the moment to better contrast the Book of Revelation with an earlier Lucian account?
Always interested in your views.
The criteria do not show us what is NOT authentic, only what is. My criteria are pretty much like Meier’s. But I find the Good Samaritan to be completely consistent with Jesus’ point of view and suspect that it may indeed go back to him.
Good evening. I joined the blog recently. I love your work. I find you and Meir agree on much in your historical reconstructions of Jesus. That said, I am surprised to hear you say that you think the Good Samaritan likely goes back to Jesus. Meir allows that the tradition may go back to Jesus, but he is skeptical. What is the basis of your suspicion it goes back to him? Does the lack of multiple attestation trouble you? Thank you very much for taking the time to read my question.
Good points. Multiple attestatoin shows us which traditions are more *likely* historical; but it does not show us which ones are *not* historical. The fact that a tradition occurs in one source in *itself* is not a strike against it. It just means that it cannot be shown to be likely historical on teh basis of this particular criteria. I’m not committed to the Good Samaritan going back to Jesus, but I’d say it is perfectly consistent with many of the things that I think *can* be shown to go back to him, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it did and suspect it did, but it’s not a slam-dunk case. Or, I suppose, even a dunk. It’s more a three-pointer that I think went in.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I absolutely loved reading this! (and I also want to note that I loved your use of she as the normative pronoun!)
I want to ask: I have been watching various videos of Amy Jill Levine, and when she goes through the Good Samaritan she critiques the idea that the priest and Levite cannot touch the body for fear of ritual impurity. She says that this notion is not anywhere in Torah… (maybe she meant in that it is not a valid excuse to not help the man (and I suppose these pious men would have known that)). So what evidence is there to support the idea that they didn’t help on account of fear of ritual impurity?
Thank you!
Does she?? OK, I’ll have to ask her. I haven’t looked that one up in decades! (She’s posting in a couple of weeks on teh blog, by the way)
Cool, I’ll be interested in finding out the result! And how exciting. What will she be posting on?
Her new book on teh Bible with and without Jesus.
Yes; I was wondering about this too…
She says that they have a duty to help him; or, if he’s dead, to bury his body, I think.
Numbers 19:11, 19:16 Numbers 31:19 Numbers 5:2 Leviticus 21:1, etc.
Well, Amy-Jill Levine does agree that a priest becomes impure by touching a body – it’s just what the Torah says (e.g. Num. 21:11 – no word about Levites though) – but her point is that it does not matter: first of all, the priest and the Levite were going down FROM Jerusalem, not going up to, so it is not important for them to be clean. Secondly, to Jews saving someone’s life breaks all purity rules so both the priest and the Levite should have helped the man on the road.
I learn 3 fundamental advice from your postings about how to inherit eternal life or qualify to be admitted into Paradise? It is basically about our behavior towards God, the Creator of Everything that we can see and cannot see, and secondly how we treat our fellow human beings.
1. Love God with all your heart by obeying His Commandments. God is Most Merciful and not God of Wrath. How are we going to love God of Wrath?
2. Love for mankind like the way we want others to treat us. The important question is how to learn more of the above two fundamentals? God sent Prophets of God for our guidance.
3. Nothing about anybody dying for sins of others as a sure way to inherit eternal life.
What about those who don’t love God? or don’t believe in existence of God?
My personal view is that there is no afterlife of any kind. But in the New Testament, those who are not given eternal life in Paradise will be annihilated out of existence.
A point to make.
Elaborate on a point, I am convinced with which is Jesus didn’t preach & consider “gentiles” to be part of the future kingdom to come simply because they are unclean, uncircumcised & Jews were blindfold to world outside their own bubble. Here is the argument
1- Story of Samaritan involves descendants of Jacob whether following Judaic religious rituals or Samaritan rituals. It is like saying who will be saved Catholics (practicing sacraments) or Protestants (practicing social service). At the end both are Christians.
To make a universality claim,
A question should be “who will be saved, Christians or Muslims or agnostics” or “ theists, deists or atheists”.
On that analogy Jesus parable should have involved Phoenicians, Romans or Greek not only sects within Judaism.
So story is referring that within the faith, the followers who do social deeds are better than those who conduct religious rituals.
2- when he says from north, south etc., he is referring to the areas occupied by followers of Abrahamic faith, not our earth with all varying demographics.
3- Tribes & peoples are again referring to varying descendants within Abrahamic followers. It like when you refer to various kinds of Americans. But all still American
Obvious question: Can we square the popular view that Believe-in-Jesus ™ is the only way to salvation with Mark’s and Luke’s Love-Thy-Neighbor (c) requirement? Or is that the whole point of your book? 🙂
It certainly can be squared, and has been squared that way for 2000 years by most readers of the Gospels; but I’m not so sure Jesus himself would square it that way….
“Eternal life for Jesus, as I said, is non-discriminatory. It is not based on your personal identity, gender, chance of birth, nationality, religious commitment, ethnicity, or anything inherent in who you happen to be. It is based on how you treat others.”
Sounds like good humanity… Why so many miss that part of the Jesus story is beyond me. Thank you for pointing that out.
So I’m wondering…. When does the Church drift inexorably away from Jesus’ view of salvation? At what point does the idea of *sola fide* and *sola gratia* enter the picture and take precedence? (As an aside, the pastor of our UCC church insists that ALL are saved thanks to God’s gift. Good works? Nice but unnecessary. Faith? Each person’s type and degree of faith is sufficient. Even his understanding of “salvation” is pretty fuzzy, mostly existing somehow in the here and now. Needless to say, he’s pretty popular.)
I’d say the big shift came right when his followers came to think that his death brought about salvation. Paul later ran with this idea and developed it significantly (though he didn’t come up with it)
I often wonder what the historic Jesus would think about people who have been predestined to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior and yet show such disregard and contempt for the poor.
They will call out to him “Lord, Lord,” and he would reply “I never knew you.”
Another question is what does it mean to love God? Can that mean the desire to “know” God in the sense of spiritual quest? Or must it mean love as in filial obedience? Is loving God a matter of ritual or does the desire to commune through meditation, contemplation and similar practices?
In teh biblical context it means to do what he commands with all your heart.
Thanks. I’ve been wondering about that. Although, for Jesus, neighbor love is by far the most important thing God commands us to do, wouldn’t worship of God himself also be one of God’s commands?
Unless I have this backward, love of God comes from Deuteronomy and love of neighbor from Leviticus. The former is clearly given a place of prominence in Deut. But the latter seems to be one more thing in kind of a laundry list of commandments. Am I understanding Lev. correctly? Did Jesus give this a lot more emphasis than Lev. did?
Did the historical Jesus himself (likely) distinguish among eros, philo and agape love? Did he identify agape with God’s love? I like to think that what (Jesus says) God is commanding is to join God in loving neighbors the same way as God himself loves them–and us. Might jesus have meant that or is it too theological/philosophical?
Yes, Jesus highlighted this command among others taht theoretically could also have been highlighted this way. In that, he was like othr rabbis who elevated Lev 19:18 to prominence. And no, Jesus did not speak Greek so he didn’t make these differentiations.
Have you found Jewish writers in the same time period who shared Jesus’ universalist love your neighbor approach to salvation?
There were certainly Jewish teachers who said that the love commandments fulfilled all God set out in the Torah.
Curtis, there is a very well-known story about Hillel who is the most famous Jewish scholar of ancient times and an older contemporary of Jesus.
“The Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who said that he would accept Judaism if a rabbi could teach him the entire Torah while he, the gentile, stood on one foot.
“First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out. He then went to Hillel who said:
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study!”
Christian churches are sitting on billions of dollars in wealth yet the poor are staving globally. How can this be reconciled? By what measure can churches claim to follow Jesus?
Yup, it’s almost always been a problem…
since the oil which was used to annoint jesus was costly, do you think the story contradicts the story about giving away money to the poor?
jesus says to the rich man “give away your wealth”
jesus says to the disciples “you will always have the poor…”
couldnt the rich man use the same escuse and keep some of his wealth?
Good question.
I suspect that what Prof. Levine meant is not that the concept of ritual impurity isn’t Torah-based, but that the Cohen and Levite’s legitimate concern about that contamination would automatically have been superseded by the possibility that the victim on the roadside was still alive. They were, in fact, obligated to check on whether he was still alive and, if so, to render assistance. If the robbery victim was dead, they were similarly obligated to ensure he was properly buried. Of course, these considerations would have spoiled the story and the point Jesus was making.
In reality, I’m sure he was aware that in Jewish tradition, preservation of life takes precedence over all other commandments with the exception of three areas: acts involving murder, some kinds of sexual misconduct, and idol worship. Any other violations of the usual rules are fair game if necessary to save a life.
I’m not sure if she meant that or not; maybe the poster misunderstood her?
Thanks Moshe!
I also thought that maybe she meant this. However the point still stands that she said that their fear of ritual impurity is not a valid excuse to put on them… since, as a Cohen and Levite, they would know the precedence that life takes over purity? What do you think?
A special post. I hope LOTS of christians read it.
Dear Professor Ehrman,
Thank you for another great article! It’s really interesting to read that Jesus was interested more in how you treat each other than your beliefs.
I was just wondering if there might be a slight contradiction in what he said though?
He believed that it’s more important to love each other, regardless of where people come from, what they believe or practice religiously, and whether or not they are Jewish or claim to know and associate with the God of Israel.
But when he asks the lawyer what is written in the law, he replies “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus then tells him “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
Most of the lawyers answer seems to be about loving God though, which seems to be at odds with Jesus’ belief that what people believe or practice spiritually isn’t so important?
I might be getting myself off track though?
Thank you:)
Jesus was agreeing with the man’s summary of what mattered in teh law given to Jews. Jesus thought that Jews were to keep the law, and htat mainly meant these two commands. Pagans without the law would not be following the practices of worship laid out in the Torah, and Jesus seems to have thought that in those cases, loving one’s neighbor as oneself is what really mattered.
I have always viewed Luke 10: 25-28 as the “Gospel of Jesus”. He was asked a direct question, “how does one achieve eternal life?” And Jesus gives the answer. Period. All the post-crucifixion theology of sacrifice on the cross taught by Paul and others was not the message of salvation taught by Jesus. I also find it striking (And isn’t it true?) that a Samaritan would have no expectation of a Jewish Messiah. Yet, Jesus uses a Samaritan as his example of how a person should be good to their neighbor. I’m sure using a Samaritan as the example made a powerful impact on his Jewish audience.
I know you discern Jesus was an “annihilationist” when it comes to the “unsaved.” Are there any mainstream biblical scholars/historians who argue Jesus held a universalist view where “all people will see God’s salvation” (Jesus quoting Isaiah 40 in Luke 3). Of course, David Bentley Hart, albeit not a historian, has caused quite a stir arguing the latter.
I’d be surprised if there weren’t, but no one is coming to mind! Most biblical scholars who hold such views point to Paul rather than Jesus.
Thankyou for another interesting post in a fascinating series of posts. Most interesting is that your content here didn’t seem to rely much on your historical knowledge & expertise nor were you venturing into theological musings, which are always careful to avoid. You just skilfully did what you always encourage all seekers to do for themselves – read and analyse the text carefully in the context of ALL the surrounding texts. It takes time & intellectual effort. Even as one who has now left the Faith I still (happily) have ringing in my ears those booming words in song of the late Keith Green that the only difference between the Sheep & the Goats, according to the Scripture, was what they did and didn’t DO.
“My personal view is that there is no afterlife of any kind.”
I respect your opinion. That being the case there would not be fair or complete justice in this world because those criminals who literally escape punishments in this world can dominate knowing that there is no afterlife. Similarly, there are so many historical examples that those who are in authority with power had committed too many of what is not right.
There is nothing to discourage or prevent such sinful activities like killing the innocents, committed murder, theft, rape, genocide, massacre, slaughter unless there is afterlife to settle the score for complete justice and fairness for those who had suffered mental, emotional, physical and material lost, painfully, agonizingly and miserably in this world.
To discourage or stop any form of criminal activities, mankind must be known that should they cleverly escape punishment in this world, they will be given another trial in the afterlife with more severe punishments.
Believing in afterlife is like believing in so many unseen items like oxygen, nitrogen, gases, sound waves, electrical current, and even human soul. Believing in afterlife which is true and justifiable can make a better world.
That’s right. I do not believe there is fair or complete justice in this world.
I can see this pretty easily in the synoptics but what about John? Evangelicals love, “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'”
In your view is this John being out of touch with the more historically grounded Gospels, or something else?
John definitely has a different view of the matter.
So it’s either salvation or destruction, yet salvation is based on “how you treat others,” which is a matter of degree. This fact should leave a person always wondering if they’ve done enough good to gain salvation and escape destruction. How would Jesus respond to the person who asks him how he makes the determination that a person has done enough good to warrant salvation?
Yeah, good question. When a rich man asked him Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor. It didn’t go well after that…
Hi Dr Ehrman!
So what implication can we draw from Jesus’ response to the rich man…. that the degree to which we need to help others is to live a life of asceticism?
One implication would be that Jesus was dead set against rolling in riches when others were suffering. He may well have thought that people should indeed give everything for others.
Does 1 Enoch 10.12-14 imply that the wicked will be destroyed in the view of that author? Or eternal punishment?
1 Enoch generally imagines eternal punishment
“..Paul later ran with this idea..(though he didn’t come up with it)”
NT should be recompiled in the correct sequence base on dates the books were first written and your findings will change dramatically.
Paul wrote the first 10 books of the NT-1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians in the year 50 – 61 C.E.
20–60 years later Greek authors adopted Paul’s doctrine and wrote Mark in 70 C.E., Luke in 90 C.E. and Matthew in 110 C.E. John was written after another 9 books about 115 C.E.
Evidently, base on sequence of the dates, surely it was Paul who started the doctrine of dying Jesus.
Paul admitted he started it 2 Timothy 2:8. It was not the followers who “think that his death brought about salvation.” None of the followers admitted they started or believed it. None confirmed it in their writings.
Paul started it 1 Thessalonians in 50 C.E. confessed in I Corinthian15:14 “And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.”
Improper arrangement of the NT gave rise to serious misunderstanding that mislead innocent Christians and their scholars.
I’m not sure that a *chronological” arrangement is proper — it’s just one way to arrange books. The problem with arranging the NT books chronologically is that we don’t know when most of them were actually written.
Why does Paul so consistently and repeatedly contradict and undermine the teachings attributed to Jesus? Perhaps he found a more effective way to subvert the followers of Jesus? Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed the James/Cephas sect, replacing Jesus’ teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a “free gift” of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law? We will certainly never know.
What is clear, Jesus’ soteriology taught to be saved, one must be as little children (Matt 18:4-5; 19:14; Mark 9:36-37; 10:14-15; Luke 18:15-17), while Paul wrote that maturity demands us to forsake the things of childhood (I Cor 13:11). All of the gospels are replete with statements of behavioral obligation that never once make any statement remotely similar to Paul that the faith and grace that engender salvation occur “apart from” obedience, works or deeds. In light of this, would it be appropriate to view the Synoptics (at least in Mark) as an attempt to “correct the record” and wrangle back the more Jewish message of being right with God by following the Law vs blood atonement?
My sense is taht Paul didn’t actually know much about what Jesus taught, or at least that he wasn’t focused on it. For him what mattered is the Jesus was teh messiah who was crucified and raised from the dead. He almost certainly would have completely denied that he was preaching something different from Jesus; and my further sense is that Mark thought *both* were preaching teh truth. Matthew may well ahve been trying to counter Paul’s views though, with his insistence that followers of Jesus need to keep the law.
“Lord, Lord,” Jesus foretold what will happen on “that day”, Day of Judgement to “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?”
During Jesus era the word Christian did not exist yet, so he had to describe in detail, in his prophecy, the practice of those people who later became known as Christians.
Jesus prophesied “…Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!”
Jesus had forewarned the Christians what they will do was evil. It is absolutely wrong to do in the name of Jesus (blasphemy) instead of God. It is work of iniquity which does not qualify entry into Paradise.
Earlier, Jesus had confessed openly he was a Muslim “but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Those “who does the will of my Father (God)” translated into Arabic stand for Islam which by doing so will attain Peace. Quran, also confirm Jesus, on the Day of Judgement, will be a witness against the Christians.
Bart, to make your case I think that would have to offer evidence for the following:’
1. That the priest and levite assume that the man on the roadside is dead.
2. That the purification process would take long enough to interrupt their duties.
3. That there was no obligation to care for a neglected corpse.
I am also wondering:
1. If the story of the Good Samaritan seems to go back to Jesus himself
2. If the claim that people from every direction will get eternal life is more connected to the later mission to the gentiles than with Jesus himself.
I’m just noting that these are the issues that came to mind.
I know that you are busy. You don’t have to answer them.
1 2 and 3. That’s right. I think those are the best assumptions. 1. I think so but am not completely certian. 2. I think Jesus too thought that righteous gentiles would get into the kingdom.
It’s a nice picture but there all sorts of problems. One example; Jesus apparently believed his scriptures and in those scriptures you have the massacres you’ve referenced earlier. Those massacres were commanded by the God of those scriptures. Loving your neighbors by killing them off? Not likely. But those populations were not of the tribe of Abraham, they were outsiders. I think this lends support to the view that Jesus really gave no thought at all to the gentiles. They were dogs. They were subhuman. They could never be “neighbors” and so were fair game. If that isn’t the case, then two things are not compatible: the “love your neighbor” dictum and the “love and honor the God of scripture” dictum. Easier and more coherent to suppose that Jesus worked entirely within the bounds of the law, and only regarded those who were bound by that law, (NOT gentiles) as humans worthy of love. Someone above came to the same conclusion. I tend to agree. Not exactly what one might like, but nothing can be done about that. It is NOT a pretty picture.
I can’t see this post beyond the very start – up to: “To see this, consider two passages from the Gospel of Luke. First note”. Then it breaks off, nothing more. This is followed by the comments section which refers to your post. It seems a most interesting post, and I would love to read it. Am I doing something wrong? Can you help?
Normally that happens to people who have not renewed their subscription. Check to see? If you have further problems, click Help and write a query to Support: they’ll let you know what the deal is.
This was incredible! Eternal life is gained by doing something, loving your neighbor.
This all fell together for me this week. A discussion by Biblical scholars I listened to on where did morality come from. Did it really come from “god” and how does that fit with evolution?
The answer went something like this. If the beginnings of the human species wanted to pillage a neighbor’s garden, that would not just hurt the neighbor but also hurt the one who started the pillage. That neighbor, you see would pillage back in return. Being good to each other was beneficial to the species. For example, pillaging could never be “moral”. These moral, or what became known as morality, were such because we figured out they helped us.
The concept of “god” came after and was a mental shortcut for us. And, in many ways this shortcut has now harmed us. We know, or maybe the universe “knows” that however we come to these conclusions, loving one another regardless of religion, sex, gender, etc., is for our survival, salvation. Anything less, well, that’s the antithesis of survival.
Jesus’ View of Salvation: Who Can Have Eternal Life?
Jesus was precise in his answer for the above question only one way, “..ONLY the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Jesus emphasized only one way which is Islam which encompass so many aspect of life including Love the one and only God and Love mankind.
Do you think Jesus held love for others to be a higher commandment than love for God? Just as Samaritans and Pagan Gentiles could “fulfill the law” and join God’s kingdom though right conduct could those who don’t believe in God also as well?
Well, he says it is the “second” commandment, not the first.
Aren’t you mixing up what the New Testament meant by “salvation” with what most Jews meant by it? And, probably, what the historical Jesus would have meant? As you have written, Jews had already been saved twice–once by escaping enslavement in Egypt and once by being given the Torah. And David in some Psalms, in some bad situations, declares God is his salvation. But the New Testament seems to equate salvation with attaining eternal life. Was being a good person and attaining citizenship in the Kingdom of God what most Jews would have called “salvation”? I suspect the historical Jesus would not have meant by “salvation” what New Testament writers made him say.
I don’t think I am, but hey, anything is possible. I’m not sure what you think my confusion is.
This may be somewhat off-topic, but, the expression “sons of light” occurs in some translations of the NT such as Luke 16:8 where it is ascribed to Jesus. Was this a common expression in Jewish apocalyptic teaching then? I have only heard it otherwise referenced in discussions about the Essenes.
I don’t know the history of the term off hand, but I suspect it was common in apocalyptic circles that had strong dualistic views (us/them; good/evil; light/darkness; life/death: so children of light/children of darkness)
The opening post is wrong. From the beginning, life was a covenant relationship between Israelites and their god. Death was the curse of the law which only Israelites had and were under. It was covenantal death, which was a separation in ancient Israel’s covenant relationship with their god. The NT term ‘eternal life’ was a restored relationship between an Israelite and their god. It was totally irrelevant to anyone outside of a context of old covenant Israel.
The imagery of physical death and physical resurrection were only meant to convey a deeper, covenantal reality in the ancient Israelite mind. Death, being dead, going down to the pit (or the grave) followed by resurrection, being born again, being raised to life and ‘eternal life’…all were symbols of their covenant relationship being severed, then restored. In reality, nobody in the bible was actually physically raised to life from death. In the NT, eternal life was promised only to Israelites because it only pertained to Israelites.
Are you familiar with the belief that God predestined those who would receive salvation before creation? I am curious how that belief seems to line up with the historical Jesus and even the early church. Seems crude to me that God would predestine some to be saved and some to suffer eternally. Thanks as always!
Oh yes. It was a view I held when I was a conservative evangelical. It’s not a view anyone in earliest Christainity had though!