I am now editing my book on the afterlife, and there are a few controversial theses in it. One of them involves the views of Jesus. I’d like to know what you think of my argument, and to see if you find it convincing or not. If not, I’d like to know why. Here is a rough idea of what I’m planning to say (until you instruct me otherwise!)
First, Jesus did not think the coming kingdom of God (soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man in judgment on the earth) was for faithful Jews only. It was for all those who did God’s will. Many Jews, in fact, would not be allowed to enter. As Jesus says in Matthew’s Gospel, “many will come from east and west” to enjoy the heavenly banquet with the Jewish patriarchs in “the kingdom of heaven” but many of those from Israel “will be cast into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:10-12). It is important to note that he does not say that those excluded from the kingdom will be tormented, and he says nothing here about eternal fires. Instead it is a realm of darkness. This is surely a figurative statement: outside the kingdom lies the world of the unenlightened (who are “in the dark”). There is such grief there – weeping and teeth-grinding – because those on the outside have realized, too late, the eternal joys they have missed out on. What will happen to them? Jesus doesn’t say. Do they simply end up dying, and that is the end of their story?
One of my theses is that a close reading of Jesus’ words shows that in fact he had no idea of torment for sinners after death. Death, for them, is …
If you don’t belong to the blog, you won’t be able to see what I have to say next. It’s controversial. Why not join and see? It won’t cost much, you’ll get tons for your money, and every dime goes to charity!
Death, for them, is irreversible, the end of the story. Their punishment is that they are annihilated, never to be allowed to exist again, unlike the saved, who will live forever in God’s glorious kingdom.
For example, earlier in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says there are two gates through which a person can pass. One is “narrow” and leads to a difficult path. That is the way of life and there are few people who take it. The other gate is “broad,” leading to an “easy path.” Most people take that route, but it is the road that leads “to destruction” (Matthew 7:13-14). Note: Jesus does not say it leads to eternal torture. Those who take it will be destroyed, annihilated. But even so: you don’t want to go that way.
Most of Jesus’ teachings about the coming judgment focus on this idea of ultimate and complete destruction. In this he was very much like his predecessor, John the Baptist, who urged people to live lives pleasing to God, bearing “good fruit” (see Matthew 3:10). Those who failed to do so, John declared, would be like bad trees that, when judgment comes, would be “cut down and thrown into the fire.” What happens to trees that are felled and burned? They are consumed out of existence. They don’t keep burning forever.
Jesus himself thought something similar– the end of sinners will be destruction. As he says in the “Parable of the Weeds” in Matthew 13:36-43, at the end of the age, God will send a mighty angelic power, whom Jesus calls “the Son of Man” (see Daniel 7:13-14 for this figure), to judge the earth; this one will send out his angels to gather up all who sin and do evil and “throw them into the furnace of fire.” There they will weep and gnash their teeth. But presumably not forever – those who are burned to death die. That stands in contrast to the righteous, who will “shine like the sun in the kingdom.” As in Daniel 12, at the end the faithful who side with God become like a shining heavenly bodies, whose light will never be extinguished.
In another image in the same chapter of Matthew, Jesus compares the coming judgment to a fisherman who brings in his haul of fish and separates the good fish from the bad (Matthew 13:47-50). What does he do with the bad ones he doesn’t want? He throws them away. He obviously doesn’t torture them. They simply die. So too, Jesus says, at the final judgment angels will separate the righteous from the wicked and toss the latter into the furnace. They will go up in flames. For first-century hearers this “destruction by fire” would not conjure up images of eternal hellfire but rather house fire — or rather the execution of criminals by burning. Someone burned at the stake weeps and screams in anguish while dying. But they don’t weep and scream ten days or ten millennia or ten billion years later. They are dead.
In subsequent posts I will explain why I don’t think the passages that *could* be used to argue that Jesus believed in eternal torment – the famous parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 and the story of Lazarus and the rich man – do not in fact indicate that Jesus believed in conscious eternal torment for the wicked. This is a view that I came to while writing my book, and I’ll explain why anon. (I will also talk about what “Gehenna” really is).[/mepr-show]
I find nothing exceptionable in this interpretation–I actually find it quite revelatory, and would call it the primary insight into Jesus’ thought that I’ve come to here. I await the book’s publication impatiently.
The main problem I see is that Jesus may not have been 100% consistent in his conception of the Kingdom–and how could be be? How could anyone who is not a hidebound dogmatist, as Jesus clearly wasn’t?
He wants to save as many as possible, but wouldn’t God know who deserves to be in the Kingdom? If you don’t need to even believe in the Jewish vision of God to be in the Kingdom–if it’s based entirely on how you treat others in this life–then what’s the point?
The point is, he feels that having had this revelation, he is morally obliged to try and warn whoever he can, whoever comes within the range of his voice, so they can at least have the chance to mend their ways. Otherwise, he would just form a small community of like-minded people, and await the end calmly. (As many subsequent religious sects have done, in vain).
Jesus is more evangelical than his original inspiration, John–more inclined to go out and look for sinners to convert. More proactive, and more creative in his teaching methods (John mainly just seems to preach and baptize–people can come to him if they want to be saved. Jesus goes out to look for sinners–the more sinful, the better).
And I still think one of his methods was to perform what he considered miracles, which he could only perform by faith, and so could anyone else. As a visual demonstration of his teachings. Because this will bring more people around to the right way of thought and behavior before it’s too late. Because Jesus believes many who could be saved still won’t be. He must realize many will never come around–the goats (unfair to the actual animals, never mind, it’s a metaphor). There are many lost sheep, led astray by the goats, who need to be gathered back into the fold.
There are two principal questions–what did Jesus think the Kingdom would be? And what did he think the Outer Darkness would be? The ancillary question is what exactly decides which realm you end up in?
The fisherman metaphor is highly problematic, and God knows whether that’s from Jesus or those who transliterated him later. You’re a fish. You get caught in a net. The fisherman pulls you into a boat. You are suffocating outside of the water. He starts sorting through you and the other fish, to decide which of you will make good eating. If you were (let’s say) a Pixar fish, with the ability to know what’s happening to you, do you want to be the one chosen to go back to dry land, be sold at market, cooked, and eaten? No, you want to be the fish that gets thrown back. That’s the fish who lives. Who goes back into the world of survival and reproduction. The sea is your world, and you want nothing of dry land. Dry land means death, not life. Though of course you will eventually die, and be eaten. Like all living things. You will probably also be killing and eating other things to survive. In nature, there is no right or wrong. There is just alive or dead.
So how to explain this? Jesus thinks that the Kingdom will be outside the world of nature. Outside the world of life and death, eat or be eaten. Anti-Darwinian (he doesn’t know from Darwin, obviously, but people knew what nature was a long time ago, and all of human culture and civilization is an attempt to escape/transcend its inexorable laws).
So did he think the Outer Darkness would be some outre hellscape? Or just the world people already lived in, without no hope of anything better, ever?
And the Kingdom would be a place where those who tried to live as if the Kingdom was already there would finally be freed of the responsibility of trying to make this world something it could never be? But then why is he doing what he’s doing? Which will only lead to his own premature death, and that of many of his followers–who he loves.
“Without no hope.” I need to edit more.
In his story of The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky talked about the contradiction in religious belief–do you seek your own personal path, focusing on individual spiritual development, or do you save others, which is going to necessitate some kind of religious institution–with rules, and in some cases real authority, which can be greatly abused?
Power corrupts, always. Religions start with the best of intentions and then go through endless cycles of decadence and revival. But without some kind of institution, you’re never going to reach many people. Without Peter and Paul and those who came after them, nobody would know Jesus ever lived.
Jesus knew full well that if he founded his own religion, even if it succeeded, it would end up stocked with people like the worst of the Jewish religious authorities he clashed with (I suspect he also knew some very good ones, but the gospels don’t talk much about those). Too much about rules and dogma, not enough about faith and compassion. The goats will always come in and take over when there’s power in it.
Jesus’ solution to this dilemma is The Son of Man coming to sort things out. To remove the goats from the equation. He can’t see any other way. There are always good people, you can find them in every walk of life, every group (even Samaritans!) but they are disadvantaged simply by virtue of their own virtue. So he has to believe it. It has to be true.
I guess we’ll have to think of something else. I do believe he gave us some helpful advice. He asked the right questions, even if his answer didn’t pan out.
I love the man. I don’t care whose son he was.
This is an Interesting theory and your argument makes sense. I would think that the strongest support for eternal suffering in the Gospels is Matthew 25:46. So, I am looking forward to your next post. You might also want to address Mark 9:48. I agree that Mark 9:48 may just refer to an eternal fire, not eternal suffering. At least in the English translations, the passage seems to imply eternal suffering – but that view might be my preconceived view.
So, do you believe that the first century Christians developed the idea of internal damnation or was it developed even later? I am looking forward to reading where or how they got the idea.
I’ve even seen debates among evangelical /fundamentalist Christians taking very seriously this annihilationist view as opposed to eternal torment.
What I find much more interesting (and also agree with) is the open attitude of Jesus to the gentiles that you describe here:
“Jesus did not think the coming kingdom of God (soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man in judgment on the earth) was for faithful Jews only. It was for all those who did God’s will. Many Jews, in fact, would not be allowed to enter. As Jesus says in Matthew’s Gospel, “many will come from east and west” to enjoy the heavenly banquet with the Jewish patriarchs in “the kingdom of heaven” but many of those from Israel “will be cast into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:10-12).”
We occasionally agree. What was controversial about Paul’s mission to the gentiles was not really the mission itself but (later on) how fully Jewish believers and authority figures could commune with gentile converts and consequently whether or not male gentile converts should be circumcised and be fully compliant with kashrut, etc. I believe Paul is telling the truth about Titus not being compelled to be circumcised and Cephas originally living as a gentile while visiting Antioch prior to the coming of the men from James. These dumb fishermen from Galilee had already been told to eat whatever was set before them when on mission. I wonder if perhaps James was overly zealous to convince the Judean authorities in Jerusalem how this Jesus movement was producing good, observant followers.
There are, to be sure, some Jesus traditions urging a strict observance but these may be more of a backlash on the part of some pious Jewish Christians being scandalized and who had always understood Jesus’ teachings from a more rigorous perspective, which Jesus also engaged sometimes, eg, regarding divorce and avoiding sin by self-mutilation.
What do you think?
I’m not sure the instruction to eat whatever was put before them goes back to Jesus. More likely, I should think, put on his lips later
“I’m not sure the instruction to eat whatever was put before them goes back to Jesus. More likely, I should think, put on his lips later.”
Indeed, but if Luke put it on the lips of Jesus (Lk 10,8), it contradicts his later story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts (cf 10,14) and it is found (independently according to you) in the same context in the gospel of Thomas (14): when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.
More importantly, one finds this already very early in Paul:
ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν (Lk 10,8)
πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε (1 Cor 10,27)
How do you account for Titus not being compelled to be circumcised and Cephas originally living as a gentile while visiting Antioch prior to the coming of the men from James?
I would say it’s perfectly consistent with the teaching of Acts 10. Or do you mean it contradicts it in the sense that Peter should have known it already?
The similarities between the two passags were there, I would assume, because it was a common Xn idea/teaching. Not sure what you’re asking about Paul and Cephas. They thought (Paul forever and Cephas at one time) that gentiles could be admitted into the Xn community without becoming Jewish.
“Not sure what you’re asking about Paul and Cephas. They thought (Paul forever and Cephas at one time) that gentiles could be admitted into the Xn community without becoming Jewish.”
Do you agree that Paul is probably telling the truth in Galatians 2,12-14 about Cephas originally eating with and living as a gentile when first visiting Antioch prior to the coming of the men from James?
Yup.
Jesus never suggested self-mutilation as a means of avoiding sin. Matthew 19:12 refers to voluntary celibacy (if you have actually castrated yourself you are not living AS a eunuch, you ARE one).
We don’t know these are Jesus’ words, but in either event, they are not to be taken literally (leave that to the fundamentalists). Origen was said to have taken Matthew literally, but he never said so himself in any of his surviving writings, and that was probably just a story somebody told about him.
I was not thinking of voluntary celibacy, but rather other rigorist sayings of Jesus, which were of course never intended to be taken literally, eg, Mark 9,44-48:
Which is interesting, because Mark is telling a completely different story, using some of the same phrasings Matthew uses later. Which again makes me suspect that Matthew often repurposed phrases from Mark that he liked, but he didn’t like the story Mark was telling.
In Mark, this follows upon Jesus admonishing his disciples for asking if they should stop a man healing people in Jesus’ name. After saying “Whoever is not for us is against us” (please note the ‘us’–Mark’s Jesus is a lot less self-obsessed), he says they shouldn’t turn those who believe in his message away from the truth in search of some elusive purity. If others (by ‘little ones’ he doesn’t mean children but those who have heard him but are nto his disciples) are going in the same general direction by a different path, that is enough, because it’s the destination that matters, not the road itself. The Kingdom is near, and the more who make it there, the better.
And I think what he’s talking about when he says cut off the hand, pluck out the eye, is for them to put aside their foolish pride. It’s not about them, it’s not about who is first, since the first will be last anyway. Better to humble themselves than to enter hell, experience the unquenchable fire, and of course he may not have meant that literally either.
To be among the goats is to enter hell. The unquenchable fire could be ego–the obsession with self. Yeah, that’s pretty new-agey, I know. But Jesus so often speaks in metaphor, allegory, it’s very hard to know what he means sometimes. It’s better to focus on the deeper meanings of his words, which aren’t about fires and worms.
I don’t think he believed in hell as later Christians envisioned it. I’m not 100% convinced that the goats are just going to be destroyed. Jesus himself may have had more than one opinion on this subject, because he was torn about the goats–and who they are. What happens to all the well-meaning people the goats lead astray?
He suggests even his disciples might enter hell, and the man they were rebuking for performing unsanctioned miracles might see the Kingdom. One might conclude he didn’t assume HE would be in the Kingdom!
I agree that “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is just painting a picture of people in the first moment of realizing they’re not allowed in. After that the impression I get is that the outside ones are just forgotten. Who cares what happened to them?
Your proposal seems similar to Edward Fudge’s “The Fire That Consumes,” which is gaining some popularity in evangelicalism in recent years. You might get several interested podcast interview requests upon publication!
Bart.
Re. Matthew 8:10-12…. I thought I heard you say before that Jesus probably never had contact with centurions, much less conversations with them, no?
Is Paul’s reporting of the attitude of James and Peter, who both knew Jesus, towards Gentiles not stronger evidence of Jesus’ true feelings towards that group than Matthew’s story?
That’s right — I don’t think Jesus ever encountered a centurion until his last week in Jerusalem.
My point is that I wonder whether adducing a fictitious account is useful in trying to work out what Jesus actually believed in this case.
Isn’t that account indicative of the belief of Matthew’s community rather than those who actually knew Jesus?
The prose narrative framework for the saying is not historical; I’m arguing that hte saying itself is something Jesus said.
Having a Centurion fawning over a Galilean peasant to make a point about faith being the key to the kingdom sounds:
1. like a literary device for those who already believed Jesus divine
2. like a strong Pauline influence.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think Jesus’ view was of the Jewish concept of Sheol? Would he think that the coming Kingdom would replace Sheol?
I assume those in Sheol would be raised from the dead.
I don’t think the historical Jesus preached gentiles will come into heavenly kingdom. jesus was sent to the jews, Israelites. The others were like dogs and pigs.
Remember, “Gentiles” simply means “nations.” How it is used – in context – matters. It is probable that vast majority of the Israelites had been scattered among the nations, for at least seven centuries, before the term “Jew” was even coined. The terms “Gentile” and “non-Jew” are not interchangeable as you seem to presuppose.
Would Jesus have believed that those who already died were in Sheol and would have been resurrected and also judged, and likewise either be annihilated or join in the new Kingdom? Or something else?
Yes, I believe so.
Quick side question: Did the early Christians think that fire was a purifier in any way? I guess in their day the most efficient way to extinguish someone was by fire instead of of numerous other ways they could have invisioned God killing someone but just curious if fire had additional properties they liked?
Yes, many times they did. But not when it was said to “destroy” a person.
To me the imagery of throwing weeds into a fire is very clear: nobody expects weeds to burn forever; in fact, they burn up rather quickly, leaving nothing but ashes. If Jesus meant to portray eternal torment his parables are very misleading. If you throw me in the fire I will weep and gnash my teeth, but not for long. What I find interesting is how many people who say they are preaching love, and that “God is love,” seem to go out of their way to make Jesus and the writers of the New Testament portray the most terrible punishment imaginable for those who simply don’t believe the way they do. Another example of how religion makes good people think bad things.
1. “There is such grief there – weeping and teeth-grinding – because those on the outside have realized, too late, the eternal joys they have missed out on. What will happen to them? *Jesus doesn’t say.*” – this statement seems to weaken your argument that Jesus *did* say they would be annihilated.
2. “Darkness,” “fire,” “furnace of fire,” etc. clearly seem to be metaphors, but I think some of your readers might have trouble accepting that because *we* typically do not communicate the way Jesus did…with strong and exaggerated metaphors, or if we do, we also clearly state what we mean (why couldn’t Jesus also simply say “they will cease to exist”?!).
3. Will you also discuss Matthew 18:8-9: “8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into *eternal fire.* 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the *fire of hell.*
4. Are the sayings you discuss widely considered authentic sayings?
3. Yup. 4. Yes, I will be discussing in the book how we can know.
ok
regrding
“those who “will be cast into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:10-12). . . . This is surely a figurative statement: ”
I think you are perfectly correct
I would put it more simply
those in “darkness” are “distant from God”. (you may prefer ‘unenlightened’ but to Jesus ‘distant from God’ was probably a more scary thing than merely being ‘unenlightened’ ) and
their “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is their extreme regret that they had an opportunity to work with, learn from and support God’s chosen one/representative/messiah and they had other things they thought more important (like marrying a wife or buying a cow). Even worse that is if they had contributed to God’s chosen one/son being murdered, (like Judas among others) {and similarly I think you could argue, that to Jesus, this “regret” is just as painful as being physically burned]
I understand this concept, but there is a problem–we’re all distant from God, in a sense. God is not appearing to most people, not speaking to them. That’s the normal state of being. To say hell is the absence of God is to neglect the reality that for those who are not of a deeply spiritual bent (which is most of us) God is absent most if not all of the time. We think about God, we wonder about God, we pray to God, we get angry at God–we don’t see God. And we’re still happy sometimes.
Even saints feel distant from God a lot of the time–many reported feeling God’s absence as a great trial–but for ordinary people, who don’t expect to experience visions, revelations, divine ecstasies–that’s normal. Not everybody wants to be in the divine presence all the damn time. That would be intimidating, wouldn’t you say? How would you watch your shows? Suppose you wanted to have sex?
I don’t mean to be irreverent (much), and I feel a deep respect for the true mystics, but most of us aren’t. So this is a mystic’s vision of hell, and many mystics actually experience this hell–Mother Teresa did, and wrote a great deal about it in her diaries.
But goats–what do they care? They’re shallow, self-seeking. God, to them, is their appetites, their egos. I mean, we all know who the Head Goat is at this moment in time. Do you think he gives a damn if God is absent? He sees God in the bathroom mirror every morning.
So no, I don’t think this is what Jesus meant, precisely. He means the goats will be in a hell of their own making–no longer able to exploit or harm anyone but themselves. Their aggression and avarice turned inwards. Without good people to oppress, or fence-sitters (the half-way there sheep Jesus was trying to reach) they can lead astray, what is there for them? That’s their hell. The punishment fits the crime. To quote Saint Gilbert.
DR EHRMAN:
The feedback I offer, considering the DISPUTABLE SOURCES from which we derive what Jesus taught about the afterlife, is that, in my estimation, the only RELIABLE information about what JESUS ‘TAUGHT’ about the afterlife, is implicated in the indisputable letters of Paul…
At least we know, that it was Paul the apostle who really wrote ‘Philippians’, and we also know why he wrote Philippians.
Paul believed that it was very much better to DEPART from this life and be with Christ. Paul doesn’t say that he’s going to DIE…I think Paul received this assurance and insight into the afterlife, from Jesus Himself.
So who am I going to believe about the afterlife? Will I believe an INDISPUTABLE source, written by Paul the apostle, who claims that his message is from Jesus himself, or am I going to believe in a DISPUTABLE source, the book of Matthew, which was anonymously written, and the author does not claim to have seen Jesus?
Paul wrote his letters BECAUSE Jesus Himself appeared to him and gave him a Gospel to preach and teach.
I DON’T KNOW who really wrote Matthew, nor why the book was written, and Jesus did not appear to the author of Matthew, nor does the author of Matthew claim that Jesus appeared to him.
My point is, that it’s pointless and misleading, to assert that the words attributed to Jesus in Matthew, are in FACT the WORDS of Jesus.
If Paul is telling the truth about Jesus literally APPEARING to him, the I choose to believe Paul rather than some stories invented by Matthew and others, regarding what Jesus SUPPOSEDLY said about the afterlife!
Paul in my estimation, is a more RELIABLE source and witness, from whom we can derive insights into the the questions concerning what most likely happens when our last day on earth ENDS.
(Part 1 of 2)
Dr. Ehrman, since you ask, let me say that I think you’re partially correct. Before I say where I think your theory falls short, let me say where I think you’re right on the money.
“Jesus did not think the coming kingdom of God…was for faithful Jews only. It was for all those who did God’s will.”
This is not only true based on what Jesus says, but by the internal logic of the Kingdom concept itself this must be true. For just imagine a “Kingdom of God” that consists of only a few thousand righteous Jews. Doesn’t sound like much of a “kingdom”! For the concept to even make sense, one would have to assume that at least a million or more people (both currently living and already dead) would be “saved” to populate such a “kingdom”. And, naturally, not all of those saved people could be Jews (since during Jesus’ day there were, maybe, 3 million Jews in the world?) so some of the saved would have to be non-Jews — or at the very least would be gentiles who had converted to Judaism.
“One of my theses is that a close reading of Jesus’ words shows that in fact he had no idea of torment for sinners after death.”
I think this depends on what we mean by “torment”. Do I think Jesus meant eternal torment? No. Do I think that the historical Jesus warned of some torment for sinners after death? Absolutely. After all, what would you call burning people to death? I would call that torment. And keep in mind, Jesus is not just talking about the people who were still alive while he was preaching. He was also talking about those people who were already dead and would be resurrected for the final judgment before the ‘Olam ha-Ba (hence all the harvesting analogies he uses)! Those people would go from being dead, to being “alive” again, and if judged wicked, would be burned to die again. In other words, their ultimate punishment would be to die twice! So I would say you’re partially correct here.
Now let me devote a second comment to where I think you’re missing Jesus’ actually views. It has to do with probably the most important parable in the gospels. The parable where we really see what Jesus preached. The Parable of the Sower.
Yes, I mean eternal torment.
Annihilationism I think is plausible enough, and as I recall some of the Fathers discerned it in Jesus’s teaching too. But what about exclusivism?
Jesus grew up and was educated in a cultural backwater. He appears to have known only Aramaic, and we can be pretty sure he seldom engaged in conversation with anyone who spoke Greek, the language of the wider world. He evidently preached only to small-town rural Palestinian Jews, except for maybe only one big trip to Jerusalem. Hence Matthew 15:24, perhaps Matthew 7:6 and Thomas 93, and Mark 7:24f. I see that the story of the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s child can be read more than one way, as being more or less exclusivist. But it’s recounted by Mark two generations after the fact, and one might suspect that the inclusiveness is attributable to Mark and not Jesus. Anyway, Vermes makes the case Jesus, as one might expect, had a message directed chiefly to those in his social world, the northern and western shores of of the Sea of Galilee, and that his imagination didn’t reach much beyond. Unsurprisingly “he ministered only to the lost sheep of Israel and instructed his disciples to the same.”
A case I’d guess you consider or mention in a footnote.
Does your idea carry over into the Lake of Fire motif in Revelation? That is, the notion of complete and ultimate destruction as opposed to eternal torment. Does the author of Revelation envision a terminal end, and if so, are they getting that idea from gospel sources?
Yes, I’ll be arguing it does.
I was wondering when you were going to reference Matthew 25 and the sheep and the goats– if I follow your teaching correctly, these passages would fall under the criterion of dissimilarity because in them Jesus talks about the the good that people do, rather than what they believe, getting them to heaven, the kingdom of god.
On another note- Matthew 18:18- what you bind or loose on earth etc.- I would think this was not spoken by the historical Jesus as this seems too be making Peter (and his successors) the mediators and dictators as to what gets someone to heaven.
I like your theses so far- carry on sir!
Yup, I’m getting there.
I often find interesting that we quote the Bible saying “Jesus said…”. I would stipulate the author (Mathew) said that Jesus said. This may or may not have been a saying of or by Jesus, but my guess is that this is what early Christians believed and not necessarily what Jesus said.
I fervently agree, but “Matthew said Jesus said” is kind of clunky. And suppose Matthew got rewritten too?
(Part 2 of 2)
Now let me say where I think you’re missing the mark. I think you’re failing to take into account the Parable of the Sower, which I believe comes the closest to laying out before us the preaching of the historical Jesus. Notice that in this parable, Jesus doesn’t say that there are two types of seeds: those that grow and those that don’t grow. No, Jesus says, specifically, that there are four types of seeds! — those that fail to grow, those that grow but die quickly, those that grow but fail to ripen, and those that grow and ripen, even to abundance. (In Mark and Matthew, Jesus also divides that last category into three groups, who yield thirty, sixty and a hundred times — but that’s a separate issue.)
Now, what are we to make of Jesus’ four categories? If we set aside the last category of those who are saved, to me, it’s pretty clear that Jesus is outlining three distinct degrees of damnation. The first degree (what Jesus is portraying as the worst lot) are those who completely ignore the prophetic admonitions. They are like seeds scattered on a road, who are eaten by birds. Those people are simply annihilated — possibly by being swallowed up by the earth, just like Korah and his rebels — before they even have a chance to be saved.
The second degree are those who heed the prophetic admonitions, so they should at least know better. But their heart is seemingly too weak (“because the soil was shallow”) so they drift away from the righteous path. Jesus appears to be referring to those with heterodox views, such as how the Pharisees are portrayed in the gospels. They know scripture, so they should know better, but still they are damned. They will be “scorched” (burned) by the “sun” (God).
The last of the damned are those who do take root (i.e. they’re what we might call nascent Christians) but they are corrupted by worldly concerns. Instead of becoming righteous by the Spirit, they are tainted by the material world. So they are “choked”. That is, they are strangled, literally or metaphorically. They may be hanged. Or they may become the slaves of those who are saved (i.e. they are “choked” by the yoke of bondage). Either way, of all the damned, they have the easiest go of it. Though some may disagree.
I take it to be a parable about the success of missionary preaching, not about the afterlife.
Ah, well, that’s where we disagree then. I don’t think the historical Jesus preached about missionary activity. I think the actual Jesus was all about admonitions and doom. Notice that if you ignore the “interpretation” that’s tacked onto the Sower Parable — which does interpret the parable in terms of the Great Commission — then the parable itself makes no immediate mention of, or even allusion to, missionary activity. The “seed” sown by the “farmer” is not necessarily the gospel message that would later come to be preached by the apostles.
If you must insist that they represent the gospel and the apostles, then you must first answer for me the question of why Jesus would have to return to his disciples after the fact (Mark 16:14-18; Matt. 28:16-20) to essentially re-issue a missionary commission if Jesus spent so much of his living ministry telling them to do the very same thing. This is similar to the problem we see, for example, in Peter’s vision in Acts, which he uses to justify breaking the Jewish dietary laws. If Jesus spent his ministry telling his disciples that they should ignore the kashrut, why would Peter need a vision to instruct him to do something that Jesus had already told all of his disciples?
The post-resurrection commission has the very same problem. If Jesus was telling his disciples that they needed to “go out to the nations” and preach the gospel, while he was still alive, then why would he need to instruct them to do that exact thing after he had already died and returned? For me, the obvious answer is that the real historical Jesus, while he was alive, never actually taught his disciples to ignore the kashrut — let alone the Mosaic Laws as a whole — and he did not instruct his disciples to go out to all the nations to preach the gospel message. The historical Jesus most likely preached about one thing and one thing only: The Kingdom was coming soon, and those who are right by God will be saved, and those who are not right by God are doomed. And that’s it.
In light of this notion the Parable of the Sower suddenly takes on a whole new meaning. The “farmer” is the prophet of God, and the “seed” are prophetic admonitions, especially Jesus’s own preaching, and the plants are the people who hear him.
I think he’s referring to his own words/preaching. Some people receive it and most don’t.
“I think he’s referring to his own words/preaching. Some people receive it and most don’t.”
In that we agree, though I think Jesus is including his own preaching/prophesy in with the long tradition of prophets of Israel. That is, he’s referring to the entire tradition leading up to his contribution to it (cf. Muhammad’s views of his own career).
But notice that he then lists the consequences for those who don’t heed his prophesy/preaching. They are “swallowed up”. They are “burned”. They are “choked”. He’s not just saying that there are those who will heed him and those who won’t. He’s expressing the ramifications of failing to heed him. And that, I am arguing, is a representation of Jesus’s eschatological views. That is, they adumbrate his actual views of the afterlife.
First of all, we have to distinguish between what Jesus said, and words Matthew and others may have put in his mouth, out of anger at the opposition (and in some cases persecution) they were coming up against decades later. Legitimate sayings of Jesus almost certainly have been placed next to words relating to beliefs Jesus himself never professed
Matthew recycles sayings from Mark that were used in a different context in Mark. That could be him drawing on a different version, from Q–but I doubt it. Matthew and Mark are incompatible in many ways, and Matthew feels free to revise Mark where he feels Mark got it wrong.
Obviously Jesus sees himself as being part of a long Jewish prophetic tradition, but he’s come to add to it, not merely restate it. He feels free to revise as well. All visionaries do. Not just religious visionaries.
It’s not the ramifications of failing to heed him, because that makes no sense. Most will never hear him. He believes all humanity will be judged, and that many who never knew he existed will be saved, simply for having behaved well. Otherwise, the Kingdom is going to be really really small. He’s not so conceited as you think.
His role is to proclaim the Kingdom, but he knows most will never hear that proclamation, and yet they still can make the right choices, and the Son of Man will let them in–Jews and gentiles alike.
Perhaps there is a greater impetus on those who do hear him to follow the right path. Reminds me of the old story of the missionary in Africa, who told a man he was trying to convert that up to now, having lived a good life, he would have simply gone to the place for the virtuous unbaptized after death–but now, having been told of the gospel message, his choices were restricted to either accepting Christ and going to heaven, or refusing Him and going to hell. To which the startled man replied “Then why did you tell me?”
However, this joke only works if Jesus did believe in Hell, and I agree with Bart–he never did. What precisely he did believe would happen at the end–that is the question. The Undiscovered Country, one might say. From which bourne no traveler returns. Ay, there’s the rub.
and
” What will happen to them? Jesus doesn’t say. Do they simply end up dying, and that is the end of their story?”
yeah Jesus doesn’t exactly say, I have learned from your teaching/book/blog that Jesus ministry was solely targeting the the people alive in his age their repentance and and probably also their recognition of God’s messenger (ie his exact ideas regarding life after death is unclear)
Your “theses is that Death, for them, is irreversible, the end of the story.” is possible. . ., but not the only reasonable theory.
For instance you understand “darkness” to be figurative. why not likewise consider whether “death” is also. above i suggested “darkness” meaning “distant from God” so to “death” can mean “darkness” can mean “distant from God”. This figurative understanding of “death” can clearly, simply explain Jesus recommendation “that the ‘dead’ should bury the dead”, I mean that ” ‘those distant from God’ should bury the dead’ – those who are ‘alive’ need to follow Jesus at this period of time.
Anyway returning to a different thesis, if “death” meant (for Jesus) “distant from God” then we don’t need to accept that “death is irreversible”. If he/Jesus recommended that we forgive our brothers 70×7 times would he not also believe his Father had the same amount of love and forgiveness of sinners.
Fantastic..!! I can’t wait to read your book and read your next posts…!! Jesus told parables to peasant farmers. I wonder, did his audience believe in an “afterlife”? Sadducees appear to not have believed in an afterlife, but the Sadducees were the upper class (the haves…). Is there historical data to show that the lower classes (the have nots) didn’t believe in an afterlife.? I think this is interesting because a parable is open to “interpretation”. If his audience didn’t believe in an afterlife than being thrown in “a fire” would have only conjured up a mental image of being thrown in one “down here”, in the “here and now”….
ok third comment of the day
regarding Jesus use of the term “fire”.
you may also want to consider that Jesus
“came to bring fire on the earth, and how [he] wished it were already kindled!”
and whether this “fire” annihilated people or not.
Bart,
I think this thesis is quite reasonable — I have seen others argue along similar lines. A lot of these passages tend to get viewed through the lens of later documents (like the Apocalypse of Peter), which it is hard to avoid unless one makes a conscious effort. The question then becomes when and how did such ideas emerge — if you can make a persuasive case for them emerging in a particular (later) context, the argument becomes much stronger.
Last supper painting –
Look at what Peter is holding in his hand, then look at the painting.
I would agree that Jesus had no notion of eternal conscious torment in the afterlife.
But it seems to me that some of the passages you quote might not be referring to the Final Judgment and so might not be relevant to the question of the afterlife.
Some of them might be referring to the coming destruction by the Romans as punishment for the coming Jewish revolt. The gospels portray Jesus as predicting this, and it’s reasonable to think that he did.
For example, the passage about the “broad way” and the “narrow way” might be referring to the coming revolt. The “broad way” might mean joining in the revolt; the “narrow way” might be refusing the way of the men of violence.
So when Jesus talks about destruction by fire, it’s quite plausible he’s looking forward to a destruction of Jerusalem by fire, like the destruction by the Babylonians in the time of Jeremiah, and like the destruction of Sepphoris, 4 miles from Nazareth, when Jesus was a boy.
Well, I imagine that some of the faithful would say that to be denied the sight of God amounts to torment. But I also imagine that to be a later interpolation of scriptures. And more to your point, if one is consumed one would not be thus tormented for eternity.
The way I read it was the “eternal fire” is “eternal”, and that you can drop into it and be tormented and eventually come back out, or otherwise burn up and that’s the end of you. Either way, the “eternal fire” will still be there eternally.
This is consistent with Hindu and Buddhist ideas of hell. It is a state of mind that we may fall into: an incarnation into a hell world. While you could be there a very long time, you will eventually come out of it and move on to other incarnations. Eventually, per Buddhism, you will learn all your needed lessons and will become a Buddha, for Buddha resides in every one of us and all sentient beings will one-day become Buddhas.
The Jane Roberts/Seth material, a voluminous set of metaphysical information given by an elevated entity who is beyond the grave, tells it as when we die a part of us will move on and (dependent on level of development) will have choices as to next incarnation or area of residence. Another part of us will remain with the body and will turn to dust and be reconfigured into other forms. This has a basis that all cells have consciouness. He says that every cell will remember all of it’s former configurations. Thus, a stuffed animal, for example, has a consciousness, and those cells making up the toy animal will presumably have in their natures the adoration that people may have had for the toy. It is something of an explanation as to why we become attached to such things and to our cars and other possessions.
Now back to Jesus and the eternal fire, the Seth material might give a hint that the part of us that moves on does not burn up but may or may not spend a time in the “hell of fire”, depending on his former thoughts and actions, not judged but rather by his level of cognizance and mental development. The part of him left behind will be lost (burned up in the eternal fire perhaps), and as all things take on different forms, will morph into some new thing, smoke maybe, becoming something else. Physical matter being actually consciousness, there being no solid matter but rather symbols developing out of consciousness, the set of rules would be quite difficult for us to grasp.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the whole “Gehenna” thing; scholarship on that place is pretty varied, and there doesn’t seem to be much archaeology to support some of the grimmer narratives about it’s history.
I was surprised to learn of Rabbinical Judaism’s take on the role of the Valley of Hinnom. I’d always thought that, as the TV character Howard Wolowitz put it: “Jews don’t have hell, we have acid reflux.”
See today’s post!
Well, I guess where you are headed is to the conclusion that Jesus did not believe in eternal punishment in Hell. I have no clue, but I continue to admire your willingness to examine, learn and change you views as you learn. Not many people do that these days.
“As Jesus says in Matthew’s Gospel…”
How is it determined that these are Jesus’ words rather than the words of the author of Matthew? I’m not saying that Jesus did not think this but it is unlikely that the author knew what Jesus said other than what was passed down to him over many years.
I’ll be dealing with that in an earlier part of the book.
OK.
But then, Bart, you will no doubt explain whence the idea of eternal punishment, an idea already present in the New Testament (Rev 20:10), *did* arise if not from Jesus?
Many thanks! 🙂
I”m going to be arguing that hte lake of fire is not eternal torment.
Bart,
I’m not sure if my comments/questions are of any value, but what the heck:
1) Given that Jesus was a Jew, I’m guessing that he would have subscribed to the common view (or, what I understand to have been the common view) of an essentially unconscious afterlife, at least for those not exalted to heaven. Of course, what ‘exalts’ someone is a whole different matter.
2) So if Jesus indeed developed a different view, even if it’s just a view of momentary suffering that marks the passage from life to the afterlife, where does it come from? And what purpose does this suffering serve? I suppose it could be a scare tactic, nearly everyone wants to avoid suffering, even the briefest of suffering. You may not fear oblivion, but combusting into flames along the way would put some people off.
3) If, according to Jesus, some sort of suffering marks the transition from life to death for the unrighteous, what about the countless already dead? Are they resurrected just to experience momentary suffering, then back to oblivion? Or did they already experience it? It’s just that before Jesus came along there was no heads up:
– Or maybe the heads up was there all along, and Jesus just underscored it (?).
– Maybe suffering was a new wrinkle, implemented for those who have heard Jesus’ message but reject it.
I know that a lot of Christian heaven/hell dogma evolved after Jesus. I’m curious how much of it predates Jesus, how much can be attributed directly to Jesus, and how much came after.
Regards,
Mike
Yes, I’ll be dealing with the questions of where these ideas came from; and yes, the already dead are raised for judgment as well, either for the kingdom or for painful annihilation.
I don’t see a problem. For many years I believed, and still do, that Jesus taught annihilation and those who lived a life pleasing to God would be given eternal life. The common view that you would either go to Heaven, eternal bliss, or Hell, eternal punishment, never made sense to me because the concept of eternal life implies living forever or dying. The common view in Christianity is that we all already have eternal life, it’s just that it’s up to us to chose the location. I don’t think Jesus taught that.
Did Jesus teach that the Eternal Life lived in the Kingdom of Heaven/God would be a realm beyond our existence or was the Kingdom of God something that was coming to Earth to be lived out here?
In Jesus theology about gaining eternal life, did he teach salvation was through keeping the law and are any references about his substitutionary atonement via his crucifixion an example of an evolving theology? If so, how did the early Church reconcile two distinct and contradictory teachings?
I think he imagined it would be here on earth (as Revelation does). And yes, this is evolved theology.
“The common view in Christianity is that we all already have eternal life, it’s just that it’s up to us to chose the location. ‘
Excellent point, Liam! I’ve never heard it put that way, but it is quite an insight.
I looks like you’ve managed to eliminate half of the Christian belief in an afterlife–the everlasting punishment in Hell part. So if that part is not apostolic (traceable to the NT), how did the idea of Hell become part of Christian belief? I assume that you discuss this item in your book.
My own opinion is that since Christianity is not the religion OF Jesus, but is the religion ABOUT Jesus and, as you show, eternal damnation is not part of Jesus’ teaching, the idea of Hell must have been the work of the second to fifth century Christian apologists/theologians. Do you plan to lay out this material in the book?
I’m eagerly awaiting the uproar your book will undoubtedly cause among Christians of the extreme fundamentalist persuasion.
Yup, that’s what the book will be about!
So, the options are: follow the teachings of Jesus and “inherit the kingdom” (i.e. eternal life), or simply perish (i.e. cease to exist)? … I agree.
Yup.
Huh; that is an interesting take. I think I’ve said before that I grew up in a conservative evangelical denomination, so those verses have always meant “eternal hell fire” to me, not just burned to ashes. I’ll have to ponder this a bit. How does this fit into your understanding of the typical beliefs of Jews at the time? I.e., was the idea of eternal damnation still uncommon among Judeans, Galileans, or even Samaritans at the time?
Nope!
It certainly seems a lot more “loving” of a position than having an infinite punishment for a finite crime. 🙂
One question: If Jesus believed in annihilation rather than some eternal torment, and a physical Kingdom that was coming which would be coupled with the judgment, what do you think he would have thought happened to people in the meantime?
It seems Jesus would have believed there would be a physical, bodily resurrection when the Kingdom came. After that point, there’d be judgment in which some would live forever and others would be destroyed utterly and cease to exist. In your opinion, what was likely Jesus’ view on what the state of people were after death but before judgment? Did he have a concept of the “soul” hanging around? Was it more like “they’re gone, they’ll be reconstituted for judgment, then destroyed again”? Or something else?
Maybe they’re in Sheol for now?
I was wondering about the fish analogy the other day. Fish caught in shallow water by net will typically be alive when returned to the water and with their swim bladder unharmed go on to live out their fishy lives. Being a ‘good fish’ was a worse outcome from being a ‘bad fish’.
Can we determine from Josephus or the Dead Sea scrolls the views of other first century apocalypticists on the fate of the unrepentant?
Not so much.
There is a growing trend in Christianity to view the punishment of the wicked in “annihilationist” terms. Edward Fudge’s book The Fire That Consumes is the go-to classic. Basically, he and these annihilationists hold that Jesus taught an irreversible destruction of the wicked (e.g. fear him who is able to “destroy” both body and soul in hell, the chaff will be burned up with unquenchable fire, etc). Annihilationists also cite other NT texts in support – 2 Peter 2:6, Jude 1:7, Jam. 4:12, Phil. 3:18–19, 1:28, 2 Peter 3:7, and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, and the passage in Revelation about death and hades being cast into the lake of fire. These seem to allude to the punishment of the wicked being something final, not something that continues never-endingly. There is also stuff in the Old Testament – in particular Isaiah, the Psalms, and really sprinkled throughout – of the wicked perishing, vanishing like smoke, being blotted out under heaven, being utterly cut off, etc.
The view is also often called “conditional immortality” – meaning that eternal life is a gift, something “conditionally” given to humans by God. Naturally when humans die, they are no more. However, on the condition of “x” (faith, obedience, insert plan of salvation here), God will grant immortality.
So, if this view of the NT or Jesus (in which he teaches a final destruction of the wicked) is controversial, know that there is a growing trend (see rethinkinghell.com) who are loudly and proudly supporting it, and that they debate it frequently with those who believe in ECT (eternal conscious torment) and universalism (all will be saved). It is, I say, a view which has very lively and intelligent supporters today.
Below I post a short video made by Fudge (he’s quite a good speaker, and intelligent) in which he gives a rough case for the annihilationist view. Actually, Bart, the way Fudge speaks and argues reminds me of you. A combination of critical analysis, and letting the text plainly say what it seems to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkFuumEFZRU
I think that this is a good thesis for sure. I find the argument to be very convincing. How is it then, in your estimation, that the idea of an eternal torment came about if not originating in the beliefs of Jesus or Jewish Apocalypticism in general? Presumably, this will be addressed in the book. Could a potential answer lie in the implications of what Jesus says in the “Parable of the Weeds” in Matthew? Jesus says that when the weeds are being cast into the furnace, “so shall it be in the end of this world” (Matthew 13:40). Obviously, “the end of this world” never arrived. Realizing that the Kingdom of God’s coming was/is continuously delayed, is it possible that Christian theologians modified the original meaning of Jesus’ words to make it look as if “end of this world” was always at hand. Moreover, if sinners, or “weeds,” are forever being thrown into the furnace, or “hell,” then the end of this world would forever be at the doorstep. Is this a potential reason for the theological shift from “annihilation” to “eternal damnation?” I hope this makes sense!
Ah, that’s largely what the book is about!
Okay so the kingdom of God was open to moral people anywhere. And I see that in the Sheep and goats passage. If it was meant to be this worldwide kingdom for everyone the idea of Jesus preaching a few years in Galilee seems inadequate to get the message across, though… I wonder if Jesus thought the Jews deserved special warning or I if perhaps he imagined others like him warning people around the world…
I suppose it all turns on whether you are correct in your assumption that the eternal fires quickly consume the body (as fire would do in the present world) rather than cause it to burn continually.
It also begs the question as to whether once the body is dead it can feel the pain of burning. If it can, even for a short time, it is surely something you would not wish to experience and so you should seek to avoid that punishment.
Does it not also assume eternal hell fire requires some physical existence/location where fires can burn?
I don’t think the bodies are meant to be understood as the fuel source for the fires….
I awoke in the middle of the night with my view of your thesis so far:
You have spent decades teaching us not to apply too much “literal” interpretation to the Bible. So, my first reaction was to not read too much into Matthew 8:10-12. My second reaction was to wonder if Jesus actually said this (I am an Ehrman influenced thinker after all). My third reaction is that knowing you I am sure you, like the debater you have been in the past, are building an argument with many pieces and your interpretation of Matthew 8:10-12 is just the first of many pieces in your argument. The idea of Jesus not believing in Hell as we conceptualize today is certainly an intriguing argument. It wouldn’t be the first time that things I learned growing up now seem to be off course and not really true. Carry on! .
This view of annihilation through burning also appears to assume that the body is simply that – a body – but if in some way the soul or essence of a person also exists and this is released from the body at death then that could be that which burns forever. If it is thought that the sinner will experience continual torment it assumes some form of sentient existence and that seems to preclude a body once dead.
Matthew 25:46 New International Version (NIV)
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
If their punishment was eternal, it would be their souls and spirit that get punished not their bodies.
But then this means you have to believe in the soul and spirit.
I believe your interpretation is not unreasonable.
Consider this on the concept of annihilation_ modern science might argue that there is no such thing . Current matter morphs into a different state in the matter/ energy continuum. Not that Yeshua of Nazareth would have considered that it u understood it as we do.
Dr Ehrman,
argument against annihilation
How long do you suppose these poor sinners survive before being annihilated, a day? a week? a year? maybe whatever their lifespan was on earth? It seems rather redundant cruel and even idiotic and pointless.
[Now I dont believe Jesus exactly believed in a physical resurrection, but he must have believed in ‘the resurrection’ in some sense, but for argument lets say he did] Does it really make sense that the sinners would be physically resurrected, spend lets stay a few days on earth gnashing their teeth and then get annihilated???
of course looking pointless to me doesn’t necessarily mean it does to God or Jesus.
Rather I suppose the point of the ‘gnashing of their teeth’ is to lead them to repentance (look to old testament prophets for a similar motif), so eventual universal reconciliation is at least as good a thesis as annihilation and probably better.
I think they last as long as they live in teh fire — minutes.
Dr. Ehrman,
My question is concerned with the historical probability that these words actually go back to Jesus. I know there are rigorous criteria that you and other scholars use to determine the likeliness of says going back to Jesus.
The careful readings you are conducting of Jesus’ words, what is the historical probability they actually go back to Jesus? Would early Christian communities have any reason to alter this tradition to be more inclusive to gentiles?
Thanks for including us in your writing process. It is an honor to share ideas and thoughts with one of the leading authorities on the subject.
Blessings
Yes, I’ll be dealing with that issue in the book, and citing only words of Jesus that I think must go back to him.
I didn’t know there was a sense in the ancient world that the soul could be destroyed completely. I thought the belief was the dead lived a sort of shadow existence — not suffering, but in a sort of eternal limbo. Is this a new concept Jesus would have been expressing, or is there an existing tradition he would be drawing from?
You’re thinking of Sheol I suppose. Yes, I’ll be dealing with that at length.
I think your argument needs to be “fleshed out” somewhat – pun intended. If one is annihilated after death, then it’s simply lights-out, game over, oblivion. Jesus’s words above show that he believed something more was in store for sinners. He mentions casting sinners into a furnace of fire — being burned is pretty darn painful, and the visualization of angels casting people into a furnace of fire suggests this particularly egregious suffering is part of the divine game plan. And the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in the darkness strongly suggests a temporal element of suffering (hours, weeks, years, eternity?). So, if your argument is that Jesus’s understanding of death for sinners is annihilation, I think you must take into consideration, from the plain meaning of his words, that his understanding contains some degree of suffering for some period of time.
Yes, good point. There is pain before teh annihilation, mental and physical.
While I’m just a mere mortal, it doesn’t make much sense to me why a purportedly all-powerful and all-loving God would subject the unworthy masses to a period of additional mental and physical suffering after death (as if the mental and physical suffering of everyday life and then death weren’t enough!). Seems kinda petty and, um, not all that loving. We are so caught up in making sense of it all…but, if you take a step back and are brutally honest with yourself, it becomes so obvious: all of this is a garbeled mess, it doesn’t make any sense, and we are all taking shots in the dark (whilst we weep and gnash at one another).
Bart, you’re upcoming book on the invention of the afterlife could serve as an addendum to your book “God’s Problem.” Innocent people who have suffered in this life are headed for Heaven anyway, right?
Yup, it deals with a similar issue.
Cool Bart,
No problems with your thesis. The examples taken from the corpus do not in my view suggest anything other than what you posit. Imagining what it must have been like to live in such a sparse (at least by modern standards) region during this time is an invitation to the kinds of narratives we find in theses texts. How else might people describe adversity when they are so lacking in the kinds of technologies we take for granted today which is, to my mind, the problem with contemporary narratives about these cultures? They would not have been witnesses to people being blown apart by bombs or such like but blindness and death, to a shepherd must’ve been, well.. hellish.
And yet, in my albeit short personal experience of Islam, little has changed sociologically and culturally. People both living in and coming from those regions still think and speak in these ways, still form the kinds of communities they did then and are still separate spiritual matters from material matters in ways that western cultures struggle to do.
I have something that is somewhat related that I’d like your input on. A few years before I became a complete non-believer, I was searching for the answer as to how, say, a serial killer could for the most part actually know the hour of their death(assuming they were tried and sentence to death) and thus have plenty of time to ask forgiveness but their victims, some who could have been children, wouldn’t have such a luxury and thus could be in hell. This never seemed fair at all and that whole “god works in mysterious ways” thing never sat quite right with this. In attempting to reconcile this, I discovered the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, which I hope you are familiar with(if anyone else is reading this and doesn’t know, I suggest a good search online as I can’t begin to put everything in this post). To me, essentially, this seemed to say that even after death one could have the opportunity to ask for forgiveness, and it even seems to say that asking for forgiveness isn’t entirely necessary but merely offering mercy over judgement was enough. I’m sure you’re aware of the scripture that states “mercy over judgement” as it is a common enough theme.
What are your thoughts on the Harrowing of Hell? Honestly, to me it seems far more like a real story of a forgiving god than most of the rest of the bible combined. I mean, it reconciles the whole of salvation and actually exemplifies triumph like one would expect from an all-powerful and all-knowing god. But, again, I’d like to year your take on this.
I’ll be dealing with it ihn the book — at least one of the earliest iterations of it in the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Awesome. I can’t wait to read it then.
As it happens, this is a question I’m working on now: when did hell as eternal punishment come into Christian thinking and why? (Unfortunately, I can’t wait for your book to come out.)
What comes to mind is Mark 9:43: “better to cut off your hand than . . . to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” I can see a case for arguing that “hell” is a mistranslation of “geenes” – the place where the dead bodies of executed criminals were buried (some say dumped, but t doubt that). But “unquenchable” (abseston) gives me more trouble. (The word is only used in this context, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.) Why would you need an eternal fire once the Day of Judgment is over and all the sinners have been burned to ashes? So that leads me to point to 1 Enoch 103, where the souls of the dead sinners “go down to Sheol . .. and experience . . . burning flame.”
I have little doubt that Paul is more focused on eternal reward than punishment. Gospel of John, maybe.Alan Bernstein argues that position, but then says the Synoptics do posit hell. I assume you are answering him in this argument?
One other thought: Burning at the stake was not a standard method of execution in those days as far as I know. Does that influence reading of fire as death rather than torment?
See today’s post!
A separate question, if I may. You say that Jesus made clear the kingdom is not just for Jews. So I have to ask how you read the line in Matthew: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Does Jesus perhaps mean that he, personally, came to help the Jews, and that God sent others to help the Greeks? Or is this Matthew speaking to the Jews and trying to persuade them to accept Jesus?
He’s talking about himself, personally, ethere
Thanks for the invitation to offer an opinion. It makes some of us think we get to be on your team, so to speak. 🙂 I agree with you. Who would not be repelled by a god who would subject anyone for any reason to eternal punishment?
Your opening premise confuses me. You say: “First, Jesus did not think the coming kingdom of God … was for faithful Jews only. It was for all those who did God’s will.” Is the reference to “all those [Jews]” or to “all those [people]” who did God’s will. I hope you intend the former. Although Jesus seemingly believed the Kingdom also ultimately would benefit more than the Jews, there is considerable evidence the Kingdom itself was to be a Jewish thing. If your argument rests on the notion that the Kingdom itself would include non-Jews, it builds on a shaky foundation. Is that necessary?
I”m not sure I understand your grammatical question. But yet, there would be Jews who would enter the kingdom, but not only them. It wasn’t just a Jewish thing.
The BIG question for all those who believe in an eternal hell and also expect to live eternally in heaven is this:
Q: Who or what is it that will keep the “fire” stoked in Hell for all eternity?
A: Of course, it will be the eternal creator of all things – the god of love and forgiveness himself – or should I say “three-self” – God the father, son and HS.
Can you imagine living the ultimate eternal life in utopia knowing that some (or many) of your loved ones and friends will be existing in a place of suffering of the ultimate horrific pain, anguish and torture in a fiery Hell forever – and that your savior and your god are the ones totally responsible for creating and maintaining that eternal torture chamber for your loved ones?
The problem I find in the Bible is that God demands that people not only forgive their enemies, but love them as well. But it seems that when it comes to adhering to god’s personal demands of forgiveness to others of those he created in “his image,” god will have no mercy on his enemies – your loved ones – and will punish each and every one of them with eternal torture to satisfy his need for eternal retribution.
Hi Professor Erhman, this is your fan from PrairieHigh School, PBI, Three Hills Alberta.
I heard about your project last year. Here is what I think. Yes, I do not think Jesus was all that nice about the sinners and their treatment in the end. I think his vision of them turns violent, especially he talks abot their destruction constantly, by fire, by casting them out of this blissful place. It is likely that in his own vision of this apocalypse, some form of punishment, eg Lazerus and the great chasm, the weed story, the end being burnt, the separation of the sheep from goats. One small problem though, I seem to remember a text says that their fire never goes out….!A lot of people have a romantic vision of a peaceful, kind and generous Jesus. I am told by some atheists that Jesus’ vision of the future is more violent than his Jewish root, where when people are dead, they are dead. There is no Jewish vision of eternal punishment. maybe this was invented since they could not overcome the Kittim/Romans, and they hated them so much that they have this special place for them in the end, Hell, the place of punishment is a construct born out of frustration of a God who fails to answer their prayers or remove the Gentiles from their holy land. Apocalypse explains a large portion of the seemingly inaction and absence of God, and the concept of hell helps these vengeful Jews to come to peace of their captors.
I have to say, the only surprising revelation in this post is that this is a view you’ve only recently acquired.
I thought the whole underlying premise of your book has always been that Jesus didn’t think of the ‘afterlife’ (either the reward or punishment) like we think of it today. Specifically, that the ‘reward’ was eternal life in God’s new kingdom, here on earth; while the concept of ‘hell’ was a later (post-Jesus) development.
Is that not, essentially, what you’ve argued all along?
Not sure what you mean by “all along.” But even in this post I indicate something I didn’t think before writing the book — the true nature of gehenna for Jesus, as a horrible place of “nonburial” for corpses who oppose God.
Honestly it boggles my imagination
Let me see if i get it: this is what Jesus believed
1)Abraham Isaac and Jacob are physically resurrected first and begin a banquet – LITERALLY
2)some righteous and some sinners are physically resurrected next – LITERALLY
3) they stand before some kind of supernatural judge, after some due process – some are sent to the table with the patriarchs and some others are herded (by angels?) to a darkness – FIGURATIVELY [ fire LITERALLY]
4) as they (bad guys) are being burned to annihilation (half hour or so) they gnash their teeth from the pain of the fire? and/or from envy toward those laughing (and enjoying ? ) themselves at the banquet .
are you serious?????
My view is that *other* people’s religions (and philosophies) often/always seem strange to outsiders.
yes i agree
but as you asked for our feedback, which may be forthcoming when the book finally gets to publication
I suspect you will get christians who realize that God is not so silly as to raise people after thousands of years just to put them in in a fire for 10 minutes and then destroy them.
Nor that Jesus saw his Father as so pernicious,
hopefully someone smarter than me can convince you that the above is not a view likely held by our Lord.
Dear Dr.Ehrman. I just read about Hurricane Florence, My meditations and prayers are with you, family, friends and community. Having survived a Yucatan class 5, I also pray you have gathered up as many as you can and are now hanging Out in N.Y.. I am sorry that I have not been on your blog. The smartphone inherited has been anything but and totally inadequate to your site. Once I finally have my laptop restored, I will be back. Again my meditations remain with you and your loved ones
Many thanks! We are battening down the hatches!
In regards to the understanding of Jesus’ view that the punishment of the unrighteous is that they die (or are killed in the final battle) and simply are not included in the “resurrection of the righteous” (which perhaps is putting it in my words rather than yours … ???) but what interests me more are the reasons WHY you think so and I wonder if your reasons might included what I noticed in your use of texts from the New Testament all (save one, which is deferred as being perhaps problematic for your approach) are from Matthew.
Is this an indication that you see the views of this author as being closer to Jesus’ than any of the other ancient authors? Is this a conscious and intentional tactic on your part? And iff so, is your reason because that gospel is the most “Jewish” (even Pharisaic!) and “apocalyptic” of them all (even including Paul, who claims this heritage, explicitly)? My inquiry here is based upon my awareness that many “critical scholars” (say like “the Jesus Seminar”) prefer a bridge back to the “real Jesus” by another route, one that produces a “Jesus” who does not fit easily into the “Jewish world” in the Roman province of “Judea.”
If so, then another question arises.
Since you also believe in a “Q-document” to explain the “Q-sayings,” are you also intending to give preference to the wording of such in “Matthew” (over against what we have in “Luke”) as closer to what Jesus said and meant? If so, I would happily endorse such a methodology as a practical way of implementing the common observation that “Jesus was a Jew,.”
Finally, back to your first question about any gentiles in the coming “Kingdom of God,” it seems to me that if Mt. 26 story (not a “parable,” I think … ???) about the “grand judgment” answers that question as it is a separation of the “nations” (i.e.gentiles), many of whom are surprised to be “included in” … and such inclusion would not be a surprise in the context of prior Jewish tradition, which has always included the presence of the “resident stranger” (“ger”) and in eschatological terms the “in-gathering of the (righteous) gentiles”!
Oh, and thanks to getting into these important topics for us!
Yes, in the book itself I will be explaining that not all the words of Jesus recorded in the NT go back to him, and that we have to follow solid criteria for knowing which of the words he speaks there actually go back to him. And I give reasons for thinking that his views as set forth in Mark (especially) and Matthew (and Q) are more likely authentic than words in L or John, Thomas, etc. — especially about eschatology. I give fuller reasons in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophetc….
If you look at a passage such as John chapter 17, Jesus clearly thought that His dominion over the earth would advance in stages. His oneness with the Father would become the oneness of the disciples, which would become the oneness of Israel, which would result in”so that the world would believe.” His immediate concern was His disciples who would rule with Him over Israel which in turn would rule over the nations as a kingdom of kings and priests. Therefore, His concern was with the righteousness of His disciples and of Israel. His warnings to Israel such as in Matthew 23 concerned what would happen to the nation if it did not follow Him. He was also concerned with the worthy ones among Israel who would be worthy to be resurrected at the beginning of the next age(Lk 21:35) and be worthy to rule with Him over the nations. Ultimately though, He believed that all in the graves would come out, some to a resurrection of life, others to a resurrection of judging.(John 5) The purpose of judging He said was for all to honor the Son(John 5:22). All will honor the Son, for every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Him as their Lord. Jesus perceived the purpose of the cross to “draw all unto myself.” All the dead, all the living, united under His lordship. I believe Jesus Christ was a “universalist” and that He believed in the eventual abolition of death.
1) I find your arguments well thought out and convincing.
2) For me, the idea of total annihilation of the body and soul is even more frightening then burning in hell forever.
3) Flashback: when my children were young (under 10), they were very disturbed by the idea of hell and eternal torment. I told them the following: hell is a very hot place during the day and a very cold place at night, that they would be walking in a desert forever. At night, in the far distance they could see a beautiful city but for some reason they would never get there. And the only “torment” they would feel would be from loneliness and regret. I told them that we all walk a path through life and we will make mistakes but if we stick to the path we will reach the beautiful city. Call it Theology 101 for the under 10 group. I don’t know if this made me a bad father but it was the best I could do at that time.
What I find intriguing is that this is (almost) the exact opposite of Buddhist teachings: In Buddhism, the goal is enlightenment which will free one from the eternal suffering of rebirth, i.e. from eternal life. I understand that in Christianity, the idea is an eternal life of joy – or whatever – but I do find it amusing when people talk about eternal life as a reward for having lived a good one. Who on earth would want to live here amidst this endless suffering forever?
I think the typical idea is that suffering (along with death) will be destroyed.
How does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 fit into your thesis on Jesus’ view of the afterlife? In that parable it does seem like the rich man will be suffering forever. I tried looking through the comments to see if this was addressed, but I didn’t see any commentary about it. Since this parable doesn’t appear in the other gospels, it could be something Luke added, as Luke seems to often be rooting for the poor and for the eventual reversal of their conditions at some future time.
I’ll certainly be devoting a discussion to it! It’s the one place in the NT that postpartem rewards and punishments are clearly taught. And yes, it is all part of Luke’s concerns about wealth and poverty.
I have held an “annihilationist” view for many years now, but am curious about the ancient Hebrew view of physical death of the righteous. From what I understand to be your favorite book of the Bible (also mine):
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. (Ecc 3:19)
It can’t both be true that the fate of the righteous is to be annihilation, but also that there is salvific hope for life after death. Considering Paul’s use of harpazō in 1Th 4:17, for instance, I had long thought that the “death” lamented by Solomon was the very death addressed by the Christ. Now, I’m not so sure: physical death is what it is: inanimate, lifeless matter, found in oceans, urns and lion poop. Lifeless matter is not to be gathered and restored.
But what about the apparent conjuring of Samuel by the “Witch of Endor” in 1 Samuel 28? If Samuel were annihilated, how could he have been summoned from the grave? It took a long, long time, but I’m beginning to understand that these are just tales; myths, fantasies and fairy tales.
BTW Bart: I love your work. And most of the folks on this forum are both highly intelligent and well-behaved.
My view is that different authors of the Hebrew Bible had different views, that the view of Ecclesiastes was different from the author of 1 Samuel which was (very) different from the view of Paul, etc. You’re right, the author of 1 Samuel does not believe in annihilation at death.
I have a question about Jewish cosmology. In Jewish cosmology, where did demons exist? Did they only exist on earth and in Sheol, or were there beliefs in demons who existed in some celestial realm above the firmament, as mythicists try to argue?
Most of the time they are imagined as floating around in the air surrounding us.
Yeshua was born, circumcised, dedicated to Yahweh, baptised, and then he preached the Kingdom of his Father (in Aramaic this God was Elah and in Hebrew Yahweh). I think his message was the Kingdom of his personal God. He wanted God to rule and reign over planet Earth. Unfortunately, this Kingdom which he preached never arrived. The elites at the Sanhedrin rejected his gospel as they may have thought that Yeshua wanted to exalt himself as God. Yeshua was viewed as a false Messiah in the eyes of the Jewish elites. After his death, however, all changed as he ‘appeared’ to many (in vision). This ‘appearance’ led gradually to his exaltation into a God (equal with Yahweh). This was a big mistake IMO and this led to our current apostate Christianity and the Trinity. We need another Messiah to arrive with the same message (the Kingdom of Yahweh/Father). If all humans accepted the Father as King, Ruler, Creator, God…then a world of peace, freedom, prosperity could emerge. This is how I view scripture for these end times. D
Unlikely Yeshua would have understood the idea of planet Earth.