I have been discussing an apocalyptic understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. For the earliest followers of Jesus, coming to think that Jesus was raised from the dead provided both a confirmation and an elaboration of their understanding of the end times. Prior to Jesus’ death they had come to think that they were living at the end of the age and that God was soon to bring history to a climactic end through a cataclysmic act of judgment; this final event in history would involve a resurrection of all those who had died to face judgment. When these disciples came to think that Jesus himself had been raised, they naturally concluded that the resurrection had begun. Jesus was the first to rise; he had been exalted to heaven; he himself was to return to earth as the powerful Son of Man to raise all people from the dead. All this would happen very soon.
As it turns out there were other apocalyptic lessons that could be drawn from Jesus’ resurrection. One of the most interesting – and, oddly enough, least generally known – is one that comes to us from the writings of the apostle Paul. Most readers of the New Testament know that the resurrection of Jesus was inordinately important for Paul. But few (in my experience, at least) understand why the resurrection was so central to Paul’s understanding of salvation.
Paul was a die-hard apocalypticist, but he was a very different kind of thinker than the original disciples of Jesus. They were all lower-class, uneducated, Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee. He was a highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora. It’s true that he almost certainly did not have the highest level of education available in the Roman empire – he was not a great philosopher or one of the elite literata trained in advanced rhetoric – but by comparison with virtually all the other Christians of his day, he was in the top 1%. As a result, as you might suspect, his views and understandings of things were much more sophisticated than those of Jesus’ Galilean followers.
Paul’s apocalyptic views are complicated and not easy to explain – especially in a short blog post (the views I’m summarizing here can be seen in Paul’s letter to the Romans, especially chs. 5-8). For one thing, his views were more cosmic and all-embracing than we would find among other early Christians. For him, the forces that are aligned against God are not simply embodiments of evil such as demons and the Devil. They are great powers that hold sway over the world, including the powers of sin and death.
Sin, for Paul, was not simply an act of transgression, an action that was opposed to the will of God. It was that, for sure; but Paul had a view of sin that was much bigger and all-encompassing. Sin for Paul was also a kind of demonic power that existed in the world, a force that was trying to enslave people and make them do what was contrary both to their own will and contrary to the will of God. Sin came into the world with the transgression of Adam, and it dominated the human race. Everyone was enslaved to sin, which is why people were alienated from God. This did not simply mean that everyone did things that were wrong. It meant that they were helpless to do otherwise because they were under the power of an alien force opposed to God.
So too with the power of death. Death, for Paul, was not simply something that happened to people at the end of their lives, when they stopped breathing. It certainly was that, but it was, again, also much bigger and powerful and cosmic. Death for Paul was an alien force that was opposed to God and all he stood for. It was a power that – like sin – was trying to enslave people. When death captured a person, it annihilated her, destroying her existence.
The powers of sin and death were closely related. Being enslaved to sin led to being conquered by death. This was a hopeless situation for humans, since these were cosmic forces far more powerful than any man or woman could withstand. And there was nothing that could be done about it. Because we are humans, we are enslaved to sin and will be conquered by death.
That’s where Jesus comes in. Humans have to be delivered from the powers of sin and death, but they are powerless to deliver themselves. Someone (else) needs to conquer these powers and provide the benefits of this conquest to others Jesus did that.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus showed beyond all doubt that he conquered the power of death. Death could not keep Jesus in its grip. He was more powerful than death and defeated it. Moreover, since he conquered this, the ultimate and greatest power, he had obviously conquered the other powers aligned against God as well, including the power of sin. For Paul, Jesus defeated sin by his death: he took sin upon himself (even though he did not deserve it) and nailed it to his cross. In him, sin was defeated, at the crucifixion, just as death was defeated at the resurrection.
If all this had been done by Jesus, it would show why *he* had escaped sin and death. But how can others participate in this victory? Here especially is where Paul’s theology is not widely known, but he lays it out in Romans 6 (esp. vv. 1-6). The reason followers of Jesus have also escaped the powers of sin and death is because they have been … baptized.
When a person becomes a follower of Jesus and undergoes the ritual of baptism, for Paul, something actually happens. The person goes under the water, just as Jesus at his burial went underground. “We have been buried with him in baptism.” For Paul, at this moment in the baptism ritual, the believer is “united with Christ,” so that the victories that Christ experienced are shared by the believer. The believer too, then, has participated in the victory over sin and death. The person is then, and only then, freed from the power of sin and placed under a different power, the power of righteousness. Moreover, the person is freed from the power of death and will now have eternal life.
The resurrection of Jesus, then, had enormous apocalyptic consequences for Paul. It represented the defeat of the cosmic forces aligned against God, and it made it possible for people to escape the powers that have enslaved this world in order to be transferred into the realm of God, to live forever more apart from the forces of sin and death.
See what you can get by joining the blog? You get 5-6 posts like this each and every week, for less than a dime a day. And every penny goes to charity. Please JOIN!!!
That’s the most comprehensive description of Paul’s views I’ve ever read. Some questions: 1) How did Paul believe a person became a Christian, exactly? By believing certain faith statements, asking Jesus into your heart, etc.? Did Paul think a person was not a Christian or “saved” until after he was baptised? and 2) If as you’ve argued elsewhere that Paul believed Jesus was actually an angel come to Earth in human form, how would His resurrection indicate that humans (vs. angels) had overcome death through resurrection?
1) I think Paul understood that it was a matter of faith, which always led then to baptism; 2) he was an angelic being who became a real human.
I wonder if Paul recognized the incoherence of this view. If the faith, the condition of the heart, is what truly mattered, then what’s the point of baptism? And if it’s the baptism that truly matters and not the heart, then what’s stopping someone from getting baptized without first having faith? And if it’s the magical combination of both that you need to get saved, what if someone believes, but has never heard of baptism? Does God make an exception? And if He makes exceptions based on the condition of the heart, then, again, what’s the point of baptism?
Yes, I’m not sure he asked himself these questions.
Hmm… what’s your meaning of baptism? There’s baptism by the “water” of Holy Spirit (the dove) and baptism by physical water (the priest and parents). I’m thinking that someone’s faith can lead to Holy Spirit baptism, and going through the dousing in physical water is a reenactment or a corporal witness to the spiritual event that we cannot witness ourselves. Wasn’t baptism originally supposed to take place around the age of 13 when we had the knowledge to choose for ourselves, and didn’t it change to just after birth somewhere in the medieval period? Perhaps this is when we lost our understanding of baptism?
Every time we talk about Jesus, the disciples, powers in the world running loose, baptism, and so on, we’re talking about spiritual things that most people cannot see with their (corporal) eyes. So I think we have to agree on the definition of “baptism” before we can understand Paul’s view.
In Paul’s day “baptism” referred to the act of being placed (dunked) under water.
I was one raised in Calvinism and raised with this understanding. Much of this has to do with this John Calvin quote in that every newborn is, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”.
This is where infant baptism comes from. The idea that even newborns are going to hell if not baptized.
Try preaching that one from the pulpit today.
Yeah, preach it from the pulpit and you probably won’t for much longer have a pulpit….
Summing up with those four lines in red is brilliant, Dr. Ehrman.
How do the conquering and the victory of Jesus in his suffering and death relate to the notion of him being the Messiah, do you think? Is this where Jesus’ messiahship came from in the eyes of the early Christians? The messianic victory to establish the kingdom, fulfilling the promise to Abraham, lies in the idea of his death as a victory?
I would say it is a development of the view that he is a certain *kind* of messiah, not simply a human king of the future.
Could one say that Paul casts Jesus as a different kind of messiah, in that Jesus’ *victory* was of a different kind than was to be expected? That Paul adopts the “traditional” Jewish militant messiah concept and transforms it, applying it to Jesus’ victory over Satan in the flesh?
I would say that Paul agreed that Jesus was the future king of the Jews, but that he extended and amplified that view significantly, so that Jesus was much more than that.
Great post. I think in the past you’ve said that there are parts of Paul’s theology in Romans that are very difficult to understand. Are his views on the Resurrection as you present here part of that, or is it some other topic? Or, was it another of his letters you were talking about?
I think maybe I was talking about Galatians, which is a lot more dense than Romans. This part of Romans is not that difficult conceptually — it’s just a view that most people have never noticed.
One of the biggest issues I have with mythicists is their claim that Paul only thinks of Jesus as a spiritual being, never as a flesh and blood man. I point out to the mythicists that if Paul doesn’t actually think Jesus was a flesh and blood man subsequent to his crucifixion, then none of Paul’s eschatology makes a lick of sense. Paul regularly refers to Jesus’ resurrection as the “first fruits” of the imminent mass resurrection of the dead (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:20). That is, just as with the first fruits of the growing season–the very first crops to be harvested and immediately offered up to God in gratitude–Jesus was the first flesh and blood person to be raised from the dead, as a sign that the End Times harvest season is at hand. Moreover, as I point out to the mythicists, this is why Jesus usually describes the coming Kingdom of God in terms of seasonal sowing and reaping. For Jesus (and Paul), the seasonal metaphor is directly reflected in the progress of human history. Paul fully understands this metaphor. Just as the first fruits of the harvest are endowed with holiness as they’re offered up to God, so Jesus, the first fruits of the coming mass resurrection, is himself exalted to an exceptional position of holiness and glory. It’s clear that Paul sees such first-raised status as exceptional, not just for Jesus, but all who are “dead in Christ” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16). Jesus, for Paul, symbolizes the transformation from a corrupt, sinful, mortal being of flesh and bone to an impeccable, righteous, immortal being of heavenly stuff. And it is this hope of transformation that Paul is preaching to his proselytes, that just as Jesus was once flesh and is now spirit, so they are (or were once) fleshly beings and will soon become spirituals beings. This, in essence, is Paul’s entire argument.
Did Paul believe a person could lose their salvation?
Yes, apparently so. He thinks his Galatian Christians are in danger of losing theirs by being circumcised.
I think Paul perverted the message of Jesus. Of course Paul’s message was more marketable than Jesus message. Maybe religion is salesmanship! Paul’s apocalyptic views pointed out by you is helpful to me. That makes it easier to ferret out forgoes in Paul’s pseudographies (forgeries).
So…what did he think would be the fate of all the righteous dead, supposedly to be restored in the “general” resurrection, who obviously *hadn’t* been baptized? (Or did he not believe in the “general” resurrection?)
And what about peoples in other parts of the world – let’s say, Britain – who hadn’t “rejected” the Christian message, but simply hadn’t heard it yet?
He doesn’t say!
I attended a private Christian school from 4K to 6th grade. In 2nd grade I asked one of my teachers what happened to a) “good” people who died believing in God but who died before Jesus and b) people in other parts of the world who had never heard of God or Jesus. I was told they would go to hell because they hadn’t been saved. Although it took me another 30 years to finally let go that was the first seed of doubt I had about whether or not all of this stuff was true or not.
I certainly got my dime’s worth from this blog entry. It reminds me that I am now reading Dr. Ehrman’s “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.” Readers of this blog might have an interest in this book.
How do we know that the diciples were uneducated and poor? Could this have been just their “image” ?(sorry english is not my language i don’t know how to put it).. Or could it be the propaganda of the gentile christians that portrayed them as being uneducated?
We know this because of what we know about first century rural Galilee.
In addition to what Bart said, the testimonies given in the gospels (insofar as they can even be trusted) mention the occupations of the disciples, which would not have afforded most of them an education.
I am certain that I never got that explanation of sin and death in my Catholic education (if one can call it an education—more like miseducation). It is abundantly more clear as to why Christ is the Redeemer. Still, if he died for the sins of humanity both past and future, why do people need to confess their sins today? (e.g. Catholic confession or the moment in a Protestant service when one confesses).
An absorbing discussion, thanks.
Does the idea that Paul thought that Jesus was a pre-existent angel perhaps give a more forceful spin to what he writes to the Galatians in 1:8? He’s clearly upset with the Galatians and in his excitement can it be that he is at least brushing up against saying what it sounds like he is saying, that even if Jesus appeared and taught a different gospel he should be accursed? Or is that reading to much into the passage?
Paul thinks there are lots of beings who are angels; Christ was the chief angel, who became a human. I don’t think he’s thinking of Christ in Gal 1:8, since he could not conceive of Christ himself advocating a different gospel
The word “cosmic” appears in this post four times. Paul’s adherence, slavishness as it were, to “cosmic concerns”–sin becomes COSMIC, death becomes COSMIC–is a (not the only) principal, although not necessarily correct (can’t be proven), argument in favor of his having harbored limbic (temporal lobe) epilepsy.
Wow, Paul really was a thinker.
I knew belief in the resurrection was essential for salvation for Paul. Are you saying being baptized was a non-negotiable requirement also?
Yup!
One more question about baptism then I’ll get off of it. Did you realize this before or after you left the Faith? For example did you preach this sort of thing at the Baptist Church at Princeton, and IF you were still a Christian, would you preach it now?
Sorry, which sort of thing are you asking about that I may have believed or preached before leaving the faith?
I was asking about your assertion that Paul taught the baptism was a non-negotiable requirement of being united with Christ in resurrection. I assume, you saw that after you left the faith and stopped preaching? Surely you never taught, nor believed that a person could ask Jesus into their heart and be saved? Are there any NT examples of that? No. A book suggestion with the premise that the VAST MAJORITY of Christians have NO idea what the NT teaches about baptism and therefore aren’t… saved??? By the standard of the NT??? Think of the millions of infuriated Christians who would buy the book simply to angrily attempt to refute it! This has got NY TImes best seller written all over it!!! You could once again rock Christianity to the core! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! Then throw Justin Martyr in there. You’re no stranger to pointing out that Christians are ignorant of their own faith. Why not throw the gauntlet down on this issue? If you do write it, can I at LEAST get an acknowledgement in the forward? ???
Yes, that is what I thought, as do many, many evangelicals. Salvation is by faith, not by *doing* something (getting baptized). Paul certainly had a distinctive view, as set forth n Romans 6. It’s a view that not a single Christian denomination that I know of retains today.
Oh yes yes, ask your colleague Dr Tabor, he was formerly a part of the movement known as the churches of Christ which has its roots in the Stone/Campbell movement of the 1800s. Churches of Christ do very much retain the idea of baptism in water as being an essential part of the salvation process. They also believe in observing the Eucharist every week, a closed communion only offered to members. However, as you have argued in your books, the early church had no heirarchy, and were autonomous, one from another, and so these individual congregations in an attempt to follow that pattern, demonstrate a little variation from congregation to congregation, and i dare say you would find many of these people an exception to the rule when it comes to sheer ignorance of the Bible, but unfortunately they have had in times past a general aversion to critical/scholarly approaches to biblical study and are largely ignorant of what seminaries have taught for quite some time, but that is changing. If your travels ever bring you to tulsa… come sit in with me. I think, you might be somewhat surprised to see genuine study here 🙂
A great post, as always, Dr. Ehrman. I found particularly enlightening your arguments for why Paul’s theology might be so different from Jesus’s original disciples. From many of your books and posts on this blog, it has become quite clear to me that the differences were actually there. But until this post, I never really had a handle on “why” his theology might be different. Now it makes a lot more sense, given Paul’s education and cultural situation. Not to say that the original disciples were simpletons, necessarily. However, compared with uneducated peasants who had probably not done anything other in their lives but fish or farm (and I mean NOTHING else but that), an educated and worldly man like Paul would almost HAVE to have a more nuanced understanding of divinity and cosmic implications.
Very interesting discussion. Thanks.
Bart’s explanation of Paul’s views reminds me of the Christology in Gustaf Aulen’s “Christus Victor.” If anyone wants to explore this further, Aulen is kind of a classic on it.
I have to wonder about Paul’s credibility among those Christians who were familiar with the Didache. In its 7th “chapter,” the Didache renders the water aspect of the ritual nearly meaningless. Baptizing in running water is preferred but cold or even warm water will do. “But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice …” No immersion necessary.
When Paul starts in with, “We have been buried with him in baptism,” those early Christians who had undergone the baptism prescribed in the Didache must have been completely incredulous.
Whether the Didache was in practice contemporaneous with Paul, or not until the late First or early Second Century, it wouldn’t matter. The stark difference between the value each places on the water seems to indicate that Paul’s influence was not nearly as dominant back then as most make it out to be.
Unfortunately, the Didache went undiscovered until 1873. If the Didache had been available (or taken seriously, if available) in late antiquity, how different do you think the evolution of Christian practice would have been?
Yes, it’s a completely different view of baptism; but it is almost certainly some decades after Paul, and probably from a different kind of Xn community.
You have described here my beliefs in the final few years I considered myself a Christian. The ‘necessity’ of baptism was something I came to very grudgingly as an evangelical through contact with Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Once I saw it in the NT, I couldn’t ‘unsee’ it. As for the rest of Paul’s view as you’ve laid it out, that came to me in the later years of my two decades of adult faith. As an atheist I’ve often wondered how it would play out if I were to humor faith-only evangelicals with a Bible study, pointing this out to them and seeing if they can get past their preconceived ideas to grasp it. When you’ve been steeped in the faith-only soteriology for a while, it’s almost impossible to see anything else as remotely acceptable.
Do you think that Paul’s account of visiting the third heaven was a hallucination or a dream? Perhaps a legend?
Christians would argue that Paul had no guilt when he was murdering Christians so he could not have had a hallucination of Jesus. How would you respond to that?
If you were to give me a rough estimate on how many of Jesus’s apostles and female disciples believed they saw Jesus (either because they were hallucinating or Jesus actually appeared in front of them) what number would you guess?
I’m not sure if he was awake or asleep at the time. Ancient people did not differentiate between waking visions and dreams the way we do, oddly enough. My view on Paul’s guilt is that we have precisely no way to access his inner psyche.
I’m pretty sure that four people had visions of Jesus: Peter, Paul, and Mary (!); and James.
My own feeling is that Paul significantly altered the teachings of Peter, and other earlier Christian preachers ( if there were any ), and quite possibly invented most of it. It is hard to believe that the Romans executed a man named Jesus, but allowed his supposed 1st Lieutenant to go on preaching in Jerusalem. If Jesus was such a threat, they would have had no qualms about killing all the ring leaders…in fact it would have been shocking if they didn’t.
I’ve read that early Christianity, as taught by Paul, conforms to all the criteria of a mystery religion…baptism ( or initiation ), shared meals of the members, and secret knowledge…