Loading...In this discussion of God’s wrath, I want to emphasize that it is not an isolated view of this or that biblical author in the Hebrew Bible. It is a highly pervasive view. God punishes those who disobey him, and he destroys anyone who might lead his people astray into disobedience.
Here is how I talk about God’s active role in suffering in my book’s God’s Problem (Harper One, 2008)
******************************
The thematic idea that God punishes disobedience drives the narrative of all five books of the Pentateuch. In some ways it comes to a climax in the final book, Deuteronomy. The title of this book literally means “Second Law”; in fact it is not a second law that is given in the book – instead, the book describes the second time the Law was given to the children of Israel by the prophet Moses. The way the narrative sequence works is this. In the book of Exodus God saved Israel from its slavery in Egypt and miraculously allowed it to escape the pursuing armies of Pharaoh at the Red Sea (or sea of reeds). He then led the people to Mount Sinai where he gave them his Law (Exodus and Leviticus). The people were to march north and enter the Promised Land. But when they came to the edge of the land, they sent out spies who came back warning them that they would not be able to conquer the land because the inhabitants were too fierce (Numbers 13-14). Because the people refused to believe that God would be behind them to do what he commanded – take the land and destroy its inhabitants – God punished the children of Israel by refusing to allow any of them to enter the promised land (sin brings punishment). As he tells Moses: “none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt…and have not obeyed my voice shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors” (Num. 14:22-23).
And so, God had the people of Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years, until the entire generation (except for the one faithful spy, Caleb, and the new Israelite commander, Moses’ successor Joshua) died off. After forty years, God ordered Moses to deliver to the people – who were not there the first time around – the Law he had received on Mount Sinai forty years earlier. The book of Deuteronomy narrates Moses re-giving of the Law.
Near the end of the book, after he has delivered the commandments and ordinances, Moses tells the people in clear and forthright terms that if they want to succeed and prosper under God’s guiding hand, they will obey the Law. If, however, they disobey, they will be cursed to experience horrible and excruciating suffering. Deuteronomy 28 is key to understanding the entire theology of the book, for here the “blessings and cursings” are set out in graphic terms, as Moses tells the people:
If you will only obey the LORD your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you… Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, and the fruit of your livestock; blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in and blessed shall you be when you go out. (Deut. 28:1-6)
Moses goes on to indicate that if the people obey the Law, they will defeat all of their enemies in battle, they will have bounteous crops, they will prosper and thrive. On the other hand, if they disobey, they can expect just the opposite:
“Cursed shall you be… The LORD will send upon you disaster, panic, and frustration in everything you attempt to do until you are destroyed…. The LORD will make the pestilence cling to you until it has consumed you…. The LORD will afflict you with consumption, fever, inflammation, with fiery heat and drought, and with blight and mildew…. The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; … Your corpses shall be food for every bird of the air and animal of the field…. The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt, with ulcers, scurvy, and itch, of which you cannot be healed. The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness, and confusion of mind. (Deut. 28: 15-28)
And so there it is. Why does disaster strike God’s people? Why do they experience epidemics and disease? Why are there drought and failed crops, and military defeat and mental illness, and all the woes experienced by the people of God? God is punishing them for disobedience. This is the prophetic view of suffering put into a historical narrative.
Other Historical Books of Scripture
Not only is this prophetic view found in the book of Deuteronomy, it also dominates the great bulk of the other historical narratives of the Old Testament, most of which were highly influenced by the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Six large narratives following Deuteronomy – Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings – are referred to by scholars as the Deuteronomistic History, because as has long been known (or at least thought), these books were written by an author (or authors) who accepted the basic perspectives found in the book of Deuteronomy and allowed these perspectives to guide how they described the history of the people of Israel in the centuries following the days of Moses (roughly 1250 BCE).[i]
As I previously indicated, these books narrate how the people finally conquered the Promised Land (Joshua), how the tribes of Israel lived as separate communities before a king was appointed over them all (Judges), how kings Saul, David, and Solomon came to rule over all of Israel (1 and 2 Samuel; 1 Kings), and then how the kingdom was divided in half after Solomon’s death, up until the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BCE and then the destruction of the southern kingdom by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (1 and 2 Kings).
These six biblical books, then, cover the history of Israel over a seven-hundred year period; but there is one perspective that dominates the entire narrative. It is the perspective of sin and punishment: when Israel obeys God, follows his will, and keeps his Law, it prospers and thrives; when it disobeys, it is punished. Finally (at the end of 2 Kings) it pays the ultimate price of disobedience: it is destroyed by foreign armies.
[i]. For a good discussion of the Deuteronomistic History, see Steven McKenzie, “The Deuteronomistic History,” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 160-68.
You have written before that the earliest Christians thought that the coming kingdom of God was imminent. Particularly the verses like: “this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” seem to point it out. Why can’t “this generation” refer to a future generation,so that it is a prophecy? Why do you think that they thought that it was imminent instead of a future event?
Just because that’s normally what these words mean (always mean?). For example, if I say, “This generation of kids lacks all responsibility,” I wouldn’t be talking about a generation of kids a thousand years from now, but the current one. See what I mean?
This is how the Kriya Yoga Master, Paramahansa interpreted Matt. 16:28. “Jesus concludes: “I truthfully declare unto you that there are some advanced devotees who are standing around me now who shall feel the all-powerful Cosmic Consciousness, ‘the kingdom of God,’ within their human consciousness, within ‘the Son of man kingdom’ of soul consciousness, before they make a transition from their present bodily existence to another plane.”
That was imminent because of the disciples advanced evolution. Also during the future centuries there have been advanced saints that have experience this “soul consciousness.” Comments?
Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Second Coming of Christ: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You (p. 972). Self-Realization Fellowship. Kindle Edition.
WM,
Yogananda was my first love in mysticism, in 1971. I since have moved on to Sant Mat in the Radha Soami Satsang Beas, of Beas, India in northern Punjab. If you liked Yogananda, you’ll love Sant Mat (Saints’ Teachings). One book, by disciple Randolphe Stone, ‘Mystic Bible’, 1956, is A MUST read. Every major narrative in these ancient Judaic books is laid before the reader in exquisite mystic detail. I highly recommend it. I saw a copy for $254, used, last week on Amazon. That would be a bargain. I’ve seen $400, used.
The same theme of God-realization is told and retold. This is what the Bible is REALLY about. It has changed my life for good. I hope you take a look at the other Sant Mat titles at >Scienceofthesoul.org<
All titles are published in-house at cost, and shipped anywhere in the world for free. Fountains of knowledge from real Masters.
Yeah, that is what it wpuld normally mean. However, I could be talking about a future generation like this: “100 years into the future there will be a great catastrophy for a whole generation, this generation will be cursed.” “This generation” then still means the future generation. Since Jesus is talking about future events all the time in the context it seems reasonable to conclude that that is what it meant. Why do you think it isn’t?
First, he would have said “that” instead of “this.” But more important, he would have said it as you indicated: “In 1200 years, that generation will not pass away….” It’s a bit hard to see why he would say so as a warning to the people listening to him, I suppose.
Some christians I’ve talked to have responded to this by saying generation means “king of people” or “lineage”. What do you think of that view? What do most Biblical scholars think about the translation of this passage?
You mean “kind” of people? Yes, it’s a possible translation for the word in some contexts, but it doesn’t make any sense in this one, since Jesus then would be saying “be ready because it could come at any time! In fact, the Jewish people will not pass off the face of the planet before it comes!” No Jew thought Jews would *ever* disappear from the earht as a people, so warning that the end could come before that happened wouldn’t make any sense. Throughout he is telling his disciples what *they* have to look out for (you… you … you… this generation…)
I also wonder what you think about the following response from Gotquestions:
“Luke 9:27 says, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus’ promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated “kingdom” can also be translated “royal splendor,” meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration” why do you disagree?
In the context of the Gospels, Mark (taken over by Matthew) may well have been suggesting that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of the statement — though how that even would represent the kingdom of GOd “having come in power” is a little bit hard to understand. But my interest is not in how Mark interpreted the saying 40-45 years later but what they might have meant to Jesus if/when he said it. THat’s a key difference I would say….
How do we know that that is what Jesus would have meant?
We have to disambiguate it from teh context Mark has placed it in and put it in the broader context of what we know more broadly about the life and teachings of Jesus.
The kingdom came and was revealed at acts 2 with the pentecost upper room event, and the age culminated in the fulfillment of all prophecy by the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Now, the people of God live, or should live life for God loving their neighbor as themselves and Loving their God above all..
Hence we are judges of all the earth, with great compassion for the downtrodden and desolate, widows and orphans, those who claim Christianity shouldn’t be heaping the profits from their prophesy siminars, full of lies, but should be helping to better the world though good influence, love of people and cultures. Sorry, I’ve gone to far…
As a believer, you have to bend the scriptures to reconcile it with evidence based events & since there is no kingdom or any thing of that nature.
Christian leaders across history turned to “Interpreation” to reconcile the thousands of problems in New Testament alone, not to mention the disasters of the “Old Testament”.
Let’s take your interpretation & dissect it
If Kingdom of Heaven = Transfiguration,
why Jesus preached to people about something only 3 supposedly will see?
How can (human fluorescense) transfiguration be a kingdom? & if so who are members of the kingdom? & what will they benefit & contribute to that mysterious kingdom?
Jesus perceived by Paul to be the “Logos” had been in glory all along, what would you achieve by inspiring awe in 3 of your disciples? Imagine as if you are Jeff Bazos, what is in it when you show your closest managers the wealth you have? It is useless, meaningless action showing low self esteem & seeking to impress your followers.
The more plausible explanation that the whole thing was an oral legend trying to establish glory to cover his shameful public execution
There’s no indication that Jesus leaving is “seeing the Kingdom of God” or “Seeing the Son of Man coming in power”. They don’t see anything special, except Moses, Elijah, and a scary cloud. And the Son of Man isn’t coming in power, he’s clearly leaving.
Interesting Bart; but there is a distinction surely between disobedience of God’s Law, and disobedience of (maybe arbitrary) divine commands.
As in the famous Talmudic passage.
“Bava Metzia 59b.
Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2)
….Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.”
Obviously, this is in its full development very much later than the New Testament. But the key issue; that the giving of the Law – so that no “It is not in heaven” but accessible to human debate – is liberating, as well as constraining.
Max,
This very issue alone was the catalyst that recently caused me to abandon Christian orthodoxy.
Jesus–“Immediately after those days [after the destruction of Jerusalem]…they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds.”
Paul–“We which are alive and remain at the coming…”
Peter–“The end of all things is at hand”
John–“It is the last hour”
James–“The coming of the Lord is at hand.”
John of Patmos “The things that must soon take place…I come soon”
… Us talking about this 20 centuries later
Great 👏 that you critically thought through this mess.
The whole culture can be seen again with contemporary example like when US invaded Iraq, Faithful men rose to defend their culture, land and the way of living using Quran and Hadith [Islam].
They defied American troops and fought against them, they were not criminals by nature but dominantly patriots who got united by reverting to the fundamental form of Mohammed’s Islam. Fundamental religion always promise success, motivation & favouritism by the divine.
Another example these days is Taliban in Afghanistan.
Between 200 BCE to 200 CE, Jewish faithfuls seeked political independence from Seleucids then the Romans.
Yeshua [Jesus] thought of himself to be PURE & was selected to be the leader in order to lead a revolution [Like Albaghdadi] and that is why he was preaching people to change their way of living in order to integrate in his kingdom. He thought though that a cosmic [like a heavenly nuclear] intervention to install him as a king [delusional]. Saul Paul thought of Yeshua as the Mashiach [leader king] & concluded very eccentric views [Pauline Christianity] which currently dominate Christianity under various presentations though conflicting.
Dr. Ehrman,
It seems that God’s chosen don’t really have a good winning record in battle back then. Is it possible these stories are to compensate for the losses and perhaps terrorize outsiders who might hear these stories and decide to just leave His people alone or at least take them seriously?
My sense is that they were inhouse literature and that the authors had no expectation that non-Israelites would read them.
Bart, perhaps synchronistically (guided by the hand of ?) this came across my email this morning from Rabbi Sacks on covenant and story.
https://rabbisacks.org/ki-tavo-5781/
It’s another way of looking at the stories in the HB and what they mean to the religious community (after all, they are the scriptures of the Jews and were (borrowed? Stolen? Culturally appropriated?)) by Christians.
Yes indeed, they were. Thanks!
You skipped the part where the women will be so hungry they will eat their babies. And this is in a book Christians think children should read.
When was Deuteronomy written down?
It is usually thought to be mid 7th c. BCE.
Hi Bart–
I bought your textbook that you are quoting from but haven’t started reading it yet. I have a question that may or may not be covered in your textbook.
I recently read “Who wrote the Bible?” by Richard Friedman (which should probably be called “Who Wrote the Pentateuch,” but I quibble). As you no doubt know it’s an explanation for a non-scholarly audience of essentially the Documentary Hypothesis, plus some of his own takes on it. One of those takes is that the D author of the Documentary Hypothesis also wrote the book of Joshua. Given what you have said in the past few posts it seems like this might be the case, but I’m not sure. What is the general scholarly take at this point in time of that particular view, and what is yours if it’s different? Thanks!
That’s not a widely held view, but of course it’s possible. More commonly it is thought that Joshua through 2 Kings was the work of the Deuteronomistic historian much later; Deuteronomy is usually dated to the mid 7th century BCE and the Deuteronomistic history apparently after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the 6th c.
Was it common in the ancient world for cultures to have relationships with their gods similar to that of the Israelites? Did their gods have laws that resulted in severe punishment for disobedience?
If instead other gods were seen as capricious with respect to punishment, could a case be made that Israel’s god was more moral? Punishment for disobedience was very severe but there were also great rewards for obedience. God was holding up his side of the bargain and restraining any impulses he had to break it.
In other words could this be seen as moral progress of a sort-without ignoring the fact that a lot more progress was needed?
Gods were often looking for certain kinds of behavior, and often did have custom that were to bre followed in worshioping them. But we don’t have anything like the extensive Torah for other gods. Israel was fairly exceptional that way. (Though there are very much briefer analogues: the Code of Hammurabi, e.g.)
I’ve read different things about whether-or perhaps when-the Israelites developed ideas about individual guilt and responsibility for sin. No doubt there are exceptions (you point out a mixed case in Ai) but my overall impression is that generally the whole nation was punished for widespread disobedience rather than just those who were disobedient.
Yet it seems like the very notion of sin against God is often held up as part of the development of a sense of individual guilt and responsibility for immorality.
Perhaps the rise of apocalypticism was the definitive development of a sense of individual guilt and responsibility, eg, all would be raised at the end of time with good individuals being rewarded and evil ones punished?
I wouldn’t say it was definitive, since ethical and religious views never are. And I’m not sure “guilt” is the concept most widely used in apocalytpic texts. A lot of it has to do with divine election, for example.
Hello Dr. Ehrman — While you’re working on your Revelation book: Have you read J. Denny Weaver’s construal of the book of Revelation as “narrative Christus Victor”? He sees Revelation as a message of encouragement to first-century Christians confronting the power of the Roman Empire. He identifies the 7 seals as the 7 imperial regimes between the crucifixion of Jesus under emperor Tiberius and the reign of Domitian (during whose reign he thinks the book was likely written), with identifying events during each corresponding reign.
At first glance, I suppose some of his explanations of Revelation’s imagery could be taken as reading (forcing) Weaver’s nonviolent themes into them, but I’d be curious to know if you’d find yourself agreeing with most of his interpretations of those images, and where that might lead you.
Weaver wrote a book called The Nonviolent Atonement — but when it comes to Revelation, I found his chapter in another anthology titled, Stricken by God?, edited by Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin, 2007. Weaver’s Chapter 14 in that book contains a 12-page section called “Revelation as narrative Christus Victor.” And you won’t have to buy into “Christus Victor” to see them.
No, I’m afraid I haven’t read it. That kind of approach used to be very common, using Revelation to interpret specific events not far from teh author’s time that had already been fulfilled.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm
“Each seal contains a symbolic reference to elements from the reign of the corresponding emperor.The unsuccessful effort to conquer by the rider on the white horse — he came out “conquering and to conquer” — makes an oblique reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus that occurred during the reign of Tiberius. Since Jesus did not stay dead, the imagery implies, the rider — Tiberius — had a temporary victory, or a victory that consisted of appearance only.”
more than oblique to me
A very relevant question to ask , is why so many of those stories probably are legendary? Historians, to this day, struggle to find historical evidence for these narratives, at least to the extent they describe, like for example :
* Creation myth
* Destruction led Eden to Babylon
* Abraham and his exodus/family
* King Solomon
* The Exodus and Moses, into Israel (or “Israel”), the land of God.
BUT,,,if they are not historical (to that extent), then what are these stories? For me, they all fit into a good spiritual pattern and, in my opinion, describe the relationship between God and man on a spiritual level, and the story of the fall and return back to God. Reading these stories in the Hebrew bible are in my mind not intended to be read literally as physical battles, all kinds of genocides and other atrocities. They rather describes a spiritual pattern, inside and a battle within. This is also, in my mind what the Book of Revelation is all about which describes, the internal development, spiritual ascentment, and the similarities is for me many when I read some of the narratives in the OT.
CONTINUE:
CONTINUE:
For example, as I understand the story of King Solomon and his fall, where his ambitions is almost a divine established kingdom, with his devine inspired wisdom and divine relationship. As many times, the “pattern” shows Salomons turn away from God, the devine path, the divine law for kings (people/soul as royal representatives of Gods rule) according to Deuteronomy 17 . Solomon fall/splitt his way from Yahweh symbolised together with his achieved welth , a state of greedyness with his unimaginable wealth, earns 666 talents of gold a year, multiply horses and chariots, and finally multiply wives. As I read it, the almost alternative creation myth in Revelation 12 and 13 describes some of it, and in chapter 13 we see this first beast from the sea, which is similar to the “Ego” , and nurished on the first beast (Ego)another beast from the land (conciousness) appears. This beast seeks its fullfillment in part of the “unspiritualised” values of the Ego which very well could resemble the structures/organisations of our very civilization where the only goal is greed and egoism.
The human name is exactly optimal the human unspiritualized name and its endeavour, 666, which coincidentally or not is the same (as I read it) as the greed, egoistic number of King Solomons earning of 666 talents of gold.
The wars, sins and wraths often described in OT must in my mind be seen as inner emblems, inner patterns. These are not historical supported events, so the question should be, Why ? The answer is that they are spiritual messages.
Your research on OT shows there were inconsistencies and untruths. Genesis also contains massive cover-up.
Gen. 21:9-10 “..Sarah saw the son of Hagar,…mocking. ..she said…Cast out this bondwoman and her son..”
When Isaac was weaned, and the sending away of Ishmael took place, Ishmael was an adolescent of 16, his younger brother, 2 years old.
Gen. 21:15 ”.. she(Hagar) cast the child (Ishmael) under one of the shrubs.”
The story changed completely and it ended with Ishmael, from an adolescent suddenly transformed into an infant. It is too obvious the story does not make sense.
The scribes had deliberately intended to eliminate Ishmael from history. They unwittingly deceived his own people and those billions of the Western World who took the OT as their word of God.
Ishmael, whom God had blessed and made many brilliant promises were unfortunately erased and forgotten completely.
According to the LAW, Deuteronomy. 21:15-17 Ishmael was to received DOUBLE INHERITANCE. This massive cover-up cheat billions of innocents who will be denied Paradise. That is why Jesus condemned them vehemently in John 8:39-44.
Please I would strongly urge you to rightfully do research on Ishmael to save the Western World.
kt,
Yup. My thoughts. exactly. It continues into the New Testament, as well. Water to wine (clearly the Master’s power to transmute all things), walking on water (at FOURTH WATCH, 3 to 6 am, meditation time), the spiritual *sound* (Word) of the rushing wind of John 3:8 (that you cannot tell where it comes or goes, same as the Shabd, or Sound Current in meditation), Matt. 6:22 (single all-seeing eye), raising Lazarus, “Did I not tell you, that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?” — ‘glory’ being seeing the Master within when you are spiritually ‘raised from the dead,’ not Lazarus raised. The story in John 11 is just a frame for the picture.
The mastership installation of James is told in the gnostic Apocalypses of Nag Hammadi and borrowed, converted, in tendentious fashion, in the Betrayal of Christ story in all four Gospels. I found two dozen parallel inverted details connecting the two. The early Church was determined to hide the successor. (All about THE MONEY.)
JUDASWASJAMES.COM
Do you think that much of the history of Ancient Israel was originally a type of morality tale making the point that if you obey god you get rewarded and if you disobey god you get punished? Centuries later they became accepted as actual history in Israel.
Yup, I think most of the narratives are telling just that tale. But at the same time I don’t think that means the readers imagined they never happened. They probably thought both: they did happen and they are teaching an important moral.
Yup, I think most of the narratives are telling just that tale. But at the same time I don’t think that means the readers imagined they never happened. They probably thought both: they did happen and they are teaching an important moral.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I haven’t read Heaven and Hell yet, but I just wanted to ask you:
How does fire fit into what will happen to unbelievers at the resurrection… is that how they will be annihilated?
And what is the lake of fire in terms of eschatology… is it also just a place of annihilation?
Thank you!
Yup, everyone is destroyed by fire — if they aren’t killed at “the last battle” in Rev. 19.
Further to my recent query re the Emmaus story and the swift return by the two travellers to Jerusalem to tell the disciples of their experience.
As I understand it there is some debate as to who said what to whom. We read that someone said that the risen Jesus had appeared to Simon. It appears to me that the English translation of Luke 24:34 is unclear as to whether it was the Emmaus pair who said this to the disciples or if the disciples conveyed this to the returnees. I read it as the Emmaus couple saying it but I understand it turns on the verb ‘λεγοντες’ and this issue is complicated by the fact that there is a textual variant (Bezae) which renders the word ´λέγοντας´.
I know that this seems a fairly trivial query but I wonder if you are able to tease this out for me, please.
Yes, it’s an interesting issue. IN virtually all manuscripts, it is the eleven and those with them who are saying that the Lord had risen and appeared to Simon (“saying” is in the accusative case), in codex Bezae it is those who had been on the road to Emmaus who say that the Lord …appeared to Simon (“saying” is in the nominative, referring to the two who had been on the road)
“God punishes disobedience” and the great manipulation in the first book of Pentateuch. Abraham’s wife, Hagar, was condemned by the scribes. She was described as maid, concubines, bondwoman and wife.
Hagar was actually a princess. Her 12 sons were called princes in Gen.17:20. Their residences were castles, and towns. Several words associated with royalty were applied to her sons. Hagar was the only wife of Abraham that communicated with God in Gen.16:13;1;Gen.21:16-17;18-20.
A wife, is a free woman with many legal privileges which concubine/bondwoman does not enjoy. How can Hagar be both? Scribes purposely humiliated her with degrading status like concubine and bondwoman so that Ishmael deserve nothing and was deprived of any religious significance and contributions without realizing that it was the entire Jewish population who was on bondage for ages. Genesis 25:5 “And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac” who was actually never blessed by God during the life time of Abraham. The scribes depicted Abraham as an unjust father and eventually his favorite son was obliterated.
I appeal to you, as a good Samaritan, and recognized scholar to conduct a research on Ishmael and his contributions.
Did the mythological “first humans” – Adam, Eve and eventually their children, have any notion of what “sin” was or the word actually meant, when at that “time” there were no religions, Ten Commandments, theology, or even the six-hundred plus religious laws concocted by the Hebrews?
No, not in the modern sense.
What are we to make of Matthew 5:45? God makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous
As you can imagine, there are different interpretations. One is that this is true in this life, but in the life to come — watch out! (Another is that God loves everyone….)
When the “historical” books talk about obeying God and his laws, the emphasis is on worshipping Yahweh and only Yahweh. 2 Kings 17 lists the reasons why the northern kingdom was destroyed; they are all cultic sins.
The prophets did speak more about mistreatment of the vulnerable as the reason for God’s wrath, but I’ve always been struck by the way Joshua-Kings seems less interested in that.
I have been struck by that too. Those two foci: worshiping only God, and demanding justice for the vulnerable seem to be parallel themes. Sometimes they seem to me to be strongly connected and other times at odds. You can roughly divide the 10 Commandments between them with the laws about worship, idolatry, miss use of God’s name, and the Sabbath fitting into the theme of faithful worship, and the rest dealing more with just human relations. In the New Testament Jesus teaches that these are the two aspects of faith: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.
The theology of the group (Moonies – Unification Church – UC) that I belonged to in the 1970s let God off the hook by claiming that He could end everything and/or stop suffering, but chose to allow the fallen angel Lucifer/Stan to inflict the suffering described in the OT because of human decisions to disobey (starting in the Garden with Adam and Eve, and Cain killing Abel), thus affording humans free will, to choose to be His children rather than robotic animals under God’s control. If humans choose the right path, God will disallow Satan’s infliction of pain and if they follow him (again, in this description, God is not directly inflicting the pain), and are adopted into the Messiah’s family (Jesus then, which became a spiritual family creating a special Paradise, but not Heaven, Rev. Moon now – heaven on earth and hereafter, eventually), humans become godlike children. In the idea of the UC, the universe works on a number scheme and so, 40 years is a number that would appease. The theology is almost like a cosmic chess game. Is there anything in Jewish theology, or early Christian beliefs, that remotely touches on these ideas?
The early Christians did not talk about being able to put an end to Satan’s reign by improving human behavior, no (nor did Jews). The more common idea was that God was going to have to intervene without human assistance. Christian theologians did start to talk about people becoming “gods” in a sense, but it was only by faith in Christ and obedience to him, and it would never in itself lead to the downfall of Satan.
After reading your post above, I am reminded of the current theology called “prosperity theology” which emphasizes the individual as opposed to the community emphasis in the Torah. Several authors have placed thoughts about individual wealth on the lips of Jesus.
Is it “probable” that women were not actually the first eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ? I agree the women were the first to witness an *empty tomb* (since every gospel corroborated that) but I’m wondering if the evidence strongly supports them meeting Jesus.
1. Paul strangely never mentions it in his list. I know scholars say he avoided mentioning the women because he wanted to build a culturally compelling argument. But is that a legitimate reason or simply conjecture? Paul doesn’t strike me as a guy who was interested in political correctness. After all, he advocated for women to be regarded as equals to men to some degree (Gal 3:28). He also praises a list of women that aided the church of Rome (Rom 16). He speaks highly of the service of Pheobe as a deaconess (diakonos).
2. Luke, Mark and John say the group of women only observed an empty tomb, while none reported to the 11 as actually seeing Jesus.
3. Matthew’s entire narrative contradicts the rest almost in every way.
Wouldn’t this indicate that the most likely scenario is that the women were the first to see an empty tomb, but not necessarily a risen Jesus?
My view is that Mary Magdalene had some kind of vision of Jesus (historically), that is, not a group of women; and there were controversies early on whether it was she or Peter that was the first to have one. The conflict is reflected in a number of texts, from Luke to the Gospel of Mary, etc.
…. This may not have insignificant theological ramifications, but I find the question interesting nonetheless.
You wrote: “…there is one perspective that dominates the entire narrative. It is the perspective of sin and punishment: when Israel obeys God, follows his will, and keeps his Law, it prospers and thrives; when it disobeys, it is punished.”
Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) metaphor seems to allude to this law/sin/punishment perspective:
Numbers 33:55
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as thorns in your eyes (LXX σκόλοπες ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς) and barbs in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell.
Paul’s “thorn” became a prelude to revelation:
2 Cor 12:9
“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Does Paul’s “grace… power… in weakness” revelation subvert the Deuteronomistic law/sin/punishment perspective?
Yes, I’d say it does. Paul is working with an apocalyptic view of what life is like in this world for the righteous, which very much stands at odds with the view of most of the Old Testament, including the prophets and Deuteronomy. Paul himself, of coruse, would not have seen it that way, but the views really are at odds.
Dr. Ehrman, this is off-topic but I’ve become aware of a book and I’m curious about your reaction to it. It is called CREATING CHRIST by James S Valliant, and offers a new take on Jesus. The book claims that Christianity was created by the Roman emperors as a way to control the Jewish population. Mr. Valliant is a prosecuting attorney who doesn’t seem to have any training in academic history. Do you know about and have any thoughts on his ideas?
My main thought is that he should indeed receive some training in academic history, and espcially the history of Roman, Jewish, and Christian antiquity. There aren’t any scholars who would take a book like this seriously.
Thank you.
In 621, Yahweh’s temple was refurbished, and during the process, a scroll of the law was found and taken to the King. Josiah’s concern that no one had ever kept the agreement and the observation of a Passover unlike any kept since Judges (II Kings 23:22) suggest that the scroll contained new regulations. Do you think that the bulk and spirit of the 7th BCE scroll is contained in our present book of Deuteronomy and can we use this as a terminal date for the text?
A completely different hypothesis, one that I support, surmises that Deuteronomy originated in the northern kingdom, possibly at the old amphictyonic shrine at Shechem; that its time of origin was in the century or so preceding the Josianic reforms; and that its preservation and introduction in Judah was the work of conservative, rural, Levitical priests. Arguments that the book must have come from the late Exilic or post-Exilic period have not been persuasive for me. Nor have the theories that the bulk of Deuteronomy originated in Solomon’s time or in Samuel’s day.
(See G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, Studies in Biblical Theology, 9 or R. H. Kennett, Deuteronomy and the Decalogue)
I am curious about the use of the word “sin” in general, before the law, and after the law, then the new testement, it seems to be a catch all word for trespass, offence, punishment, and reconciliation for offences committed.
Is the useage related to the writer/s of the penatuch being from a later generation and utilized the vocabulary they were used to or is it due to later translation that “sin” is used rather than other words.
Like most words, “sin” means different things to different people in different contexts — sometimes in the same generation. If I say I’m “living in sin” it connotes something different from “this ice cream is simply sinful.” I’m not sure what you mean that “sin” gets used sometimes for “punishment” and “reconcilation” though.
Sir I know you are a historian who is an expert in Christian history but have you ever felt inclined to write a book on other historical figures aside apart from Christianity? I hear a bunch of controversy on Christopher Columbus. Every year on Columbus day they say he didn’t discover America, These milenials want to tear down his statue, I can’t find any experts on the life of Christopher Columbus. I would appreciate it if you could point me in a proper direction sir. Thank you.
No, not really. It took me many many years of hard study to become an expert in early Christianity, and I’m not going to replicate that for other fields of study!