(14 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I discussed whether the fact that Revelation is filled with symbolism and not to be taken literally should affect our evaluation of its presentation of violence and domination. Now I move on to ask whether its views reflect those of Jesus himself. I resume where I left off:
******************************
To say that this is all “just a story” is to miss the point rather spectacularly. The story conveys a message, an understanding of right and wrong and of what really matters before the Almighty. The book celebrates judgment, bloody vengeance, and divine wrath – not love, mercy, forgiveness, or reconciliation. In the end, the Lamb who was once bloodied avenges his blood a thousand-fold. For John, Christ came the first time in meekness, but he is coming back in power. History will be guided by the vengeance and wrath of God and his Lamb.
Is this what Jesus thought? I obviously cannot provide an analysis of the historical Jesus’ teachings in the time I have left. But I will stress that Jesus’ teachings about power and dominance in the Gospels are stark, counter-cultural, and counterintuitive. It could easily be argued that these are the most striking aspect of his proclamation. The way to greatness is through humility; the way to power is through service; the way to mastery is through slavery. Jesus decidedly did not teach that his followers should submit to serving as slaves for a short period so they would be able to cudgel their masters into submission later, bind them in chains, and force them to spend the rest of their lives in abject obedience.
This the great irony of Jesus’ teaching. Service is not
Are you interested in this material? The blog is inexpensive to join and every penny of your fee goes to charity. And you get tons for your money. So why not? Click here for membership options
Nietzsche, though ultimately not an admirer of Jesus, thought him far superior to Christianity as it emerged and as one who “truly practiced what he preached.” Here is something he says about jesus’s death:
“The ‘bringer of glad tidings’ died as he lived, as he taught–not to ‘redeem mankind’ but to demonstrate how one ought to live. What he bequeathes to mankind is his practice: his bearing before the judges, before the guards, before the accusers, and every kind of calumny and mockery — his bearing on the cross…. And he entreats, he suffers, he loves with those, in those, who are doing evil to him…. Not to defend oneself, not to grow angry, not to make responsible…But not to resist even the evil man — to love him…”
This seems like an attractive alternative to understanding Jesus’s death as atonement or even, as in Luke, a stimulus to repentance and/or an example of martyrdom to imitate. Do you know whether, in the history of Christianity, this has ever been a major way of understanding Jesus’s death? Also, I don’t see any overlap with the historical Jesus’s understanding of his death. Do you?
Yes, it has been — though usually by those who also saw his death as an atonement. But, e.g., Albert Schweitzer is not too far from that. ANd yes, I don’t think Jesus thought of his death in teh abstract in any way at all. He was was condemned and on a cross before he probably even knew what was happening…
What was Christians’ response to Revelation through the centuries leading up to canonizaton? Were there any concerns about its hyperbolic payback themes?
NOt so much the payback theme as the idea that the future kingdom would involve a sensual existence in a city of gold with every physical need gloriously satisfied.
Probably you will cover this . . . and maybe it is obvious, but why would this book, so at odds with the other teachings, have been made sacred and included in scriptures? When I say obvious, I suppose it served the purposes of church authorities, who, if not at the time, certainly later came to live like Roman overlords. I also suppose it served to “give hope” to those oppressed that eventually their suffering would be avenged by the the likes of Paul who told them to embrace their suffering as a way to know God/Jesus.
Ah, I wasn’t going to cover that in my blog posts, but I do discuss it in my book!
“God’s ways are not our ways. Our ways involve violence, material possessions, and most of all dominance. God, and Jesus, will have none of it, not now and not in eternity.”
The God of the Hebrew Bible or the God of Jesus?
Doesn’t the former’s ways involve mass murder and land theft?
The God of Jesus. And, yes he does.
I think you make many valid points, but I think the danger of this view is that it leads some people to view Jesus out of context, to see him almost as a modern revolutionary SJW. It is important to remember that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew of the first century CE who believed that the kingdom of God was coming soon. While all people who inherited the kingdom of God would be equal, it was not going to be a democracy of God.
Service to others was necessary to live a righteous life, and in that sense it was a goal, but it was also the means to inherit the kingdom of God. In the parable of the rich man (Mark 10:17-21) the question posed to Jesus was “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus clearly thought that the kingdom was coming soon, and it would necessarily involve some sort of judgment, even if not the destruction and torture that John the Revelator describes.
I dont know, there is a lot in the gospels about people who do not accept the message getting destroyed. Doesnt seem too different to revelation? In the parable in Luke 19:27 the enemies are to be brought and killed before the king, or do you think this Is a later interpolation?
Surely the point of the apocalyptic message is that the son of man from heaven will smash the Romans in setting up the new kingdom?
Yup, I’ll be dealing with that and showing the differences between Jesus’ vision and John’s.
As you say, the historical Jesus didn’t teach loving service in the present so that in the future his followers could practice domination and violence-as John seems to say in Revelation.
But isn’t future violence against and punishment of their former masters a common feature of this type of literature from oppressed and persecuted peoples, especially when they are also minorities? Even the historical Jesus predicted severe future destruction and/or punishment of those who had not repented by the time God’s kingdom arrived.
It seems like one big difference in Revelation is that, in the future Kingdom of God, Jesus’s followers would become the violent dominators rather than continue as practitioners of loving service.
Yes, it is common; I’ll later be talking about the difference between Jesus’s view of destruction and John’s.
With Revelation contrary to Jesus’s teachings, why was it included in the NT? Did Christian theologians decide it was necessary to scare people in to belief?
I deal with this in my book. But one interesting reason is that both God and Christ call themselves the Alpha and the Omega (the beginning and end of all things), and fourth century theologians discussing the nature of Christ found this a useful text for showing that Christ was not subordinate to God the Father but fully equal.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy replies:
The Life of the Biblical Jesus Christ
Blessed are you who are now hungry,
for you will be satisfied.
Luke 6: 21
The Life of Octavian / Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus
1. …As consul for the 11th time [23 BC], I bought up grain as a private individual and distributed twelve grain rations, and in my 12th year of tribunician power [12 BC], I gave 400 sesterces each for a third time. These handouts of mine never reached fewer than 250,000 men.
4. …As consul for the thirteenth time [2 BC], I gave 60 denarii each to the commoners who at that time were in receipt of public grain; these were a few more than 200,000 men.
Chapter 18: …I gave out distributions of grain and money from my own granary and assets, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes to many more.
Augustus, translated by Alison E. Cooley. Res Gestae Divi Augusti [The Deeds of the Divine Augustus],
Chapter 15 [Latin text], p. 74; Chapter 18 [Latin text], p. 78.
Seneca [teacher and advisor to Nero] believes true giving is not transactional. Reciprocity or gratitude – although they may be forthcoming – can neither be expected or demanded.
All about recognition, Bart?
Although the people of Rome may not have been charitable to the poor, didn’t the Ceasers give away grain to solicit support from the poor? Of course, that is not compassion which is to your point. But the truth is, no one can rule without consent from the population thus if 50% or greater are poor, then they need to be bought off. Also it was Gods decree that the Jews leave the corners of the field of crops to the poor and hungry, not Jewish compassion.
A good topic would be the existing Jewish view of poverty and wealth in the first century compared to the teachings attributed to Jesus. They were diametrically apart from the views and practices of the Jews of the first century.