Loading...In my book on Revelation I am planning to contrast the violence and wrath of God there with what we find in the teachings of Jesus. It would be easy but too simplistic to paint an obvious contrast: unlike John (the author of Revelation) Jesus believed in love and so was opposed to violence. It is certainly true that he was, at least on one level (as we’ll see). Jesus did not only think his followers should not be violent against one another, but also not against their enemies, not even the Romans. But the same can probably be said about the book of Revelation. It also does not urge the followers of Jesus to engage in violence. The massive destructions that take place on earth in the book are sent from heaven.
And Jesus too thought a massive destruction was to be sent from heaven. So, well, what’s the difference? That will be the complicated issue.
To understand the views of destruction of both Jesus and the prophet John, I need to situate them in their broader context. Both of them were deeply indebted to the Jewish world view I have discussed a number of times before on the blog, Jewish “apocalypticism.” This would be a good time to discuss it again, both for those have heard it before, but whose memories are as sieve-like as mine, and for those who weren’t around yet for all those years of previous blog fun.
Jewish apocalypticism was a very common view in Jesus’ day – it was the view of the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, later of the Apostle Paul – and almost certainly of Jesus. This is a widely-held view among critical scholars – by far the majority view for over a century, since the writings of none other than Albert Schweitzer.
What did early Jewish apocalypticists believe? Let me break it down into four component themes. I have drawn this discussion from my textbook on the New Testament.
Interested in learning about this? It costs little to join the blog, but pays rich dividends. And the entire fee goes to charity. Everyone wins, no one loses! Click here for membership options
You write “eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else”. I thought Jesus and John both believed in annihilationism rather than a literal Hell? It’s not much of a torment if you don’t exist.
Right, I should have said eternal punishment, not torment. Old habits die hard….
Did the Jews who were not apocalyptic believe that everyone went to Sheol when they died? Good and bad people alike? It was an eternal place of nothingness?
Some thought that; others thought one just ceased to exist. One question is whether those were the same thing — i.e. if Sheol simply meant “place where your body is deposited”
Thanks for an educational post.
An intriguing observation is that the apocalyptics have a 100% failor rate if we consider this from an «external» persepctive. The question arises if we see the whole picture, or was it influenced from other sources. In my mind, either intellectually or maybe the outcome of meditative or other spiritual practices which gave the similarities mentioned below.
Well, I have come to believe that a lot of the views have similarity with a more «inner» approach which were around on the planed at that time, like for example the eastern views of the soul, and its 7 spiritual centers even though some argue that there were no material communication among them and the Jewish environment. Relating it to an eastern approach is just one of several possible influences which could be interesting to consider.
What make me suspect of an eastern influence:
• In my mind there are a lot of simmilarities between the Upanishad (Hindi Vedas) and both the OT and NT (for.ex. Deuteronomy 10:17, Exodus chapter 3 verses 13 to 15. Matthew chapter 13 verses 31, Luke chapter 17 verse 21 which have a almost direct Upanishad counterpart)
CONTINUE:
CONTINUE:
• The Revelation have a whole lot of similarities which the Hindi Kundalini practice like
* opening of spiritual centers, 7 spiritual centers/chakras
* total of 144 000 petals connected to the Chakras
* the symbolic importance of 3,5 coiling of this symbolic energy
serpent which cause rising of energy and awakening of the 7
centers. Here the similarities can be found in the Revelation of
3,5 year, 3,5 days, 42 month=3,5 years, 1240 days = 3,5years),
* the dealing with the Self- Ego.
* the similarities describing the 7 Churches/seals/trumpets/and
bowls with properties in their system.
* the disabelness/warning of opening the 7Seal/7Chakras (Rev 5),
but could be done by either Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root
of David / or a guru.
* Similarities between what is written about the 7seals with the
seven chakras, for example about the 7th there were “scilence”is an attribute.
(these are only some of them)
Another consideration. MOST people in the world when John wrote his book lived within the conseptual framework influenced by this eastern (for ex Hinduism and Buddism) approach of increasing conciousness (basically a soul ascend).
Not only did most people on the earth believed it this Buddist and Hinduistic concept, but the same symbology, like for example the 3,5 coiled energy/awakening coil about this concept are found “everywhere” in the ancient world, including and adopted in ancient Egyptian which for sure influenced the jews.
And then you have similar ideas in Gnosticism, even symbols.
And there are psychological branches (Jungian psychology) which correlates to many of these views.
My point is, these «awakening» Ideas were widely used in the world when the Revelation was written, and had been practiced in religions at least many centuries (if not millennia) before John wrote his book. If I were a scholar within this field, I would for sure looked seriously into this.
And, I do beleive it is a Chrisitan book, using frameworks, or at least (maybe) influences from other sources. The consept of Jesus the Christ is then perhaps more related to “the way”
Well, who knows!
The historical Jesus a peace lover?
Judea ca 30 AD
A group of revolutionary Jews were hiding in the “wilderness”.
Another group of roman soldiers approached the hideout in the night, a bribed former revolutionary guiding them.
The sentinels fell asleep and did notice anything until the romans stormed the camp.
There was a skirmish,some revolutionaries were killed, others injured and captured.
The Romans didn’t know who the revolutionary leader was but the traitor pointed to him.
He ended up tortured and crucified under sedition charges.
But he was not alone, in fact he was the leader of the armed wing of a political/religious (all was mingled in those times) movement led by his beloved brother.
His real name was changed to Yeshua , meaning in Aramaic “God save”.
Not only has his real name been changed, but all we know about him.
Looking at the kerygmatic sources of the Jesus Movement, we can infer Jesus was probably a disciple of John the Baptist prior to his own ministry (although I know some maintain the Baptist’s movement was a direct competitor to early Christianity). The Baptist’s message was simple: repent for the forgiveness of sins because God’s rule is about to be established. In this sense, John was an eschatological prophet who proclaimed that the return of God’s rule upon the earth was soon coming. From what we know of John, there was no expectation of a messianic figure who will appear on earth.
At some point, after his arrest by Herod, Jesus decided to carry on his master’s eschatological ministry himself. But there was one notable change: Jesus taught that God’s rule was already manifest on earth. The disciple has moved beyond the master; where John taught the future eschatology of God’s rule, Jesus proclaims that God’s rule is in the present situation. Since Jesus was convinced that the kingdom, or “God’s Rule,” was presently manifest, how should we understand the Christological titles such as “Son of man” or “Son of God?” How do we separate Jesus’ person from the later kerygma?
That’s teh major task for scholars who try to determine what happened in the “life of teh historical Jesus.” My attempt is in my book “Jesus: apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium”
That’s teh major task for scholars who try to determine what happened in the “life of teh historical Jesus.” My attempt is in my book “Jesus: apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium”
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Mark 1:4
Some of the Jews thought that Herod’s army was destroyed as a just punishment from God, for what he did to John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod killed this good man who was telling the Jews to practice virtue, and BEHAVE RIGHTEOUSLY towards each other and devoutly towards God and SO TO COME TO BAPTISM. This would make the washing acceptable to Him, if it were used NOT FOR THE PUTTING AWAY OF SOME SINS, but for the purification of the body, since the soul WAS ALREADY PURIFIED by RIGHTEOUSNESS
Antiquities 18.5.2
Question to Bart:
Is Josephus correcting Mark or at least chrisitan claims about John baptism here?
The “NOT FOT THE …” makes me think he is correcting some previous thoughts
I imagine that as always … many scholars wrote a lot about this !
I agree with you on the Essenes and dualism, but I don’t see that the Pharisees had a similar dualistic view of the world. They did understand the “evil impulse” (yetzer ha-rah), but as a human weakness, not a supernatural opponent of God.
But then, I think the Essenes had more infliuence on the Jesus Movement than the Pharisees did.
I think you’re right, Dankoh, that the Essenes had a greater influence over Jesus and his followers. Cosmic dualism is detected frequently in the teaching of Jesus and the early Church.
Two related (I think) questions. I’m sure the first one has been asked before but I can’t remember for sure and/or what the answer was.
Was this dualism which is part of Jewish Apocalypticism possibly influenced by Zoroastrianism? I know the theology of Zoroastrianism is very different than Apocalypticism, but is the idea of two forces in battle for control of the world– one good and one evil– possibly something Apocalyticists (or Jews in general) could have “picked up” or learned along the way from the Persians and taken it into their own context? Or was it independently conceived of and the resemblance to Zoroastrianism purely coincidental?
Second, as I understand it, the early Israelites acknowledged other gods, but Yahweh was theirs and if you were to remain in his good graces (and the community’s) you would follow his law or face calamity (or being cast out?). When did it go from “If you are part of our tribe, you obey Yahweh’s commands,” to “You are either for Yahweh and his people or you will be obliterated by him, no matter who you are?”
1. My view is that Jewish apocalypticism arose as an internal Jewish development and that we don’t need to appeal to Zoroastrianism to explailn it. It’s much debated and I used to take the other view, for many years. But it is very difficult to demonstrate dependence and I don’t think it’s necessary. 2. It’s hard to say. Most of the oldest writings of the Hebrew Bible take the latter view (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, etc)
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Can you recommend any books on the sermon on the mount or the parables of Jesus?
Thank you!
I”d suggest starting with Amy Jill Levine’s fairly recent book on the parables.
Ah thank you! Her books look fantastic!
I see that she deals a lot with A Jewish, feminist perspective (which I LOVE!) however some have criticized her for “pushing” this “agenda.”
I feel like I’ll be inclined to agree with her, so I would like to know:
how reliable of a scholar is she? And how biased?
Thank you!
She’s one of the top scholars in the field. And she’ll be submitting a guest post on the blog soon!
That’s great that Amy-Jill Levine is going to be guest-posting. She always has an interesting take. I have her Great Courses Old Testament on the shelf next to your New Testament.
Have been thinking of shelling out for The Jewish Annotated New Testament, which she co-edited, to enrich my understanding of the Biblical Jesus in his historic context. Are you familiar with it and, if so, do you recommend it?
Yup, highly . And she already posted — but will be doing so again.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
So I see that a lot of pastors look to teachings of Jesus such as The Good Samaritan, and they claim that the kind of selflessness and compassion which Jesus requires for us to enter the kingdom is beyond our capacity, since we can never be “perfect” in our morality or in the extent to which we help others. Do we have evidence to show that Jesus was implying this or conversely that he really believed that humans were capable of this kind of selflessness here and now?
Thank you!
Pastors typically say that because their theology does not line up well with what Jesus is said to have said. So they say something that he never said (that it’s impossible to do what he requires). Jesus himself certainly thought that people could be “good” and could “help others.” But as soon as Xns decided that it was his death, not anything you do, that brings salvation, they had to explian why he *said* that doing good to others is what can bring salvation!
Hi Bart. Long time fan but:
I was surprised to see you say that Jesus believed in love. He seems like your typical angry prophet to me calling people names and saying that God is going to get them.
Yes, he believed that you had to be good if you wanted to escape punishment. But he believed that the punishment was coming and it was deserved.
Here’s what you just said: “God would allow no one to escape. He was going to raise all people bodily from the dead, and they would have to face judgment, eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else”.
Mind you, I’ve heard you say elsewhere that he believed that the souls of the wicked would be destroyed so that they would not be immortal like the good guys but that he did not believe in eternal torment.
Yes, Jesus did think destruction was coming and that no one could escape the judgment of God. But those who truly loved others and helped thjose in need would be judged *favorably* and brought into God’s kingdom. The others (including outwardly devout religious Jews) would not be.
Bart,
I’m sure you’ve probably answered this before but I have a long standing confusion about the dualism aspect of Jewish Apocalyptism that continues to bother me.
At at least one point in the Tanakh, God says he is the creator or evil as well as good, and that he causes evil in the lives of the Israelites. What becomes of this idea in the face of apocalypticism? I know the Jews were trying to explain things as they were, and this was the way they did it. Evil is ascendant.
If God is all powerful, why would he ever have to fight evil if he created it in the first place. Therefore, evil can only be ascendant if God lets it be.
Any effort to explain why the world was the way it was in the time of apocalypticism, therefore, seems to me to actually disagree with, if not wholly disregard, the long standing teaching of the Tanakh. This seems to ignore the unified nature of God, which I understood the Israelites to believe post-exile.
Is this a hindsight is 20/20 issue?
I think it’s basically right. Apocalypticists probalby would not have admitted this, but their views stood at odds with the “prophets” before them, who believed God caused all that happened and if bad things were happening, it showed he was angry and people needed to repent. Apocalypticists, on the other hand, thought God could not be blamed for suffering. It was a power opposed to God, that eventually he would overcome. Religious views change over time!
Are you saying that all apocalyptic writing is strictly dualistic?
Thank you.
Would you say that all the mainstream Christian denominations today are apocalyptic in nature? They all seem to incorporate these elements although they may differ on the details.
No, I’d say most are not, except to the extent that they (often somewhat reluctantlhy) subscribe to views they don’t much think or talk about: Satan, the future resurrection of the body, the imminent end of teh age, and so on….
Dear Bart,
Whilst I agree that Jesus held the views you outline, and in the end the ‘great war’ was to be executed by cosmic forces, do you think that Jesus totally opposed any violence?
In Mark 6:8 Jesus instructs his disciples to take nothing but a staff on their missionary journey. It is my understanding that staves in ancient times were more than walking sticks – they were used to fend off wild animals, bandits and other threats. On this basis, do you think that the historical Jesus advocated personal defensive violence?
There are of course verses that can be cited on various sides of this debate — and are cited. The question is how to establish what the historical Jesus himself taught. I’d say turning the other cheek is the opposite of thrashing a robber who is attacking you, and so I doubt if he said both. Most of his followers have thought that turning the other cheek is not a very practicable way of living in this world, and so don’t believe or practice it. I suspect that peole like that came up with the sayings of Jesus that supported forms of violence. I don’t think, tthough, that JEsus was opposed to fighting off a wild dog or two….
Thanks for the response.
What do you think of the argument that the turn the other cheek Q saying is referring to personal insults (and refraining from trading them)?
When Jesus is struck at his trial in John, rather than turning the other cheek and inviting the abuse to continue, he objects on legal grounds. Perhaps the author of John is attempting to correct a misunderstanding?
Coupled with Mark’s staff, and with both Mark and John not including the Q saying, perhaps the weight of evidence does not favour a strictly pacifist Jesus, or at least one who invites physical abuse to continue?
Yes, he is referring to how one person treats another. If someone slaps you, don’t resist. His objection in other stories comes from a different tradition.
And what does Mark 9:2 say? “Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain apart [euphemism for meditation] and was transfigured before them [one by one – *INSIDE them* in separate visions, not out here in space/time,]” THAT is the apocalypse you think is to occur out here on earth and didn’t. Peter, James, and John were not tasting death before they saw Jesus INSIDE — ONE VERSE LATER, Bart.
Only Mystics should read this stuff! The rest of you all will just be left scratching your heads.
For another example, the Dead Sea War Scroll. It is obviously stylized LITERATURE, not history or ‘prophecy,’ with its Sons of Light with seven ranks of warriors, 12 banners, whatever, but all figures chosen for SYMBOLIC reasons, fighting the Powers of Darkness INSIDE THEM. It wasn’t to happen ON EARTH. Where is that EVER said?
The ‘Age’ is divided not into before and after, but is currently KALI YUGA, the darkest of the Four Yugas of ancient Vedic teaching. These are millions of years. The battle takes place, again, within.
Jesus begs them, “Watch!” Mark 13. not be caught unaware by the Master, suddenly “asleep” — unconscious.
The “end of the age” of dualist apocalypticists IS YOUR DEATH. This is so simple, it’s embarrassing. The ‘messiah’ Son of man is the Holy Spirit. It comes in the savior, or Master of the day, from heaven, and takes his place within when the disciple “sacrifices the man” –HIMSELF!– who bears him, within, in heaven, not on earth. Nathaniel saw the angels of heaven “ascending AND DESCENDING upon the Son of man,” or ‘riding’ it like a vehicle (Think Elijah’s flaming chariot). People were reincarnating and also being liberated, delivered (incorrectly translated many times as ‘betrayed’) upon the Spirit vehicle of the Master. (John 1:51)
This is pure Mysticism. Without understanding it, you will understand none of it. “And I, when I be lifted up from earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32) is NOT Jesus crucified, but him being manifest within his disciples, drawing them to himself. “You will be replaced by someone” — Gospel of Judas, 36.1.
“Woe to that man” by whom the Son of man IS DELIVERED (not ‘betrayed’!) — Matthew 26:23, is you ceasing TO BE. “Better for that man to not have been born,” is not Judas betraying Jesus.
I´ve always thought we still don´t know who the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were
We certainly don’t know who they were as individuals; and there are *some* debates about what kinds of Jews they were. But by far the majority opinion based on very good evidence is that the scrolls come from an Essene community at Qumran.
Eisenman has studied the Scrolls more than anyone. He thinks some like Community Rule may have been written by James the Just himself. Certainly Jamesian Essenes.
Dear Bart it’s certainly interesting to think about the worldview of Jesus in comparison with other biblical writers. However, by formulating your concept of apocalypticism, are you not yourself taking a jigsaw puzzle/collage approach to reading the Bible and associated apocryphal scriptures? Your definition of apocalypticism seems to include dualist eschatology, dualist theodicy, Israelite messianic deliverance prophetology, as well as Danielian, Enochian and Johanine and Jesuine and Pauline apocalypticism proper. Ie your definition of apocalypticism (and maybe that of other scholars) is almost a complete religion (!) constructed from a collage of individual biblical themes with the benefit of hindsight. Isn’t this precisely the criticism you level at Christianity and Christian Bible-reading? If on the other hand, you were able to consider the possibility that Jesus and other biblical prophets (and mystics since) might actually have been shown something of God, of the future and of the reasons for evil/imperfection in the universe, then, rather than seeing Jesus and others as concocting world views solely on the basis of their ‘apocalyptic’ cultural milieu, then might you not be able to see things at least partly in terms of progressive revelation, however imperfect the human channels have been?
No, I don’t think so. In the OT the apocalyptic view is found principally in Daniel 7-12 and to a lesser extent in Isaiah 24-26 (and a couple of other places. It is not putting together themes and verses from hither and yon and stringing them together into a new configuration. In the NT it is prominent in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Revelation, and several other places/authors.
You say “For some unknown reason, God had relinquished control of this age to the powers of evil.” But was there any speculation about that that reason might be?
It is usually thought to have been because of he sin of Adam or, more commonly , the “fall of the angels.” But why God allowed those events to happen or why he didn’t stop the results in their track, or at least before now, is not much speculated on
It is usually thought to have been because of he sin of Adam or, more commonly , the “fall of the angels.” But why God allowed those events to happen or why he didn’t stop the results in their track, or at least before now, is not much speculated on
Growing up as a JW and only recently taking a deeper look into what scholars write about it all I’m baffled that our worldview as to the reason why God relinquished control is something so seldom talked about.
In the debate about the reason of suffering between Dinesh D’Souza and Bart Ehrman I was wondering that all the reasons D’Souza was giving where not really something I could subscribe to in contrast to Ehrman’s view.
But the standpoint that Satan questioned God’s right to rule (earning him that name) and God agreeing to letting it play out in order to establish if it would work is so far the only reason for suffering that holds some kind of logic to me. It was always illustrated with a student that tells the teacher in class that he could do a better job and instead of just getting rid of the student the teacher lets him show his reasoning “to the end”.
Kind of a simple view of things and maybe that is why it is not argued more often about?
Dr. Ehrman. As I understand it, there was another important dimension to the Great Commandment. Namely, the difference between the letter of the law and the intention of the law.
The Christian critique of the Jews’ literal interpretation of the law was not a critique of the law itself. The Christians believed that the Law was given by Christ himself, but that it should be read in the light of the Great Commandment. Then the intention of the law would emerge. The Jews did not understand the intention of God’s law as the Christians saw it.
The 38-year-old cripple at Bethesda took the law literally. He didn’t get help and didn’t give help, because he interpreted the law literally. He had missed the two commandments in the Great Commandment that would have completed the law, symbolized by the number 40.
The Great Commandment was thus the fulfillment of the law.
In law, there is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right. Therefore, it’s often important to know the intention of the law.
The miracle of the five barley loaves and the two fishes is an allegory of the Manna in the desert, only that this time the miracle is about spiritual nourishment.
The five barley loaves symbolized the five books of the Torah. The two fish the two stone tablets. There were 5,000 men present, which showed that only men were counted. Twelve baskets with remains symbolized the Manna that was not to go be hidden until the next day.
Summing up the numbers: 5 • 2 • 5000 • 12 = 600,000 which was the number of Israelites who migrated through the Red Sea.
The allegory was meant to show that it was the Holy Word of God that would satisfy mankind. Spiritual nourishment was more important than bodily nourishment.
The Gospel of John allows Philip to participate in this miracle. Philip had some additional spiritual nourishment to provide.
According to some apocryphal writings, Laban, Elihu and Balaam were considered to be one and the same person.
Balaam was tested by God both at his home and when he came riding on his donkey.
Where should Philip buy enough bread? The Lord knew exactly what to do. The Lord would put his own words into the mouth of Balaam! In this way, The Lord was able to give additional spiritual nourishment through the mouth of a Gentile. God gave the spiritually enlightened a prophecy about Christ through the mouth of Balaam. This was also a miracle.
Balaam was offered a lot of money by Balak to curse the Israelites, but no money was enough for Balaam to go against the Lord, not even 200 coins.
Numbers 24:13 Even if Balak gave me all the silver and gold in his palace, I could not do anything of my own accord, good or bad, to go beyond the command of the Lord.
Hi Bart,
it would be great if you could enlighten me. I found the following citation in your text here and it counters how I have understood your book about Heaven & Hell:
“God would allow no one to escape. He was going to raise all people bodily from the dead, and they would have to face judgment, eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else.”
I thought the jewish apocalyptic view was eternal destruction for those fallen astray – if I read correctly you are stating eternal torment, simply “Hell”, being already inherent to jewish apocalypticism.
Did you change your mind about this topic or did I simply misunderstand it?
I’d love to hear what you think about it at the moment – knowing very well scholarly opinions have to change when new facts are available.
Yes, sorry — I misspoke. I should not have said “eternal” torment; it was torment that led to death. (I unconsciously typed what I used to think. Old habits die hard)
Yes, sorry — I misspoke. I should not have said “eternal” torment; it was torment that led to death. (I unconsciously typed what I used to think. Old habits die hard)
The question I have is to what degree did the historic Jesus believe that he and his followers could live in a small local community and experience a foretaste of the coming good Kingdom. I recognize that they believed nothing could change the world and only God could make things right, but to what degree did they believe they could create a small local community living the principles Jesus taught and experience this imminent kingdom? Did they believe they could have a small oasis of sorts that would help them with the inevitable suffering all around them?
Yes, I think JEsus did imagine that those who followed his teachings would begin to see what the kingdom was like; but there would continue to be suffering all around and in their midst. So it was just a *taste* of what was to come.
Dr. Ehrman. When I read what you write about “apocalypticism” I can not help thinking of the Book of Job.
There was Dualism in the form of God and Satan, where God gave Satan dominion, not over the world, but over Job and his family. Job could choose whether to follow God or Satan.
There was Pesimism in the form that if Job chose to follow God he would suffer in this life.
There was Vindication in the form of God finally intervening with redemption and vindication towards Job.
There was Imminence in the form of the sudden redemption taking place during the book’s action.
The big theological question that could be asked of the person reading the book at that time was whether what the book described was something that had happened, or an acopalyptic picture of something that would happen in the future.
The way I see it, the Book of Job was an important source in the development of the New Testament.
A theologian would probably say that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the Word of God is Truth? Why do I say this?
It’s because the Bible puts these words into the mouth of Jesus: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” These words are from the Gospel of John Chapter 14. The whole chapter seems to be a reference to the Book of Job.
When Job was finally vindicated, God told Job’s friends that Job had told them the Truth. Job 42:7
The Truth lay in the words Job had spoken!
The Way was The path of suffering!
Eternal Life was the reward!
The Truth, the Way and the Life was to follow in the footsteps of Job.
Thomas asked Jesus which way he had to go. Thomas was like the doubting Eliphaz who had seen all the sufferings Job went through, but who didn’t understand that it was precisely His sufferings that were the holy Way that led to salvation.
In the beginning, Eliphaz had spent seven days and seven nights without saying a word to Job. But on the eighth day, when Job began to speak, Eliphaz became aware of the extent of Job’s bodily suffering. Eliphaz was allowed to “examine” the full extent of Job’s wounds.
Philip asked Jesus to see the Father. Like Elihu, he did not understand that the Truth of God lay exactly in the words that Job had spoken. Elihu had spoken out against the Truth that Job had told them. If Elihu had understood the Truth in what Job had said, he would also have seen the Father in Job.
Eliphaz did not understand the Way, and Elihu did not understand the Truth.
Do you think Jesus actually taught the concept of an invisible, spiritual kingdom of God that would ultimately be consummated into a physical one at the end of the age? That seems to be the teaching of his followers.
It does seem to be so, because why else would Jesus speak of a future eschatological coming/judgment?
Second, do you think Jesus actually believed he would actually be able to overthrow the Roman empire and be established as King in his current earthly form? If so, what do you think was his game plan, if you had to guess? Did he really have a Messiah Complex?
To me, his eschatological teachings seem to support the concept of a spiritual kingdom being consummated into a physical one in the near future. His teachings (as recorded) seemingly imply that truly believed he would die and come back soon after in all his glory. Why else would he teach that he would be coming back?
It appears taht Jesus believed the kingdom was always physical in the sense that it was implemented and experienced in the temporal world; he did not have a “spiritual” realm separate from simply all that exists. (Is that what you’re asking?) His idea was the apocalytpic one, that there are forces of evil in the world that can be overcome through the power of God in the present by those who do God’s will, but will be overcome decisively only at the end, when God intervenes to wipe them out and establish a new kingedom. Jews in antiquity did not think of a “spiritual” or “supernatural” world outside of the physical one (as weird as that may seem, since we were all raised to think of a contrast between the natural and supernatural realms; they didn’t *have* a supernatural realm)
Yes, you have thrown me for a loop here (maybe I just need more coffee):
“Jews in antiquity did not think of a “spiritual” or “supernatural” world outside of the physical one (as weird as that may seem, since we were all raised to think of a contrast between the natural and supernatural realms; they didn’t *have* a supernatural realm)”.
Jews in antiquity did not believe in heaven, full of angels, that inhabit the realm where God was meant to exist? Is the “supernatural realm” you are referring to something different from heaven? So what you are saying is they believed God and the angels were all in heaven, a separate place, there were no invisible angels or demons mucking about here on Earth? What?! No Guardian Angels? I think I would have been more careful as a child had I been taught there was no unseen realm of angels to help me if I fell.
Ok, so who/what/where/when did the idea of invisible agents of God here on Earth get added to the mix? Love the blog, BTW.
Yes, they believed in heaven and angels. But none of that was “outside of nature.” It was all part of the natural world.
What makes you think that, Bart? How do you know what ancient Jews ‘thought’?
The only way we know what people before us thought is by reading what they said.
I watched a video recently saying the idea of the rapture was relatively new (from America in the 1800s the author argued)… I am not sure if that is correct, but got me thinking… what did Christians in the past think about revelations? Probably quite different from what christians think today … (if you already posted about this, a link would be great!! )
Yes, it’s a modern invention, mid-19th century, the brain child of John Nelson Darby. I’ll be taking about how Revelation was interpreted before the fundamentalist movement later on the blog.
“In others, God was to send a kind of cosmic judge of the earth, sometimes also called the messiah or the “Son of Man””
Just to clarify, you’re saying there was a precedent for believing the Messiah and the Son of Man were the same?
Christianity is like a movie loosely based on a book, where the writers simplify the plot by mashing several characters into one . . . messiah, son of man, suffering servant, . . .
Yes, some Jews did expect the messiah to be a cosmic figure sent from heaven rather htan an earthly warrior/king.
For quite some time now I keep hearing references to the abundant amount of apocalyptic writings that were prominent in the second temple period and as with this article I see general references to the beliefs contained therein.
Why do we not have links or references to the exact writings these ideas originated in? It would seem to me that being able to set them side by side with Isaiah, Jesus and Revelation might provide some enlightening literary context. As well, it would be interesting to examine how much writings like Revelation compare in quality, similarity and bizarreness.
I’m not sure what you mean by links or references to them? They include a range of ancient books: Daniel 7-12; 1 Enoch; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch, with predecesorrs found in Isa 24-26; Zech. 9-14; etc.
Do you think that the continual dominance of foreign powers over Israel since the 8th century BCE except for a brief period of independence under the Maccabees may have partially explained the emergence of the apocalyptic viewpoint? It is one thing for God to punish Israel for disobedience for a time but when Israel remains a vassal state for centuries on end people may start to wonder if the forces of evil are in control now.
I think it explains teh popularity of the view, absolutely.