Loading...COMMENT:
All the Christians I hear from around here say, “But we don’t know the hour and the day!” I don’t know if he is supposed to appear to everybody at once or if they will hear about it in the news. Those who believe in the rapture would be disappointed if they heard about it in the news. When I was a Fundy, I don’t remember being clear on this even though I tried.
RESPONSE:
Actually, this comment brings to mind something that I was planning on posting on anyway (this relates to “no one knows the day or the hour” when the end will come as Jesus says in the apocalyptic discourse in the Gospels). I mentioned earlier that in the 1970s, I and my fundamentalist friends were all fairly well convinced that Jesus would be returning from heaven soon – and in particular, before the end of the 1980s. That was in no small measure because we were devotees of the views set forth by Hal Lindsey in his blockbuster hit Late Great Planet Earth. I have heard that this book was – next to the Bible – THE bestselling book of the 1970s in English. It sold something like 30 million (count them, million) copies. The book was about what would happen, very soon, at the end of time, when the prophecies of Scripture came to be fulfilled before Jesus returned from heaven. (It involved war in the Middle East, a coalition of European states from which the Anti-christ would arise, the intervention by the Soviet Union, and then the Chinese, and then nuclear Armageddon….) And how soon would it happen – yup, before 1988.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN BEFORE THE END COMES!!!
I was living in Montreal, Canada. Our youth group really bought into Whisenant’s prediction. We were so convinced. I remember going to to Burger King with my brother and his best friend on the afternoon of Sept.11. We had a great afternoon of reminiscing and heartfelt regrets of everything we would not be able to do in the future. It’s funny that we were more worried about what we wouldn’t experience rather than what we WOULD experience: an eternal life worshipping God. When it didn’t happen, we did a copy/paste the next day. After that, we just gave up, as we had said everything we had to say to each other. Great memories, even if a little embarrassing. Without Google, we were prisoners to our own gullibility
Question: I have a recollection that Whisenant made a recalculation and predicted the rapture for the next year. Is that right?
Yup, he wrote a book the following year, admitting that he forgot that there was no year 0, so his calculations were off by a year; it would come in 1989!
As you already know Bart, in biblical academia, this comes down to Historical Jesus studies. I would concur that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who anticipated that God was imminently going to break into history, destroy the forces of evil, and establish his kingdom; and he [Jesus] believed that all of this would happen within his own generation. Thus, I follow in a line of thinking first posited by Schweitzer and agreed by you (I think), that places Jesus in an Jewish apocalyptic context. However, I would disagree with Schweitzer on the meaning of such apocalyptic language as the “end of the world.” Instead, I tend to see all eschatology as being tied to God’s covenantal working within the old covenant world of ancient Israel-bringing it to an end-by transitioning it from the old to the new covenant mode of existence—in the first century. Thus, I posit that Jesus saw no further than A.D. 70 and thought everything would be wrapped up in conjunction with that apocalyptic event for Israel. Thus, the Kingdom is seen as “coming in power” in A.D. 70 and the “Last Days” spoke of in the New Testament are not literally the “end of the world” (space-time continuum), but the last days of that old covenant world of Israel that was passing away. I think this view would answer many problems for Christianity and create new ones. Certainly, it would require an overhaul of orthodox Christianity since Augustine. Of course, in this brief post, I have not addressed many of my own presuppositions, but hey, its not my blog. Ha!
By the way, Edgar Whisenant came to my local church that year and gave me a signed copy of his book. Ha!
You could have told him you’d treasure it for many years. 🙂
I through it in the trash when the disappointment came.
lol
It’s amazing that the Left Behind series sold 65 MILLION copies. That’s ALOT!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29496421/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/full-video-left-behind-authors-join-maddow/
I was big into the Hal Lindsey books when I was in high school in the early 80s. I’m pretty sure Lindsey had multiple dates for when Jesus was supposed to return. His predictions kept missing and he’d push the year back. I was to graduate high school in 1986 and was really looking forward to attending college at NC State, but Lindsey’s books had me convinced that Jesus was coming before I ever set foot on campus. I spent much of 1985 fretting over it….
Late Great was the movie I was referring to my friends seeing. I happened to think just yesterday that I had never seen the movie myself – I had read the book after they were talking about seeing the movie.
So I watched it on youtube yesterday. It’s STILL scarey all these years later, and quite convincing even if 1988 has long since come and gone.
Hal Lindsey later helped launch the writing careers of Johanna Michaelson (The Beautful Side of Evil) and Chuck Missler (Koinonia House). Johanna is a sister to Hal’s third wife. Chuck is a former successful businessman and hobbiest astronomer who teaches the Gospel in the Zodiac. Even though he explains the Gospel in the Zodiac, he does give fair warning that this is something you don’t want to get too caught up in, in fact you probably shouldn’t know about it at all, but still he just has to tell you. (Just a little off- topic trivia for ya there!)
One other funny observation. I mentioned that I had not seen the movie The Late Great Planet Earth until just last Sunday on youtube. I was at first struck by the fact that this movie was narrated by Orson Welles, and I remembered how it was Orson Welles that had caused a panic when he did War of the Worlds on radio and people believed it.
Tonight I was thinking about how I had mentioned Future Shock in another post. I was thinking of the book by Alvin Toffler that our English teacher had us read when I was a sophomore in high school when I used the term, but wondered if I misspoke since it had been so long since I read the book.
Reading up on it on amazon, I found that it was an accurate comparison to The Late Great Planet Earth (albeit non-religious) and the clincher: I didn’t know this, but there is a movie based on Future Shock narrated by Orson Welles!
Were most early Christians, up to the writing of the Gospel of John, apocalypticists (as Jesus and Paul)? If so, that would invalidate a great deal of the doctrine of Jesus. Now, of course, Christians built a doctrine *about* Jesus, in particular about the meaning his death, but the flesh and blood Jesus has been demonstrably proven wrong. That should count for something, right?
Well, it would show that Jesus and Paul were probably wrong about their calendars; but serious theologians have never found that to be a real problem, and they may have a point!
Bart, you state, ‘Contrary to a lot of skeptics, I don’t think that these demonstrably wrong predictions invalidate Christianity.’ But they do, don’t they? They certainly invalidate the fundamentalist type of Christianity you were involved with in the 1970s, and I suggest, also the forms of Christianity as expressed in most of the Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant churches from at least Nicaea onwards. Jesus might be able to survive wrong predictions of the end of the world as some sort of worthy religious leader in liberal Christian circles, but his position as the omniscient Son of God as set out in the historic creeds I refer to is surely invalidated in the eyes of those who recognise that he did predict the end of the world within his generation, and that in this, at least, he was wrong.
Yes, I think that they pose problems for fundamentalists. But that’s different from condemning Christianity. It’s kind of like saying condemnations of Tea-Partiers are condemnations of Americans….
I find it amazing the people who laughed at those who fell in with Mr. Camping, the recent predictor of the rapture. They experienced some sort of superiority when they said, ” …. the hour or the day.” But I think the wide spread expectations of Jesus’ imminent return raises the plausibility level for those who get caught up with the likes of Camping. I confess I am not a sociologist. I confess also that sometimes I find this all rather entertaining in a George Carlin sort of way.
Isn’t the proper translation “end of the age” rather than “end of the world”? We’ve been living in the Age of Christianity ever since he predicted this, so maybe it wasn’t such a failed prophecy after all.
Translation of what?
Why does the NIV Bible say in Matthew 28:20 “I am with you always, to the very end of the age”, while the KJV says “I am with you alway even unto the end of the world”?
I am speaking of the translation of the Greek word aeon (I think).
Yes, that’s right: it’s translated in two different ways.
Are both ways correct, then?
Words mean different things in different contexts; the context — not the word itself — is often the determining factor.
I feel that the interpretation of this one word is very important in the context and culture of folk Christianity and the understanding of the last days for most evangelicals.
Anytime a “prophecy” is involved, there is always the temptation to do things on purpose in order to fulfill it. It seems that nothing is wrong by doing this, since Jesus himself is said to have done it.
I know you are aware of this, and I don’t want to get political here – but there seem to be some who think that it would be quite alright to blow up the world if it would force Jesus’ return and the literal Kingdom Come.
Will it take Armageddon and Jesus NOT returning to move us from the Age of I Believe to the Age of I Know?
It would be nice to make it KNOWN that Jesus did not predict the end of the world, so maybe folks would quit preaching it, and the powers that be could quit trying to accelerate its fulfillment.
I dont’ think it hinges on the word “aeon,” since Jesus was not speaking Greek.
OK, so in context, the description given by Jesus of the signs of the “end” leads us to believe that he was speaking of the end of the world.
Look what I found tonight under the heading “Anno Domini” I do not think I have ever heard of this information. I hope you do not mind too big of a cut and paste.
“There exists evidence that the modern calendar developed by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century AD commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ at AD 1 was influenced by precession of the equinoxes and astrological ages. Dionysius’ desire to replace Diocletian years (Diocletian persecuted Christians) with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time it was believed that the Resurrection and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. The current Anno Mundi calendar theoretically commenced with the creation of the world based on information in the Old Testament. It was believed that based on the Anno Mundi calendar Jesus was born in the year 5500 (or 5500 years after the world was created) with the year 6000 of the Anno Mundi calendar marking the end of the world.[40][41] Anno Mundi 6000 (approximately AD 500) was thus equated with the resurrection of Christ and the end of the world.[42] Since this date had already passed in the time of Dionysius, he therefore searched for a new end of the world at a later date. He was heavily influenced by ancient cosmology, in particular the doctrine of the Great Year that places a strong emphasis on planetary conjunctions. This doctrine says that when all the planets were in conjunction that this cosmic event would mark the end of the world. Dionysius accurately calculated that this conjunction would occur in May AD 2000. Dionysius then applied another astronomical timing mechanism based on precession of the equinoxes. Though incorrect, some oriental astronomers at the time believed that the precessional cycle was 24,000 years which included twelve astrological ages of 2,000 years each. Dionysius believed that if the planetary alignment marked the end of an age (i.e. the Pisces age), then the birth of Jesus Christ marked the beginning of the Age of Pisces 2,000 years earlier. He therefore deducted 2,000 years from the May 2000 conjunction to produce AD 1[43] for the incarnation of Christ.[44][45][46][47]”
40.^ Wallraff, Martin: Julius Africanus und die Christliche Weltchronik. Walter de Gruyter, 2006
41.^ Mosshammer, Alden A.: The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 254, p. 270, p. 328
42.^ Declercq, Georges: Anno Domini. The Origins of the Christian Era. Turnhout Belgium. 2000
43.^ Consideration of the Origin of the Yearly Count in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars. Cosmology Through Time. Ancient and Modern Cosmologies in the
44.^ Consideration of the Origin of the Yearly Count in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars. Cosmology Through Time. Ancient and Modern Cosmologies in the Mediterranean Area. G. Giobbi S. Colafrancesco (Editor). Mimesis, 2004
45.^ The Cosmological Circumstances and Results of the Anno Domini Invention: Anno Mundi 6000, Great Year, Precession, End of the World Calculations. Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment:
46.^ Astronomical Phenomena that Influenced the Compilation of Anno Domini. The Inspiration of Astronomical Phenomena. Volume 441.
47.^ The Last Day Calculation of Anno Domini. Proceedings of the SEAC conference Ljubljana 2012. To be published in Anthropological Notebooks, official journal of the Slovene Anthropological Society. 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
Bart, having recently reread your very convincing first trade book positing that Jesus was indeed an apocalypticist, I was left with the burning question: “Well, if Jesus was wrong about the apocalypse (or at least its timing), and if God is inerrant, then how can Jesus be equated to God?” How do the serious theologians you refer to deal with this apparent conundrum? One way, I suppose, is to deny that Jesus was actually an apocalypticist — like the Jesus Seminar scholars. However, having read (some of) their arguments in their book The Five Gospels, I find that they failed to anticipate many of your points to the contrary. So I’m back to my original question.
In N.T. Wright’s written account of the origins of apocalyptic restoration of individual people, which in many respects nicely complements your own, he notes that its 2nd-century-BCE, scriptural inspiration (around the time of Daniel) was Ezekiel’s 6th-century-BCE, wind-blowing-over-the-valley-of-the-dry-bones metaphor for the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian captivity. But when he asserted that these Hebrews actually literalized Ezekiel’s original metaphor to gain their new understanding, my next question arose: “How can anyone literalize a metaphor and then argue with a straight face that the new interpretation holds any water?” Isn’t that rather like the illogic of arguing that Jesus is literally a loaf of bread, since he is quoted in John’s gospel as having said “I am the Bread of Life”?
In sum, my own “theo-logic” tells me that apocalyptic thought was always suspect to begin with, which, however, puts me at odds with the Jesus you so convincingly described in your book. But, if Jesus = God, then I’m at odds with God too, according to the traditional orthodoxy. Either that, or the traditional orthodoxy needs to self-correct –just like the sciences routinely do every day. So, am I missing something, or are there legitimate concerns here that 21st-century Christianity really needs to confront? Thanks for any reply!
I think traditional theologians who admit that Jesus was wrong about the calendar want to emphasize that he really was human, even if in some sense he was God in the flesh; but as a human, he had limitations (he couldn’t speak Swahili; he probably made mistakes; and if he played shortstop for the Nazareth little league team he probably made a couple of throwing errors….)
I think there is something intrinsic in human psychology about end-times disasters. Remove theological apocalypse from the majority of educated minds, and those minds seek and find an alternative — peak oil, global warming, etc. The Judeao-Christian milieu may contribute to the underlying cause identified for many such “replacement apocolypses” — mankind’s bad behavior. Evolutionary psychologists have commented on this, I beleive.
Bart, when the end comes-can I have your library and your car?
Stand in line….
I was nearly a full preterist at one point not too long ago,but had a hard time with Paul in 1Cor 15 and the seemingly physical resurrection having taken place in AD 70 or shortly thereafter..If we’re currently in the “new heavens and new earth”then why are there still so many tears,even after Satan has been cast in the lake of fire.
But what’s even been more difficult for me to accept is that Jesus was wrong in his predictions.But the more I learn about the Bible,I realize that he was following a long line of Hebrew prophets who were wrong in their predictions.
But one nice thing about it is I feel I can actually be more at home with all of them now and don’t have to fear them so much.
Firstly, is there any reason why Jesus would have meant Israel when he referred to the fig tree (where in the OT does the fig tree rep Israel)? I ask because Luke seems to make the identity of the tree meaningless (he says “Look at the fig tree and all the trees) for his seemingly generic parable (when any tree starts to to sprout leaves you know summer is near”).
Secondly, is there any reason to assume 40 years is a generation according to the bible? The whole thing sounds crazy, and I used to teach this stuff to people! Scary thought…
Lindsey claims he got the view from “scholars who spent their whole lives” studying this stuff. Is it say to say that none of his scholars were critical scholars.
No, I don’t think Jesus *was* referring to Israel in this passage. But yes, 40 years does denote a generation in the Bible. (E.g., the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years until the previous generation died off)
Interesting, thanks. And when Lindsey claims he got this view from “scholars who spent their whole lives” studying this stuff, is it right to assume that NO critical scholar ever believed this?
If you mean his view that Jesus was returning by 1988, according to Matthew’s Gospel — no, no critical scholar thought this.
Sorry… last follow up on this… but I more mean did any critical scholar believe that the modern State of Israel (in 1948) fulfilled Jesus’ first century prediction of the fig tree bearing leaves? (it’s possible someone could believe that but see the “generation” as the Jewish race or something like that, which wouldn’t have the 40 years [1988] attached to it). Because Lindsey appeals to “scholars” and then sold 30 million books… if no real critical scholars ever believed his premise (that 1948 fulfills Matt 24:32)… I think that’s important to know.
No, I don’t think so.
Dr. Ehrman,
It is a common enough occurrence that a grad student discovers something that their professor was not able to discover. Therefore experts should not dismiss out of hand what someone with no credentials has to say. For new knowledge does not detract from the professor’s expertise but rather can add to it. I know there is no good reason as to why I should have been able to see what you have not seen. But understand that I see myself as an “Ananias” to your “Saul”.
In this post you wrote,””Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place..” But what does it mean? ”
Here is what I believe it means, and note that double meanings of words is one way Jesus camouflaged scripture so that it would not be understood (even by scholars) until (apparently) it was meant to be understood.
The word “generation” in this scripture does not refer to the lifespan of a human but rather the iteration of a prototype. When something is invented it is “First-generation”. The next version with its improvements is “Second-generation”.
The 7-day creation story in the Bible is the evolutionary story of the lifeforms of the Earth, mankind being the last and most advanced lifeform created by evolution. Evolutionary man is the “first generation” of the human species. The second generation of the human species will be the humans who are resurrected in the Kingdom of Jesus. Humans with evolutionary DNA will pass away (cease to exist) with the destruction of the Earth but the prophecies of Jesus will be fulfilled before the Earth is destroyed and “this generation” passes away.
(continued in 2)
Yes indeed, I do learn things from my advanced graduate students! I can guarantee you that a professor of chemistry will not learn anything about chemistry from a student who does not yet have advanced knowledge that come only from training.
On “generation” — my view is that if you want to know what a word means in its context you need to see how it gets used in its context, without imagining what it might mean in some different context (for example, ours). I would call that one of the most important rules of lexicography. Same thing goes for what Genesis means by “day.”
(continued from 1)
Suffering
There is one and only one reason there is suffering in the world: human DNA has evolutionary traits that cause people to suffer. If human DNA was modified so that our intellect was more powerful than our evolutionary nature then pain would not be debilitating or fear of pain would not cause us to do things we know are wrong. If human DNA were modified in the correct way, it would be possible to receive 40 lashes without crying out or to be nailed to a cross without crying out, just as it was with Jesus.
If human DNA were modified so that our intellect would be more powerful than our sex drive then it would be possible to appreciate all the qualities of a woman without lusting after her in the same way Jesus’ did not lust after his women followers.
If human DNA were modified so that the cells of those bodies would continually split without flaws or the flawed cells would continually be destroyed, one would never grow old or die of old age. In fact, it would seem that one would never look older than their mid-30s which is why Jesus started his ministry at 30. When Jesus, who is human, returns he will return with the same human body he had at his ascension including the scars of his crucifixion. This is because Jesus has “Second generation” human DNA which is also why he refers to himself as “The Son of Man”.
How will people in the Kingdom of Jesus get this new and improved DNA? They will be born again with it. Born again as babies with it. In my book I call this second generation human DNA “born-again DNA”. Baptism therefore literally represents being born again as a human baby. which gives insight to the following scripture:
Matthew 18:2-3 New King James Version (NKJV)
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted (born again with born-again DNA) and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
(continued in 3)
(Continued from 2)
Adam does not represent the first human but rather represents the first human with “Second-generation” human DNA which is why he had to be “created” and not simply born to a woman. Jesus also has “Second-generation” human DNA. Scripturally speaking, Jesus is Adam, the beginning and the end.
But how did the Jesus know 2000 years ago that the Earth will be destroyed or that DNA is the building blocks of life on the Earth or that human DNA can be modified to remove the negative aspects of evolution or that it is possible for humans to be born again? These are very good questions that my book tries to answer.
But what I have explained thus far is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. A very important part but only a small part of the rest of the story.
I invite you to read my book (or rather what I have written thus far) before it is published. Or I will send you a copy after it is published. My book will be dedicated to you because like Saul you have everything that is needed to prepare Christians for the second coming of Jesus Christ. Will the insights in my book restore your faith in Jesus? I do not know. All I can say is that they have restored my faith in Jesus.
Dennis Keister
My view is that Jesus thought hte world was going to end because that’s what most Jews of his day thought.
Dr. Ehrman,
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, especially on such a dated post as this one is.
Dennis Keister
Speaking of fig trees, in Mark, Jesus was looking for fig greets specifically “out of season”. Why would Jesus do this? Is it relevant to the passage or was it normal back then to do so?
I guess it’s to explain why there are no figs. But you’re right, it doesn’t make much sense for me today (January 29) to be ticked off when I can’t find any apples on my tree in teh garden…
My conservative friend asked me to come to a Bible study on the end times. Having just read your book “Armageddon”, I said yes, not to cause trouble in the Bible study, but to give my friend and I fodder for future discussions. In the Bible study, the leader made the claim that the translation of “generation” in Mark 13:30 is better translated as “nation”. According to my Greek dictionary, the word in Greek in question is “γενεὰ” and does not include “nation” in its definition, but a similar but different word “γένος” includes “nation” in its definition. When I ask Bing AI Chat whether “γενεὰ” can ever be translated as “nation”, it insists that some scholars have suggested that it could under certain contexts. The AI also mentions that the Hebrew “goy” (nation) was translated as “γενεὰ” in the Septuagint, but when I asked for examples, it couldn’t find any in the Septuagint or any other ancient source. Is there any rational argument to translate “γενεὰ” as “nation” in any context and especially in Mark 13:30?
Well, a couple of points. Mark uses genea four other times (8:12 twice; 8:38; 9:19) and it appear in these instances Jesus does not mean the nation of the Jews throughout hisotry but the group of people living at his time. More important, in 13:30 I don’t see how nation makes sense. He’s telling people they need to be alert and watchful (read the whole chapter). Would that be because in about 2000 or 3000 years from the time he is talking the Jewish nation will have disappeared from the earth and that the end will come sometime before that, say in the year 2085? If he’s saying “be alert” then it seems like “this generation” means his own generation. That is, after all, what it normally means in the NT (e.g., Matt 11:16; 12:41; etc. etc)