predictions failed, too.
JESUS WAS AN APOCALYPTIC PROPHET
There has been a great deal of scholarly work done to try to find the core of who
Jesus was and what his central message was, if he had one at all. He is thought
of as a Jewish cynic, a wise sage, a mystic, a miracle worker, a social reformer, a
revolutionary liberationist, the Son of God, and even a fictional character.'
Attempting to figure out who was the "real"Jesus is dif ficult because, as John P.
Meier reminds us, "the vast majority" of his deeds and words are "irrevocably
lost to us today."6 Nonetheless, the dominant view among mainline Christian
theologians ever since Albert Schweitzer's 1906 masterpiece, The Quest of the
Historical7esus, is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Some of the most
important modern defenders of such a view are E. P. Sanders in The Historical
Figure of iesus,7 Dale C. Allison in .7esus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet;8
Bart D. Ehrman in 7esus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium;9 and
Paula Fredriksen in From , esus to Christ The Origins of the New Testament
Images of 7esus.1
To understand who Jesus was and what he may have said, scholars use several
different criteria to distinguish between what he may have actually said from
what was placed on his lips by the Gospel redactors in a postJesus setting when
the concerns of the church took priority. Criteria such as "coherence" with other
sayings, "dissimilarity" with the surrounding culture, "multiple attestation" in the
various strata of Gospel development, and "embarrassment" are all used in
combination to determine this. But before scholars can actually use these
criteria, they need some overall understanding of the major themes in the
Gospels themselves.
Dale Allison of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary contends that "our first move
is not to discover which sayings ... are authentic. Rather we should be looking
for something akin to what Thomas Kuhn once called a `paradigm,' an
explanatory model or matrix by which to order our data." This means that the
"initial task is to create a context, a primary frame of reference, for the Jesus
tradition, a context that may assist us in determining both the authenticity of
traditions and their interpretation." He continues: "It would seem to follow that
we should initially be concerned less with refining our criteria of authenticity
than with worrying about how to establish a story that can usefully arrange our
mass of data into coherent patterns." Therefore, he argues, "we should not
attempt to determine the authenticity of items within the Jesus tradition until we
have established an interpretative framework."11
The best interpretative framework to understand Jesus is within the context of
the Jewish apocalyptism of his day, if we're to understand him at all. We see
Jewish apocalyptism everywhere, stemming from such texts as Isaiah 24-27,
Daniel, Zechariah 9-14, parts of 1 Enoch, Sibylline Oracles, the Testament of
Moses, 4th Ezra, 2nd Baruch and the Apocalypse of Abraham. The Dead Sea
Scrolls show apocalyptic elements in them, especially the War Scroll, where
there is a war between the "children of the light" and the "children of darkness,"
during which God intervenes in the seventh battle and the Sons of Light are
given their victory.12 Paula Fredriksen tells us that both the Essenes (who
probably had a community at Qiimran) and the Pharisees embraced the
apocalyptic. The Essenes "saw themselves as living on the edge of time, in the
very last days; and they dedicated every moment and aspect of life to preparing,
after their fashion, for the coming Kingdom of God." The Pharisees "were as
much touched by eschatological hopes as most other Jewish groups."13 So, in
this contextual milieu, it's not difficult at all to think Jesus believed and taught
what others did in his day. In fact, this is what we would expect to find. To say
otherwise would require evidence to the contrary. But the evidence from the NT
is against claiming otherwise.
When we first turn to the canonical Gospels, we notice that Jesus is a baptized
convert to John the Baptist and his apocalyptic message. John preached that the
long-awaited hope for the restoration of Israel was coming soon: "the kingdom
of God was at hand" (Matthew 3:1-2). His message was of an impending
judgmental warning to unrepentant sinners to repent and "flee from the coming
wrath" of God, because God's judgmental "axe is already at the root of the
trees..." (Luke 3:7-9). After Jesus was baptized by John, we see him taking up
John's message when he preached: "`The time has come,' he [Jesus] said. `The
kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"' (Mark 1:15).
Jesus is often compared to Judas the Galilean (6 CE), John the Baptist (30
CE), and Theudas (45 CE), who all shared a fundamental eschatological hope for
the restoration of Israel to be the light unto the nations.14 Since this was the
whole contextual milieu of that day, it would be extremely odd if we found that
the NT writers, beginning with Paul, believed such a hope was to be fulfilled in
their generation if Jesus didn't also think so. That Jesus carried on John the
Baptist's message in his ministry can be seen in eight dominant themes appearing
over and over in the NT. Allison documents them in a descending scale
beginning with the ones emphasized the most: (1) the kingdom of God, (2)
future reward, (3) future judgment, (4) persecution of the saints, (5) victory over
evil powers, (6) a sense that something new is here or at hand, (7) the
importance of John the Baptist, and (8) reference to the "Son of Man." Allison
argues that these eight major themes "readily invite an eschatological
interpretation. When put together, they foretell a utopia, labeled `the kingdom (of
God).'... We have here the standard pattern of Jewish messianism, which is also
found in millennial move ments worldwide-a time of tribulation followed by a
time of unprecedented blessedness."15 Allison admits the conclusion about
Jesus and his millenarian cult "is not the verdict reached by selfevident steps
from selfevident truths and clear observations," yet he argues that "the
millenarian Jesus is indeed almost, if not quite, clear to demonstration."16
The most essential element in an eschatological prophetic community is a
charismatic leader who makes a prediction of an impending doom in the
immediate future. Without this prediction there would be no sense of urgency, no
need to form a community, and no need to prepare for it in the present. It must be
near. It must be soon. It must be an immediate concern. Allison tells us: "The
expectation of supernatural renewal in the offing is one of the central energizing
elements in all millenarian movements, which typically expect imminent, total,
ultimate, this-worldly collective salvation."17
In what has become known as the "Olivet Discourse" or the "Little
Apocalypse," in Mark chapter 13, we find Jesus instructing his disciples about
the time when the temple would be destroyed and the "Son of Man" is to come.
Making a crystal-clear reference to a prophecy in the book of Daniel (9:26-27)
about "the ab
omination that causes desolation" (Mark 13:14) referring to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (cf. Matt 24:25, Luke 21:20), Jesus tells his
disciples that the "Son of Man" will come shortly afterward:
But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the
moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the
heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time men will see the Son of Man
coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels
and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the
ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its
twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near,
right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass
away until all these things have happened. (Mark 13:24-31)
Given what we know about the apocalyptic milieu in which Jesus preached,
and granting that this passage at least derives from a tradition that stems from the
lips of Jesus, as I'm doing in this chapter,18 his disciples would understand
exactly what he meant. The sign of the coming "Son of Man" was the distress
and tribulation surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The lesson of
the fig tree merely reinforces the point that just as they can predict when summer
is coming because the fig leaves blossom, so also can they know the "Son of
Man" is coming when Jerusalem is destroyed. And as such, the very generation
of people living in his day will witness this apocalyptic event, which clearly
echoes what we read earlier in Mark 9:1 when Jesus says to his disciples, "I tell
you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the
kingdom of God come with power" (cf. Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27).
Theologians have tried to construe the word "generation" in the "Little
Apocalypse" to mean "race," as in, "this race of people will certainly not pass
away until all these things have happened." But that is not the obvious, natural
reading, given the whole context. Edward Adams, senior lecturer in New
Testament studies at King's College, London, states it forthrightly: "It is virtually
certain that `this generation' means the generation living at the time of utterance.
The time frame in this verse is thus the lifetime of Jesus' own
contemporaries."19 The translation "race" wouldn't make any sense here
anyway, since one wonders with Robert Price, what would be the sense of
saying: "`This race of people will not pass away before all these things transpire,'
if `these things' included the testing and salvation of this very race."20 Besides,
no Jew of that day would ever consider the possibility that his or her race of
people could ever "pass away," given their assuredness of special divine
promises of permanence, as we shall see.
The imminence of the eschaton is further reflected in Matthew's Gospel when
Jesus is found saying to his disciples: "I tell you the truth, you will not finish
going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:23).
Speaking to the Sanhedrin during his trial, Jesus reportedly said, "you will see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the
clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:16; cf. Matthew 26:64). The meaning is obvious.
The rest of the NT writers interpreted Jesus in this natural way. The apostle
Paul, himself an apocalyptist, was the first NT author to reassure believers that
while some time has passed since the days of Jesus and though some have died,
"the day of the Lord" will still take place suddenly, without warning, any day,
like "a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). Paul even expected that some
of the people he was writing to would still be alive to experience the coming of
the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:15), including himself. Elsewhere Paul also writes:
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who
have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did
not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as
if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not
engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. (1
Corinthians 7:29; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20, 2 Corinthians 6:2, Romans 13:11)
(See note.)21
Later we find the author of 1 John saying he knows it's the "last hour" and
even expects to be alive when "the Holy One" comes (2:18, 28). Still later we
have the author of the book of Revelation repeatedly saying that the "time is
near" or that Jesus will be coming "soon" (1:1; 3:11; 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20).
The imminent coming of the eschaton is reinforced by the radical "interim
ethic" we find in the Gospels as well. Jesus tells his disciples such things as to
sell all and give to the poor (Luke 12:33), which would serve the double purpose
of helping the poor and preparing their own hearts for the eschaton. He told his
disciples not to worry at all about the future (Matthew 6:34), to follow him
immediately rather than take the time to bury a father (Matthew 8:22), and to
forsake and even hate their parents for him (Matthew 10:37). According to Bart
Ehrman, Jesus "urged his followers to abandon their homes and forsake families
for the sake of the kingdom that was soon to arrive. He didn't encourage people
to pursue fulfilling careers, make a good living, and work for a just society for
the long haul; for him, there wasn't going to be a long haul."22 This best
explains why Jesus' ethic isn't livable, as much as Christian commentators have
tried to make it appear so, because there was a "long haul" after all.23
RECENT OBJECTIONS
Until 1994, James Charlesworth, an internationally recognized expert in Jesus
research, could claim that "One of the strongest consensuses in New Testament
research is that Jesus' mission was to proclaim the dawning of God's Rule, the
Kingdom of God. Research on Mark 9:1 has convinced virtually every specialist
that Jesus' teaching was emphatically apocalyptic and eschatological."24 But
even as he wrote this, several scholars were already calling this picture of Jesus
into question, such that there is more to Jesus than just that of an apocalyptic
prophet. Jesus also advocated social reform. It's now argued that a doomsday
prophet with hopes of an otherworldly existence would not be a social reformer.
So David Gowler tells us in a 2007 book that: "Any portrait of the historical
Jesus must come to terms with Jesus as both an apocalyptic prophet and a
prophet of social and economic justice for oppressed people. Any portrait that
does not integrate both these aspects generates a caricature of Jesus of
Nazareth."25
Because Jesus was interested in social reform, Marcus Borg who is one of the
leading pioneers of this recent scholarship, argued that Jesus must have rejected
John's apocalyptic message sometime during his ministry, but that his disciples
later adopted it again.26 In other words, for some unexplained reason, Jesus
>
rejected John's message in the middle of his ministry, and then for another
unexplained reason his disciples later rejected Jesus' message to revert back to an
apocalyptic one. Dale Allison argues that such a scenario is improbable because
"it posits two discontinuities." He writes: "My reconstruction more simply posits
a continuity that is in line not only with John's baptism of Jesus but with the fact
that Christianity's oldest extant document explicitly attributes its apocalyptic
scenario to Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, see 4:15).1127 About this, E. P.
Sanders likewise argues: "It is almost impossible to explain these historical facts
on the assumption thatJesus himself did not expect the imminent end or
transformation of the present world order"; such "desperate" measures like these
he said, merely show "the triumph of wishful thinking." 28
In any case, the unified scholarly consensus no longer exists. So in 2008,
fourteen years after telling of a unified consensus, Charlesworth offered a more
nuanced view by maintaining that "leading scholars" still think the primary
mission of Jesus "was to declare the coming Kingdom of God or, better God's
Rule."29 And Charlesworth still claims "Jesus' authentic message was
fundamentally eschatological," because for Jesus:
All time, past and present, was focused on the immediate present. The
attempts to understand Jesus' eschatology and discern the time of the
fulfillment of God's Rule have myopically focused on the Greek New
Testament text. Greek has a temporal sense of past, present, and future.
Jesus perceived time in Semitic concepts: fulfilled time and unfulfilled
time. Thus, Jesus imagined God's Rule as a mixture as fulfilled and
unfulfilled time in the present. He could ponder a future action as fulfilled,
as did the prophets when they perceived how God had completed a task that
has not yet been experienced by humans.30
Charlesworth argues that Jesus' teaching (especially in some parables) "is
often a mixture of realizing eschatology and futuristic eschatology," but it's all
eschatology just the same, even if Jesus didn't have "a preoccupation with the
end of time."31 Furthermore he says: "we should not expect Jesus to be a
systematic theologian, or one who was not human. Surely, the historian is not the
only one who can imagine a first-century prophet at times thinking that God's
Rule was soon to be fully present and at other times pondering that only God
knows that time."32
So even if there is no "thoroughgoing eschatology" found in Jesus or in the
NT, as Schweitzer claimed, "leading scholars" still think eschatology is a
dominant theme. And I don't see a real problem in combining Jesus' role as a
social reformer with his apocalyptic message anyway. Dale Allison, probably the
leading scholar in the field, shows how Jesus could be both:
He did not proclaim the wonderful things to come and then pass by on the
other side of the road. He rather turned his eschatological ideal into an
ethical blueprint for compassionate ministry in the present, which means
that, in addition to saying that things would get better, he set out making it
so. Jesus' eschatological hope and his humanitarianism cannot be sundered
because they were both products of his infatuation with divine love. God's
loving devotion to the world requires that it not suffer disrepair forever, and
God's love shed abroad in human hearts ... cannot wait for heaven to come
to earth: it must, therefore, before the end, feed the hungry and clothe the
naked.33
Allison further argues that:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of non-apocalyptic minds. And if [Jesus] was
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 42