(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...In this thread I am trying to argue that Jesus understood himself to be the messiah. So far I have made one of my two main arguments, with the understanding that *both* arguments have to be considered in order to have a compelling case. So the first prong doesn’t prove much on its own. But in combination with the second argument, it makes a strong case. The first argument is that Jesus’ followers would not have understood him as the messiah after his death (as they did) unless they believed him to be the messiah before his death – even if they came to believe he had been raised from the dead, that would not have made them think he was the messiah. I’ve explained why in my previous post.
The second second involves showing
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!
“… God would soon intervene on behalf of his people, sending a cosmic judge of the earth, the Son of Man…”
Does the best evidence suggest that the historical Jesus claimed that he himself was that cosmic judge of the earth, the Son of Man, or does it suggest that he thought it would be someone other than himself?
I think he thought it was someone else. When he talks about the Son of Man coming, it is in the third person.
Would it be correct to think that both the scriptures of Mark 9:1 and 13:30 imply that the listeners of those words would have eventually died once they somehow witnessed “the kingdom of God come with power”, and the signs Jesus spoke of being fulfilled?
It’s the words “until” and “before” that made me think that
And if that reading is correct then maybe Jesus wasn’t thinking that the kingdom was fully coming to fullfilment there and then?
Good question, but I don’t think it is saying they will die after seeing the event, but that they will see the event while still alive. I supposed sometimes we too I will see this before I die — and in that case it is assumed we will eventually die. But if the even that is being seen is an event after which no one will die, it would be different.
At what point did ‘Satan’ change from being ‘the Adversary’ to being the lord of all evil? Also, when did the punishment of the evil change from being just destroyed, and therefore not to enjoy the new Kingdom, but rather to suffer eternal torture?
It appears to have been when Jews started thinking apocalyptically, so over a century before Jesus. Eternal torment comes into the Xn tradition by the second century; I discuss this in my book Heaven and Hell.
I was struck by your use of the phrase, “eternal torment for everyone else.” In Heaven and Hell, you argue that the “eternal torture” view of Gehenna is essentially a retcon. Have your views on this matter changed or are you suggesting that Jesus made a break with apocalyptic Judaism by treating Gehenna as an execution rather than a source of “eternal torment”?
Ah, right. That post was originally written before I saw the light.
On a somewhat related topic I am reading James Crossley’s book Jesus: A life in class conflict, he states that not only were people crucified for insurrection but also for extreme banditry. I remember you saying it was almost always for insurrection. Is there a chance Jesus was considered a bandit and was not crucified for his apocalyptic views?
If I said it was almost always for insurrecction that would have been incorrect. Lots of slaves were crucified for example, and petty criminals considered low=lifes. And in a sense Jesus WAS crucified for being a “bandit” — in Josephus, a “bandit” is a guerrilla warrior (or suspected one)
Just to clarify – would the status of Messiah be something bestowed upon Jesus at the Parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom? In other words, would Jesus have thought he was already the Messiah or that he would be made the Messiah when the Kingdom came?
I suppose both.
The view of Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic figure, focused on imminent divine intervention and the Kingdom of God, can in my mind be considered from different, also more spiritual persepctive (s), I think. But for me at least, incorporating Hellenistic ideas of “logos”, the world soul and the personal soul—particularly/for example seen in Plato’s Timaeus—adds a more spiritual angle to this “intervention”. If this hellenistic , “logos” – the rational order shaping the cosmos, embodied by the World Soul, which fills everything with purpose and harmony. It seems to suggest that human souls reflect this logos, with the highest part of the soul acting as a “guardian spirit” that guides us toward truth, lifting us “from the earth towards our true home in heaven… as if we were a heavenly and not an earthbound plant.” (as written in the dialoug)
With this, the gospel of Johns “Logos” seems to suggesting he is not only a messianic figure but a cosmic mediator.
This perspective implies to me that the idea of divine intervention could be as much about an inner transformation as an outer event. Perhaps early Christians, influenced by both apocalyptic hopes and Hellenistic logos, may have seen Jesus as both Messiah and Logos—a guide to reconnect with the divine order within. Jesus’ mission could be understood as offering a path toward inner/spiritual awakening and harmony with the divine, bringing personal and cosmic restoration.
Great post! Point of confusion: In listening to your prior lectures including the three part talk, I was under the impression that the Messiah was the description of the expected God-appointed human who would lead troops to overthrow the evil oppressors and restore Israel. You had, i thought, previously stated that Jesus believed himself to be that Messiah, and as such would go on to become king of the twelve tribes with each disciple as leader of a tribe. In this blog, if I’m reading correctly, you mention that role but do not attribute Jesus as belonging to that role, ie. you do not indicate that Jesus felt himself to be that God-appointed human person. You go on to a third category, which, to me, is a shift in the definition of Messiah. You describe the Messiah as an almost divine being who descends from Heaven, subordinating Jesus to the role of prophet and foreteller of the coming Messiah. Or perhaps you’re saying he felt he himself was that divine being who had descended from Heaven and the battle was actively underway?
In Judaism at the time there were various understandings of the messiah — as a military leader, as a great priest, as a cosmic judge of the earth, as a king appointed by God. Jesus would have thought himself as the last of these.
If Jesus was an itinerant apocalypticist, why would he be thinking of building a church, as in Mt 16.18?
I don’t think that verse/passage can go back to the historical Jesus (as is true of lots of our passages in the Gospels written much later)
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for all the knowledge you give to lay people.
Did Jesus, or the anonymous authors who wrote the Gospels, believe the Torah and its cruel and brutal commands, such as to kill children who curse their parents, to kill Jews who work on the Jewish Sabbath, to kill witches, etc., were still valid? I ask because of Matthew 15:4-6 which has Jesus upset with the Pharisees for not following the Torah command at Exodus 21:17 to kill children who curse their parents. The anonymous author of Matthew has Jesus referring to that command as a “commandment of God.” Also, at Matthew 5:17-18, the anonymous author has Jesus saying he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill, and “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Since Jesus has not returned to Earth as the Jewish Messiah, all is not fulfilled. Does that mean that according to these writings, the Torah and its ungodly commands are still in effect?
I don’t imagine the authors of the Gospels thought God’s commands *were* ungodly. On the other hand, either did most Jews, but we don’t have a record of any of them implementing these punishments. What one should make of that could obvoiusly be debated!
Thanks for your reply.
Do you think that Matthew 15:4-6 and Matthew 5:17-18 indicate the author of Matthew believed the commands from the Torah were still valid and in effect after the time of Jesus?
Thank you for taking the time to answer! (Sorry for my error regarding laypeople in my original post!)
I don’t think Matthew suggests that hte death of Jesus affected the need to keep the law, no.
The human desire for eternal life could explained by the instinct for survival.
The human desire for absolute justice could explained by the suffering of innocent victims.
Any religious movement that embraces these desires would most certainly
have a widespread appeal among the humans who possess these desires.
For us agnostic-transcendentalists, it’s a wait and see.
(re: Matthew 17.1-13; Mark 9.2-8; Luke 9.28-36, and perhaps Paul’s encounter)
Morton Smith wrote in, “Jesus the Magician” (1977) that the apostles saw Jesus as superhuman because of his “magical” skill of exorcism. NO OTHER JEWISH PROPHET HAD EVER PERFORMED AN EXORCISM. Jesus was the first.
Jesus (per JN) believed he was Divinely sent because he had the visible power to heal (by exorcism) and this proved (in Jewish culture) that he could forgive sins – i.e., he had God’s power. Thus Jesus was the Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah all in one.
Smith showed that even the enemies of Jesus admitted he could heal, but instead of admitting that this forgiveness of sins was God’s power, they accused Jesus of working with Beelzebub. Jesus declared it “unforgivable” to accuse the healing Spirit of God of any collusion with Evil (Mark 3:28-30).
Exorcism (baptism by Holy Spirit) distinguished Jesus even from the Baptist’s baptism of repentance. Archeology knows of older cultures with exorcists. Some exorcists in Galilee did not join Jesus and the apostles (Mark 9:38).
Yet, because the apostles already believed that Jesus was Divinely sent, Jesus could easily condition them to expect him to return from the dead.
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman.
This is the post I’ve been waiting for!
A couple questions:
While it’s clear that Jesus got a lot of his ideas from Daniel, I recall you saying Jesus had a more annihilationist view, but here you speak of eternal torment for those not worthy of the kingdom. In Daniel 12:2 it has them resurrect to “everlasting shame and abhorrence”. So did Jesus’ views differ herein from mainstream apocalypticism.? I see how one could even interpret eternal nonexistence as shameful and abhorrent, but why would they need to be resurrected? Moreover it still seems incompatible with Jesus’ view insofar as long as one had the opportunity to repent, here or hereafter God would forgive.
Re. Son of Man – I’ve heard one interpretation being that it doesn’t refer to a supernatural being who judges from heaven (does he take earthly form as the messiah?) but rather the righteous of Israel. Clearly the symbolic language of the dreams isn’t meant to be taken literally in the case of the beasts standing in for different empires – so why not extend to the Son of Man? How common is this view among scholars or even church fathers? It seems accepted by Judaism.
Daniel: I’m not sure that living to everlasting shame means that they remain alive to experience their bad reputation. It means they will be maligned forever.
In Daniel the “one like a Son of Man” is indeed Israel. But as it develops over time (1 Enoch, Gospels) it comes to refer to an individual.
Did the Essenes write the Dead Sea Scrolls or did they copy previously written ones? Or, were the DSS ancient ones -previously written or copied – which Essenes hid in clay jars during the siege of Jerusalem?
Some are original compositions of the Essenes and others are copies of other wriitngs, including books of the Hebrew Bible.
Hello. Did Jesus believe in an inmortal soul or spirit? Are both the same?
No. He, like most Jews, did not imagine that a human soul/spirit could exist in disembodied form.