Jesus believed there would be levels of reward in the coming Kingdom of God, as I began to show in my previous post. Could there be any problems, though? Any unruliness? Any need for discipline and judgment for people who did something illicit or harmful? Could or would people sin in the Kingdom of God?
These are tricky questions that Jesus never addresses directly in the canonical Gospels. I never even thought about them or realized they could be problems until, well, something like two weeks ago. My assumption since I became a sentient human being has always been that the afterlife for the saved would be perfect in every way, that there would be no pain, misery, suffering of any kind, no harm done to anyone, no sin or disobedience. A realm of perfection.
This indeed is what most people think about heaven today. But as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, Jesus had a different understanding than his modern day followers about the “Kingdom of God.” For him it was not
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Forgive me for bringing up a Japanese anime in the midst of such an intellectually stimulating discussion, but your post reminded me of *Neon Genesis Evangelion*, one of Japan’s most famous anime series.
A central concept is the “Human Instrumentality Project,” which envisions the dissolution of individual identities into a single collective consciousness.
Lately, when contemplating heavenly hierarchies and the nature of existence in the afterlife, I’ve begun wondering whether our fundamental assumptions might be mistaken.
What if individuality, as we understand it, no longer exists? What if time and space themselves lose their meaning? And what if our familiar cause-and-effect logic—that our actions in this life determine our fate in the next—simply no longer applies?
If so, wouldn’t the very concepts of heavenly hierarchies, rulers, and different levels of reward become meaningless?
I realize this differs considerably from the physical, earthly Kingdom of God that Jesus apparently envisioned.
Still, I increasingly find myself entertaining this possibility, even as a Christian—although perhaps these rather strange thoughts make me a “fake Christian” after all.
How does anyone know they’ll like rhe next life? Immortality won’t stop life’s entropies. Memories change.Any person resurrected there will be a different person out of their time and place which made them who they are.And everbody would change anyway after time .If a critical minded Jesus with a brain was alive past 2000 years he knows now he had wrong assumptions.
If we think of “sin” as separation from God and “sins” as the consequences of that separation, then the Kingdom of God would be sinless. But could it be perfect? Take a simple case. You and your partner feel sexual desire and you go about satisfying it. But having a desire means being in a less-than-perfect condition: you want something you don’t have. (Maybe this is Jesus’s point about no marriages.) But once you achieve perfection it’s over and the way is open for desire, for imperfection, to return. Perfection inevitably demands stasis, thus the KIngdom of God, if time still works in it, is of necessity imperfect. One way to keep it sinless even if imperfect would be to institute a government to hold any potential serpents, real or metaphorical, at bay. Therefore, King Jesus, etc. All this reminds me of what Cormac McCarthy said in a 1992 interview: “I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom.” That “give up their souls” is telling.
Professor, in analyzing and parsing what Jesus thought about his kingdom to come, don’t we somewhat assume he had a consistent view of it over his public ministry and also saw it as something that would work? When you get into the details, it seems like he did not think it through or perhaps was questioned and answered with something that he could get away with.
Yup, good point. I”m not sure he did have a consistent view. But I”m not sure there’s evidence that would help us decide one way or the other.
When I’m thirsty, I enjoy a cool drink way more than when I’m not. Will there be the “pain” of hunger and thirst in Heaven? I sure hope so!
“The Twelve:” maybe the understanding is that these are twelve positions, like our cabinet, and that Judas Iscariot would be replaced by someone else. Alternatively, it could be a name for the whole. Sort of like the Godfather: people ask how can the Corleones speak of the ‘Five Families’ – are they not one of the five, so they should speak of the ‘For Families.” The Five Families really means the Commission, but the film avoids that term, as it avoids ‘Mafia’ and ‘Cosa Nostra.’
Just playing Satan here (i.e. testing the theory). You’re probably right.
What do immortal beings in immortal bodies (so the earthly resurrection kingdom) need of a permanent marriage bond? IDK if they’ll be celibate or not, but they won’t need to have any more kids unless, somehow, a body gets destroyed and the former occupying soul needs a new one. Unless they’ll all be mechanical or grown. Or “magical” super-bodies, like in the post-resurrection story on the way to Emmaus.
I’m sure, as evolved/enlightened spirits, they’ll have sincere loving friendships and relationships. But after a trillion-trillion years with the same person, it could get a bit predicable! I’d guess the very structure of thought and relationships would change. One wonders as tech evolves, or abilities evolve (walking through walls, changing forms…..) maybe in that future kingdom a soul will take a trip to alpha centauri, for about X years at lightspeed. Just for fun. Who needs space suits and food? Maybe we’ll occupy ourselves in eternity exploring the cosmos.
Or perhaps it will be tech based, by normal means, and since we’ve conquered the genome and cured all disease, defeated aging, occasional normal bodies are needed. And thus, an earthly council, mimicking the heavenly council, will be needed to make decisions.
Maybe people will still have disagreements that need to be settled, by themselves or someone in authority. After all, disagreements and competition are not evil in themselves, nor are unique personalities. They will just be handled kindly, instead of Jerry Springer/Judge Judy freak-show style.
“Jesus believed there would be levels of reward in the coming Kingdom of God.”
Were the words in Matthew 5:17–20 spoken by the historical Jesus, or were they the composition of the author of Matthew?
Was the author of Matthew truly concerned with establishing hierarchies among believers in the Kingdom of God, or was he countering theological opponents in his own time and community (such as Pauline circles or early antinomians) decades after Jesus’s death?
Who was the primary target of Matthew 5:17–20: the one who “relaxes one of the least of these commandments,” or rather the one who “teaches others to do the same”?
Were there actually figures teaching others to set aside even the least of the commandments in Jesus’s historical context, or is this passage an anachronism reflecting later debates?
There is no problem here if Jesus had the same view of this as Paul. Paul believed that the reign of Jesus as king would be temporary. Jesus would turn control of the kingdom of God back to God and then he, Jesus, would rule no more (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Presumably, when that happened, the twelve disciples would stop ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.
So, the inequality under the reign of Jesus would only be temporary. Once the reign of Jesus ended, everyone would be equal. Everyone would have equal treasures, any governmental structures in the kingdom would be ended, judges would no longer be judges, inequalities would end, and leadership and ruling officials would cease doing those jobs since those jobs would no longer be necessary. And then everyone lives happily ever after.
“Jesus appears to think that in the coming kingdom there will need for leaders to … lead. Judges to judge. Officers to enforce. Policies to be followed.”
Why?
Certainly any kingdom has leaders and officers to enforce policies to be followed.
But… is it the same with the Kingdom of God?
Is the Kingdom of God just like any other kingdom?
Or is it something truly different?
“And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:42-45)
Hey Bart ehrman in the verses you cited in this post about the son of man. Why do you think Jesus is referring to a distinct person from himself is it just the 3rd person language that appears in the early material?
I think the sayings of jesus where he uses the third person (“He”) for the Son of Man are the ones he really spoke, and that historically Jesus himself did not think that he was the Son of Man. It was a poewrful figure to arrive from heaven in the near future.
““In the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, you also will be seated on twelve thrones, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28).”
“So, Jesus appears to have thought that in the coming kingdom he himself would be the King and the Twelve would be serving as leaders under him.”
Didn’t Jesus think that the Son of Man was someone other than himself?
If that is the case, then this verse seems to be saying that the Son of Man (not Jesus) will be seated on his throne of glory (so therefore as King?)
It’s difficult. Yes, I think Jesus did talk about someone other than himself being the son of man. I think he also thought the son of man would appoint him, jesus, to be the future king.
I am looking for the discussion as to why Mark did not include the birth narratives in his account. I seem to recall that the scholarly opinion is that he had not yet heard of them. While that seems most likely, could he also have known of multiple accounts and decided that none of them fit his narrative?
It’s possible. I suppose then, though, we would expect him at least to say something about JEsus being miraculously born even if he didn’t include a narrative of it (since it would be a rather important point to make if he knoew about it.)
I wonder if we are assuming that governance exists primarily to restrain wrongdoing. Scripture presents creation as an ordered reality before the Fall, and humanity’s original vocation included exercising dominion within that order. Perhaps the Kingdom’s hierarchy need not imply that sin or mischief will persist. It may instead reflect the positive purpose of delegated authority: not merely policing disorder, but enabling creation to flourish.
Perhaps the present age is not simply a failed experiment, but the historical arena in which free agents are formed, tested, and ultimately reconciled to God. Those who inherit the age to come would not merely be creatures who have never rebelled, like Adam before the Fall, but creatures whose freedom has been perfected through redemption. Their wills would be aligned with God’s order without their agency being abolished.
On this understanding, the Kingdom would not merely restore Eden; it would bring creation to its intended consummation. Authority would remain, but rebellion would not. The question, then, is whether perfect freedom requires the continuing possibility of evil or whether freedom reaches its fullest expression when creatures willingly participate in an order they no longer desire to disrupt.
There’s a theory that Judas was an essential part of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus’s death, and so he should be honored. Jesus’s promising Judas a throne seems to support that idea.
The leaders in Heaven could be just ceremonial leaders or organizers, not punishers of wrongs.
Bart, I was watching CJ Cornthwaite’s video on your channel about whether the gospels are fabricated. What is your view on it? Why can’t we think of gospels as literary creations like Homer’s work and not as historical accounts?
I’d say they are both literary and historical. The fact that we have independent accounts of the same traditions is an indication that the stories were being passed along orally (which, in any event, must have been the case, or there never would have been a convert woh believed in Jesus, since they would never have heard of him). Some of these were invented, many changed, but some almost certainly historical CJ agrees with that I think; he simply puts more emphasis on the creativeness of the evangelists.
How can the same Jesus (in Q) say there is a day of the Son of Man and they will rule in a kingdom sitting on thrones and also say the kingdom of heaven is like yeast slowly spreading out invisibly or a tiny seed growing slowly into a garden plant? It seems to me that there are two distinct and mutually exclusive definitions of “The Kingdom of God” coming from two different voices.
It’s similar to the parable of the mustard seed. The small beginning was “now” in Jesus’ ministry; it will take over the world when the day of judgmwnt comes.
Jesus thought of himself as an eternal messiah? No one would ever replace him? Did others believe in an eternal messiah? If there’s no death, then who would replace them?
If there’s no death, no one needs to be replaced.
Have you considered the possibility that poor peasants from Galilee might have had a very limited understanding of kingship and governance, and that the whole thing about “ruling” and “thrones” was an image of being “glorified,” rather than settling disputes or enforcing behavioral norms?
For a modern equivalent of this idea, think of “kings” in fairy tales or Disney movies. They seem to “be king” a lot more than they “do king.”
Yes, another good reference is the opening scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail!
Ironically, the idea of the “Coming Kingdom” is from Zoroasterism. You could not sell the idea to the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost. He said that the prophecies of the prophet Joel had been fulfilled. All of the Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled. The author of the Gospel of Matthew did not get the memo.
I have posted that a community of former Essenes existed alongside the community of the traditional disciples of Jesus who followed the leadership of the Twelve Apostles. The Essene community started around 180 BCE when Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid kingdom attempted to eliminate the Jewish religion in Judea. The Therapeutae community started among the Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. The Essene/Therapeutae community fused together their Jewish foundation with Zoroasterism, Yazidism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism from 180 BCE to 30 CE and beyond. But, on the Passover under Pontius Pilate, the Passover was interrupted by the midday darkness (and an earthquake). Three days later, a guarded tomb was missing its guards and it was missing its corpse. This split the Essene community. But, I don’t have a Ph.D, so there’s that, too.
“Kingdom of God” is a deliberate ethnocentric euphemism whose nuanced interpretation depends on the source’s Judaic eschatological orientation. Consider Jews from the traditional Hebrew Orthodox culture (Sadducees) viewed it as a physical kingdom. Jews from the Babylonian exilic influence (Pharisees) viewed it as an astral “Heaven.” Consider that a third more gnostic or transcendent view that interprets it as an internal spiritual enlightenment represented by divine incarnation or possession by the Holy Spirit. “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”