Author's Introduction
When I was younger, I came across a book in the public library titled The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity. The author was Albert Schweitzer, the renowned theologian and humanitarian. This book made a great impression on me. Its concepts were new and quite strange.
The dust jacket described the book as follows: “This is the last book, and the final theological testament, of one of the great minds of this century. Dr. Schweitzer restates and summarizes the revolutionary views developed in The Quest of the Historical Jesus and his other earlier works. But this book is intended for a wider public, to whom it brings the mature reflections of an old man, dwelling in the loneliness of the primeval forest, with the text of the Bible and little else before him, seeking to lead the reader into the presence of Jesus.”
I had heard much of Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus but nothing of this. What was this book, The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity, which was characterized as his “theological testament”? Where did it come from? The book seems to have been written in the years 1950-51, much of it during a voyage across the Atlantic.
The introduction includes this statement: “After the death of Albert Schweitzer his daughter discovered in Lambarene, packed in a white linen bag, the manuscript of this last theological work of his ... It is not so much an exposition of the meaning of the idea of the Kingdom of God for present-day Christianity as an historical investigation of the biblical belief in the Kingdom from the Old Testament prophets to the Apostle Paul. The heart of the book lies in the chapters on Jesus and Paul, concerned with the field which has always been the centre of Schweitzer’s research. Here he gives once more an exposition from the point of view of the Kingdom of his thorough-going eschatological interpretation of the Gospels.”
Schweitzer’s “revolutionary views” - his “eschatological interpretation” of Jesus’ teachings - were what struck me about the book. It was written in the context of late Jewish belief in the final days. Certainly this type of thought is not unfamiliar to present-day Christians expecting to experience “the Rapture”. But Schweitzer’s interpretation seems largely to have been ignored. Here was this man, the foremost Biblical scholar of our time, expressing views about Jesus that were quite amazing; and few seemed to be listening. The English-language edition of the book is now out of print. What was happening here?
Schweitzer himself has a towering reputation. Winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, he was perhaps best known for his work as a medical doctor in west Africa. He was born in the German province of Alsace in 1875, studied medicine at the University of Strasbourg, became famous as an accomplished organist and a Biblical scholar, and then, in 1913, established a medical clinic at Lambarene in Gabon where he lived until his death in 1965. Albert Schweitzer was an ethical philosopher who coined the phrase “reverence for life.” Of interest here, he was a leading specialist in the search for knowledge about the historical Jesus.
Building upon 19th Century German scholarship, Albert Schweitzer searched the historical record to see what we really knew about Jesus’ life. The most important record, by far, is the body of writings contained in the New Testament. That is also the primary source of information for The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity. Schweitzer brought years of research, his immense powers of analytic thought, and a conscientious, reverent attitude toward his subject to the study of Jesus undertaken in his final years.
I have long thought that the public deserved another shot at Schweitzer’s ideas. Perhaps people were not paying full attention the first time around. After all, it was 1968 when The Seabury Press published the U.S. edition of The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity. The growing sense of war in Vietnam, turbulent race relations, rock ‘n roll music, getting high on acid, and even the flight to the Moon may have interested people more than an old man’s view of Jesus. Scholarship of Schweitzer’s depth was fast disappearing from American life.
Today, even farther into the television culture, we are still interested in Jesus; but he has become, like Superman, a cartoon-like character or a name showcased in sermons or preaching. Would we, with our notoriously short attention spans, accept any prolonged, careful study of him as a figure in history?
I am myself not a Biblical scholar. Next to Schweitzer, I have nothing new to say about Jesus. Then why write this book? Let me explain it this way: My father was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal in the late 1930s. A corporate history describes him as “a talented rewrite man”. Evidently someone interviewed for that book thought my father had a talent for editing and rephrasing stories submitted by others. I am following the same approach in this book about Jesus.
Schweitzer’s work stands, in my estimation, as an ideal expression of Jesus’ thinking. But it may be too long, too full of detail, and too abstract in its thinking, to interest contemporary readers. If it were otherwise, the Seabury Press edition would still be in print. I think I can provide a service to today’s generation of reader by condensing Schweitzer’s message somewhat, eliminating some of the supporting Biblical quotations and peripheral discussion while retaining his essential flow of argument. Also, today’s reader may lack historical context for that discussion. Here I supply material of my own, without reference to Schweitzer.
This then is the plan: The first three chapters and the last two chapters (Chapters 14 and 15) are historical or interpretive narratives representing my own thoughts and scheme of organization. This part of the book will place the story of Jesus in historical context. Political events in Israel and Judaea were important to that story and to the production of prophetic scriptures; readers today may have an inadequate picture of them. It should be understood that this section is mine and not a representation of Schweitzer’s views.
Sandwiched in between the historical chapters, however, are Chapters Four through Thirteen, which are a condensed rewriting and quoting of arguments in The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity. It is not my aim here to be an original thinker but be a “talented” and faithful a “rewrite man” in revising Schweitzer’s incomparable work.
So we have, hopefully, fidelity to the original text of Albert Schweitzer combined with historical elaborations. Equipped with the product of Schweitzer’s powerful scholarship, I doubt that humanity will ever have a better insight into the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus.
Chapter One: About the Story of Jesus
One cannot understand the life of Jesus by viewing it as a simple story where he undertakes certain activities in the world. One ought not ascribe to him motives understood in those terms. For instance, Jesus was not a social agitator wanting to reform society or improve its moral tone. He was not a political revolutionary wanting to overthrow the government. He was not seeking to gain converts to a new religion. From the Gospels we learn that Jesus’ chief activity on earth was to announce the coming of God’s kingdom. So much is clear from these words in the Gospel of Mark which describe his first preaching: “After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God: ‘The time has come; the kingdom of God is upon you; repent, and believe the Gospel.” That was Jesus’ original teaching; it remained at the core of his ministry.
Within Jewish religious culture of his day, the Kingdom of God had been expected for a long time. Jesus was saying that this “Kingdom” would soon appear. What was it exactly? The Kingdom of God was a concept expressed in Old Testament prophecies. These were religious writings produced in the course of eight centuries. A succession of prophets had predicted that events of history would culminate in a cataclysm bringing the end of the world as we know it and the beginning of a new order under God’s rule. Jesus was relating this event to the present time. He was saying: “The Kingdom of God is upon you.” It is almost here. What religious Jews had been expecting for so many years was about to happen. No wonder his preaching created much excitement.
The other part of the story, though, was that this Kingdom was not yet here. “Almost” was not close enough. Those living in Jesus’ day, chafing under Roman rule, were interested in having God’s kingdom come immediately. Jesus sought to pass through the period which remained between the present time and the time of the Kingdom of God. He was involved in the process of bringing about this Kingdom not by his own exertions but by fulfilling scriptural conditions that had to be met first. God would bring about the Kingdom. Neither Jesus nor any other man had the power to make God do anything. Yet, the prophetic scriptures had described a process by which the Kingdom would arrive in the course of time; and Jesus had a role to play.
With respect to Jesus’ power over nature, the Gospels are filled with accounts of his miracle-working. He turned water into wine at a wedding. He walked on water. He cast demons out of possessed persons. He healed the blind and brought dead persons back to life. Most significantly, he was himself raised from the dead. But was miracle-working what Jesus’ life was about? Was he giving evidence of his godlike powers to persuade people that he controlled the universe and had to be obeyed? That seems not to have been the spirit of his ministry. No, Jesus was focused on the Kingdom of God. The miracle-working is significant because the prophetic scriptures foretold miraculous events in the final days. They were a sign of its nearness.
So the story of Jesus should be understood in terms of prophecy. Motives which make sense in worldly terms play little part in his thinking. If the world is set to end in - say - fifteen minutes, nothing matters except for the cataclysm and what comes afterwards - that is to say, the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ moral teachings presuppose that event; they are intended to prepare his followers for the difficult task of gaining admission to the Kingdom.
A Complex Structure of Experience
Certainly Jesus is a character in a story, but the story is referring to something beyond itself. It is referring to a body of prophetic scriptures. When we study these scriptures, we see that they, too, refer to something else. The Old Testament prophecies were written in response to historical events. Each of these spheres of experience has its own set of stories. So now, if we want to understand the story of Jesus, we need to be knowledgeable about three things: (1) what Jesus himself did, (2) the scriptures in reference to which he did those things, and (3) the historical context in which the scriptures were produced.
The story of Jesus could only have taken place at this particular time in history. There needed first to be a culture of written language from which the prophetic scriptures sprang. Such writings had an aura of divine truth. Not only were they attributed to a revered religious figure of the past; they also gained credibility as examples of predictions come true. Written words last. One can see what a person wrote in the past - before the predicted events occurred - and then, from a vantage point in the present, see whether or not those events have come to pass. The difference between the time of the writing and the time when the words are read is what makes it possible for us to know, after the fact, whether the predictions came true. If they did, the prophet would be presumed to be writing under divine inspiration since only God can predict future events.
It may be useful to recall that alphabetic writing was invented in Palestine during the 2nd millennium B.C. The alphabet of the Phoenician people in neighboring Lebanon was the source of most other alphabets. The Hebrew people were literate at the time of King David. There was an unusual continuity of culture between that time and the time when Jesus lived. Because writing was then in its infancy, some were testing the limits.
As with all new media, deceptive practices took place. Some “prophets” inserted their writings into ancient texts, giving the appearance that these words were written in the distant past whereas the writer, living in later times, had the advantage of historical hindsight. No divine powers were needed for this kind of “prediction”. Yet, such texts were accepted as authentic works of prophecy, same as the earlier ones. Such fakery was made possible by a lack of scholarly standards when the culture of writing was in a relatively primitive phase.
With John the Baptist and Jesus, prophecy shifts into the mode of action. They are the first prophets to say that the time of the predicted events has arrived. Instead of writing prophecy, they live it. An extreme pressure is created to live up to the predictions of scripture which, by this time, have become quite fantastic. Their earthly careers are formed by a body of writings hallowed with the passage of time. And so, as actors in a dramatic script, they themselves take on the aura of divinity associated with the sacred text.
What we have, then, in this case, is a script of future history and a character in the script known as the Messiah. Jesus stepped upon the historical stage as one following that script. He was acting in the role of Messiah or, more precisely, as the future Messiah who would appear as God’s agent when the Kingdom arrived. Jesus was also working to bring about this Kingdom. He was fulfilling conditions which the scriptures had said had to happen first. In fulfilling those conditions, Jesus was removing obstacles to the Kingdom’s arrival. When there were no more obstacles, the Kingdom would be here.
Dissonance between Two Sources of Truth
Let us now turn from Jesus’ story to the story of Jewish prophecy. Arnold Toynbee has compared the ancient Jewish attitude toward writing with the Greco-Roman attitude. For the Greeks and Romans, written words were reminders of what one might say, not unlike the notes which a broadcaster has in front of him while talking on the radio. For Jews, on the other hand, the words of scripture were sacred. Toynbee wrote that “in the Syrian world to which the Jews belonged, a book was certainly not recorded as a mere mnemonic aid to human discourse. It was revered as the revealed word of God: a sacred object, in which every jot and tittle on the written page had a magical potency.”
Judaism starts with words inscribed in the stone tablets which Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. God’s words are a primary source of truth. Therefore, written words attributed to someone who conveys God’s message would also be true. Moses would be such a messenger as would other prophets speaking or writing while under the influence of divine inspiration. Each and every word must literally be true.
Potential conflict arises when scripture purports to describe future events. Because of its origin in divine inspiration, the scripture is presumed to be true. So must history be true if, indeed, the reported events actually happened. In time, however, predicted events become history. One can then see if the predictions matched subsequent experience. Normally one would say, if predicted events do not come to pass, the predictions were simply wrong. After all, people do sometimes make mistakes. This explanation is not possible in the case of religious prophecy. When the person making the prediction is a prophet backed by the authority of God, it would damage his credibility to say that he was wrong. It would mean that this person was not a man of God or, worse yet, that God sometimes makes mistakes. It might even mean that the religion was false.
The Old Testament prophets were faced with this dilemma. Jewish religion had seen a number of prophets by the time the first writing prophets appeared in the 8th century B.C. Certain promises had been made. By that time it appeared that God had not kept his promises to the Hebrews. History was proceeding on an unexpected course. There was, then, a certain dissonance between religious expectations and the subsequent historical events. The prophet’s job was to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between these two sources of truth. So prophets in each succeeding period would issue new prophecies taking into account what had gone before. God could not be wrong; and neither could history. There must be some creative explanation for what had happened. Maybe humanity’s understanding of God’s plan was faulty? What could the problem be?
Keep in mind that Jewish prophetic writing spanned a period of almost eight centuries by the time that Jesus lived. Much history had also taken place during this period. We can regard these as two separate streams of expression. One was the flow of national experience which, in a written form, we call history. The other was the flow of prophetic writings in an accumulated body of scripture. The two leapfrogged past each other. History would catch up to earlier prophecies. New prophets would then appear attempting to resolve the discrepancies. They would propose new explanations and make predictions for the period ahead. Then more history would take place, and so on. Taking into account all previous experiences, the later prophecies became more complex. To reconcile discrepancies, the prophets were searching for explanations that broke existing paradigms of moral thought and established higher truths.
A Dialogue between Prophecy and History
This is roughly how it happened: According to the Torah, God had made certain promises to the Hebrew people. He had promised them prosperity, glory, and power if they remained faithful to Him and obeyed his Commandments. This promise is stated in Deuteronomy: “If you will obey the Lord your God by diligently observing his Commandments which I lay upon you this day, then the Lord your God will raise you high above all nations of the earth, and all these blessings (of prosperity) will come to you.” (Deuteronomy 28: 1-2)
For a time, history seemed to support that theory. The Hebrew people established their own kingdom in the land of Canaan. Under David and Solomon, this kingdom prospered. After Solomon’s death, however, the Davidic empire was divided into two parts. Tribes occupying the northern part of the kingdom set up their own kingdom. The northern kings took foreign wives who worshipped other gods. The Assyrian empire meanwhile threatened both kingdoms. It is here that the tradition of prophetic scripture began.
There was evident dissonance: God had promised the Jewish people that they would prosper in remaining faithful to Him; yet their nation, now split, was threatened by a more powerful foreign empire. What had happened? Had God lied? The solution was to explain that God had not promised his people unconditional blessings. Those blessings were conditioned upon their keeping his commandments. Much wickedness had occurred at the court of the northern kingdom. Was, then, God withdrawing the promise which He had made to the Jews through Moses? If so, it might have meant the end of the Jewish religion.
No, another explanation was possible. Maybe humanity did not understand divine providence. Maybe God was taking the long view of how the Jewish people would prosper. A few short-term setbacks might be good for their character. God could be like a stern father who punished his misbehaving children to teach them a lesson. But in the end, he loved his children and would see that no real harm came to them. This is how the prophets explained the discrepancy between God’s promise given to Moses and what had happened in Jewish national history.
Amos, the first writing prophet, developed a rationale which took the form of an historical narrative. The first part of his writing described a series of calamities which had already befallen the Jewish people. Later, the same work told how God would spare a righteous remnant which would restore true worship and bring the nation of Israel back to what it had been under King David. That was God’s new promise to the Jews.
The time frame was important. Because prophetic scripture included a narrative of events up to the time of the writing which readers could verify historically, the writer, to be credible as a prophet, had to be writing in a time before those events. Even if the climax associated with the Kingdom of God had not yet occurred, an accurate description of events that had taken place up to that point gave the writer a reputation for prophetic farsightedness. Once his reputation was established, the prophet’s entire body of writings would be expected to come true. In this case, the Jews were assured that, after much trouble in the present times, God would redeem their nation.
The prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah were public figures whose views were known to many before the events which they prophesied came to pass. Isaiah (740-710 B.C.) advised the kings of Judah not to make alliances with Egypt but instead recognize Assyria’s invincible power. The King of Judah, Ahaz, did submit to Assyrian rule, thereby avoiding the harsh fate that had befallen the northern Kingdom. A later king of Judah rebelled against Assyrian rule and incurred the wrath of its king Sennacherib, who demanded Jerusalem’s surrender. Isaiah assured the king that Jerusalem would not be taken. Sennacherib suddenly ceased hostilities and returned home. This turn of events brought Isaiah much prestige.
Jeremiah (628-587 B.C.) was a political opponent of kings ruling in Jerusalem. Kings of Babylon then threatened the Jewish nation. Jeremiah preached that God meant to use Babylon as an instrument for punishing Judah. A series of Judahite kings opposed Babylon. Each time they rebelled, Jeremiah preached that resistance to Babylon was useless. King Jehoiachin threw Jeremiah in prison for spreading this defeatist message. But the Babylonians easily overcame Judahite resistance. After their last attempt at rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and took much of the Jewish population to Babylon in chains. Jeremiah was vindicated.
Isaiah and Jeremiah both followed the prophetic line set by Amos: God meant to subject his people for a time to foreign enemies, but in the end he would restore the nation to glory and power under a righteous ruler descended from King David. This king’s reign would be everlasting. Having been punished for past sins, the Jewish people would be equipped with God’s spirit to remain forever in a godly state. Two later writers who described events of the exile after the fact joined their writings to Isaiah’s, bolstering his credibility as a prophet.
After the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish exiles were given some religious liberty when the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon. Many were allowed to return to Judaea. But the yoke of foreign rule was not lifted until the 2nd century B.C., and then only for a short time. The spiritualized kingdom never came. Since the events of history did not confirm what had been prophesied, a new dissonance was created.
The Jews returning from exile to Jerusalem were led by Zerubbabel, a descendant of David. They did eventually rebuild the Temple. However the miraculous restoration of the nation did not occur as foretold in Isaiah and Jeremiah. So far as we know, no wolves came to live with sheep. No new covenant was written in people’s hearts. In fact, the Temple was not rebuilt as quickly as expected because the returning exiles quarreled with Jews already living in Judaea. Zerubbabel was an uninspiring leader, quite unlike the expected Messiah.
Maccabean independence from a foreign empire breathed new life into prophetic writing. Jewish kings again again reigned in Jerusalem. But again, no “Kingdom of God” arrived. By this time, the canon of sacred writing was closed. If prophecies continued to be produced, they had to be attributed to a prophet who lived in an earlier time. None of the miraculous events foreseen by prophets in the Old Testament canon had come to pass.
By the time that Jesus lived, there was severe dissonance between the body of prophetic writings and historical reality. Judaea had been under Roman rule for seventy years. Judaea was a political and cultural backwater. The region seethed with dissatisfaction even while adherents of traditional Jewish religion continued to look forward to divine intervention in human affairs of a purely supernatural and fantastic kind. It fell to Jesus to deal with this impossible situation.
More Dissonance
Christianity has long smacked of possible scandal. The first scandal would be connected with Jesus’ birth. The Gospels make it clear that, while Jesus was the son of Mary, Mary’s husband was not the father. Jesus was son of God, created through an immaculate conception. It takes faith to accept that conclusion.
Jesus’ life was seen as scandalous by the Pharisees and other pious persons. Jesus dined with publicans and sinners. He was seen in the company of prostitutes. He violated religious law as when he performed work on the Sabbath or made light of laws regarding cleanliness at meals.
The Crucifixion was a scandal by conventional standards. A high religious authority in Jerusalem convicted Jesus of blasphemy. He was condemned to death alongside two common criminals. Then, after resting two days in a tomb, his body disappeared. Christian faith requires belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This event happened so long ago that it would now be impossible to verify the story. Faith requires us to accept, on the basis of his disappeared body and subsequent ghostly appearances, that Jesus came back to life and was in some sense related to God.
One would think that Christianity might be discredited on any of these points. Faith in Jesus as Risen Lord is clearly irrational. From the standpoint of Jewish tradition, he was accursed. The Law states: “When a man is convicted of a capital offense and is put to death, you shall hang him on a gibbet (a wooden structure or tree) ... you shall bury it on the same day, for a hanged man is offensive in the sight of God.” (Deuteronomy 21: 22-23)
The Apostle Paul recognized that there was a problem. He wrote in Galatians: “Those who rely on obedience to the law are under a curse ... Christ bought us freedom from the curse of the law by becoming for our sake an accursed thing; for Scripture says, ‘A curse is on everyone who is hanged on a gibbet.’ And the purpose of it all was that the blessing of Abraham should in Jesus Christ be extended to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 3: 10-14)
From another point of view, this may be what makes Jesus’ story so compelling. The contradictions in the story make us grasp at higher truths. The experience of the Christian religion is proof of God’s power to work miracles in the world. It is folly but, as the apostle Paul wrote: “Divine folly is wiser than the wisdom of man, and divine weakness stronger than man’s strength.” (First Corinthians 1: 25-26) Church history shows that what has made sense organizationally is turned upside down as the last are first and the first last, and the stone that the builders rejected becomes the chief cornerstone of the temple. The story of Jesus involves what one would call a paradigm shift.
One either accepts Jesus’ role as Messiah or one does not. In the latter case, one must confront the anomaly that the history of the western world is hinged on a mistaken point of fact. Jesus may have been the world’s greatest fool in thinking that his actions would bring about the Kingdom of God; yet , in “tilting at windmills”, he succeeded beyond all other men in changing the moral landscape of humanity. His “mistake” is like that of Christopher Columbus, who discovered a new world while sailing to east Asia. On the other hand, if one is a believer in Christ, then all worlds are subordinated to that belief. God’s favor would be gained by belief alone.
Chapter Two: About Religion
What We Have Come to Expect from Religion
If there is a need for religion in human culture, one of its functions would be to explain the experience of personal being after death. Our identities are bound to that consciousness. We can view the corpse of someone once living and imagine that this person, wherever his spirit may be, continues to have thoughts like our own. Perhaps the dead person can communicate with us? Or, the person may simply be dead and have no thoughts whatsoever? That is a frightening thought. The consciousness that we now have may experience indescribable trauma as it passes into extinction. And if it continues? Then we must fear the unknown. In our present situation, we are powerless to control what will come after we die.
Religion says that there is life after death. There is eternal life within the provision of God. That means that, in some sense, we remain eternally conscious. It makes a difference, then, whether the consciousness will be filled with happy or miserable thoughts since we have the idea that eternal consciousness is stuck in one mode. Either we will be happy forever or we will be forever miserable - and nothing can change this determination once we have died. But before death, religion says, we do have an opportunity to determine what our condition will be. So it is an important choice. And, if religion is able to deliver our dying selves into a better rather than worse condition, then religion should be important to us now, during our lives.
More people on earth believe in Christianity than in any other religion. They believe that Jesus Christ has the power to deliver us individually into Heaven or into Hell. It is with more than a little curiosity, then, that we approach the question of who Jesus was and what he said since he may hold the key to our situation after we die. We want to make sure that we put ourselves in the right relationship to Jesus while there still is time. To do that, we need to understand his life and teaching.
Was Jesus a man who went around promising satisfaction after death? Did he say that he was the only person who did that? Even if he did, how do we know that Jesus was telling the truth? Whatever the answer to those questions, Christianity is established within human culture. There is a rather clear record of what Jesus said and did. We can take a look at this and decide whether it makes sense personally to follow Jesus. Or, to be on the safe side, we can assume that a billion Christians cannot be wrong and believe in his religion because they do. Most theologians will admit: Nothing more is required for salvation than simple faith.
If we want to know about Jesus, we can ask an ordained minister or priest to explain things for us. We can read the four Gospels in which the story of Jesus is authoritatively told. His is an interesting, colorful story. But we are looking for more than stimulation and excitement: We want to know why we should make Jesus the center of our lives. What is there about Jesus which would make us believe that he has control over our situation after death? The Bible does not say much about that.
Jesus was himself very much about life and death and the power to switch between one and the other state, but he was not a promiser of certain afterlife experiences. There is a clear record of what Jesus said and did in the four Gospels and other Biblical texts. What was there about Jesus which would make us believe that he has control over our situation after death? Why would we want to make him the center of our lives?
Three Stages in the History of Religion
Part of the answer to those questions might be found in the history of religion; for this type of experience did not begin with Christianity. We must go back two thousand years ago, when Jesus lived, and back beyond that another three or four thousand years to the beginnings of civilization. Even before that, religion existed; but it was a different type of religion. This system of rituals and beliefs was appropriate to the type of society that existed then. Humanity then lived in small communities which were an extension of the family. Economically, they lived close to nature. The religion suited to that type of society is what we today would call nature worship.
When we speak of religion, we think of an organized set of disciplines, beliefs, and rituals patterned after our own kind of worship. God must be a part of this. One must, after all, believe in something. I think it fair to say that, in the beginning, religion was fused into every other kind of experience. It was, as now, the “unseen” part of experience; but so was knowledge of any sort. Faced with harsh existence, humanity was interested in obtaining food, recovering from sickness, propagating children, and coping with death. He wanted some control over life’s condition. He wanted knowledge of it. Much of this knowledge, he thought, lay in the spirit world.
The idea of spirit mimics the human mind. The inanimate world must be populated with spirits with whom we can communicate. If we want their help, we must seek their favor by performing the right rituals. The term “animism” is sometimes applied to this view. Everything in nature - the sky, stars, trees, mountains, bodies of water - has a consciousness like our own. Everything is personal. God, as we know him, is the supreme personality in the universe. But God’s nature is malleable; our image of him follows our own experience. He may be a mountain or a bolt of lightning, or he may be a stern though loving Father, or he may be a Great King like Pharaoh, or he may be an Idea. His absolute being is unknowable. We must approach God, as ancient peoples did the spirit world, with fear and trepidation.
Human societies have grown larger and more sophisticated than in the early days. Separate institutions have grown to serve the specialized functions required in society. So religion has become a specialized institution to deal with certain needs. One of them is to deal with our fear of death. When we look at the history of religion, however, we must view religious institutions in the light of what we know of human conditions in earlier times. Religion will evolve in accordance with the society at large. It will evolve in accordance with human knowledge. Its particular forms will resemble what is happening elsewhere in human culture at various points of its history.
Arnold Toynbee has written in An Historian’s Approach to Religion that, while “our first impression (of religion) will be one of a bewilderingly infinite variety, yet, on consideration and analysis, this apparent variety resolves itself into variations on Man’s worship or quest of no more than three objects or objectives: namely, Nature; Man himself; and an Absolute Reality that is not either Nature or Man but is in them and at the same time beyond them.”
The three objects of religious worship - Nature, Man, and an Absolute Reality - correspond roughly with three periods of world history. Nature worship is prevalent in prehistoric or precivilized times. Worship of Man in the form of human communities is prevalent in societies that have advanced to the first stage of civilization. Worship of an “Absolute Reality”, or an abstract being called “God”, is characteristic of societies that have advanced to a second stage of civilization. Christianity and other so-called “world religions” would be associated with the last type of society. Religion, then, proceeds in three stages following developments in the larger society.
Precivilized society - the first stage
We call “precivilized” those peoples who remained in the hunter-gatherer phase and some who practiced small-scale agriculture. Their type of social organization was based upon blood kinship. The pressing need to gain material sustenance for these communities left little surplus with which the higher arts and fields of knowledge might be developed. Such societies had static cultures. There was no written language. According to Arnold Toynbee, precivilized peoples live in a type of society whose practices include “the religion of the annual agricultural cycle; totemism and exogamy; tabus, initiations, and age-classes; segregation of the sexes, at certain stages, in separate communal establishments.”
This type of society practiced nature worship. Toynbee said humanity worships what it fears. Because the food supply and other material needs were not yet secure, primitive man worshipped elements in the natural world needed to sustain life. Such worship can take many forms. In general, religious practice at this stage focuses upon a spirit world which must be acknowledged and “fed” through rituals in order to keep life going. The spirits may be of our own dead ancestors or of particular elements in nature. We are surrounded with an invisible spiritual presence that includes beings with which we are able to communicate and transact business. When we ourselves die, we go back into that unseen world.
Some objects or locations in nature were believed to have a greater spiritual presence than others. Whether these were “gods” is subject to interpretation. There were also sacred places where priests tended shrines to certain gods. Particular elements of nature were associated with a divine spirit. The Greek goddess Athena was originally the patroness of olive-cultivation. Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning, the god of the skies. Toynbee speculates that Jehovah might originally have been a “volcano-god” or a “weather-god” on the basis of his association with Mount Sinai.
As with the Greek pantheon of deities, the spirits were often designated by gender. The male gods tended to be associated with the sky while the female goddesses were associated with the earth. A kind of sexual exchange took place when rain poured from the skies upon the earth to provide needed water for crops. Fertility, both of the earth and of humankind, was an early object of nature-centered religion. Human societies needed the crops to grow so priests performed ceremonies to encourage the gods to cooperate in this process. Earth was the Great Mother who needed to become fertile through the paternal agency of the sun. In some rituals, human beings copulated in the fields to show nature what to do. This illustrates a process called “sympathetic magic.”
In the early agricultural societies, human sacrifice was sometimes practiced. Dead human beings resembled the kernels of grain which would miraculously spring to life at the next year’s planting of crops. H.G. Wells writes in his An Outline of History: “Whenever sowing (of grain) occurs among primitive people in any part of the world, it is accompanied by a human sacrifice or by some ceremony which may be interpreted as the mitigation and vestige of an ancient sacrificial custom ... From this it is assumed that there was once a world-wide persuasion that some one should be buried before a crop could be sown ... which has produced profound effects in the religious development of the race.” The idea of a god who was killed and later resurrected is embodied in the Egyptian god Osiris. There may be a vestige of agricultural sacrifice in Jesus’ death and resurrection.
The sky was also populated with gods. One of the first, the moon, was a favorite of women. The moon was believed to seduce women causing them to menstruate. Sun worship became popular as agriculture replaced hunting and gathering. Rays of warm sun light were needed by growing plants. The stars also had their own god-like spirits and were formed into constellations exhibiting personality. The sun god became a supreme deity in Egypt and other lands. Re, the sun god, was combined with Amun, “the breath of life”, to comprise Amun-Re, Egypt’s chief god. Later, Pharaoh Ikhnaton established the cult of Aton, god of the sun, claiming that this was the only true God.
Toynbee speculates that humankind continued to worship nature so long as nature was untamed. One does not worship what one does not fear. Untamed nature became either a monster needing to be defeated, as in the myth of Mithras slaying the bull, or a self-sacrificing victim such as Ti’amat, the dragon of Babylonian mythology, from whose body the universe was created. One worshiped the gods and goddesses of creation and destruction through human sacrifice or ritual prostitution; alternatively, one sacrificed oneself or practiced self-mutilation. In Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac and in God’s sacrifice of His Son, one finds vestiges of nature worship. The Islamic religion retains the fetish of the Kaaba stone.
Early civilization - the second stage
A society’s rise to “civilization”, according to Toynbee, comes through meeting a challenge. The waning of the Ice Age in Europe, Africa, and Asia required a change in social structure. As the lush grasslands of north Africa turned to desert, Egyptian civilization came about by use of the Nile River to irrigate crops. Similarly, in southern Iraq, collective irrigation projects along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers transformed arid land and swamp into places suitable for agriculture. Human enterprise had to be applied on a broader scale than before; and that required organization.
The first city-states, appearing in Egypt and Mesopotamia, produced a type of culture which Roger Lewin has characterized in terms of “sedentism, elaborate burial and substantial tombs, social inequality, occupational specialization, long-distance exchange, technological innovation, (and) warfare.” Another mark of civilized societies was that they acquired the art of writing. All twenty-one societies which Toynbee considers civilizations developed written scripts with the exception of the Incas who kept records through a system of knotted ropes. This writing was ideographic, which meant that the symbols stood for words rather than elemental sounds.
The early city states were built around temples. In Mesopotamia, these temples consisted of a large brick structure called a ziggurat which was built up on several levels to a towering peak. Inside there was a large statue of the local god, tended by a staff of priests. A priest-king, who was the god’s chief servant, ruled the community in his name. The temple became a center of civilized arts in which astronomical observations (to aid planting of crops) would be made, grain would be stored, medicine would be practiced, and rituals would be performed. Specialists in these arts were housed there while the mass of common people worked the fields surrounding the city.
As this type of civilization developed, the function of king separated from that of priest. The priests performed rituals to maintain the proper conditions in nature while kings adjudicated disputes and defended the community against outside attacks. A royal palace was constructed alongside the temple. Unlike the more learned scribes and priests, the kings were practical men whose chief function was to wage wars. Society became centered in the institution of monarchical government. Historically, this period saw the rise and fall of large political empires culminating in the four great ones - the Roman, Parthian, Kushan, and Han Chinese empires - which existed at the end of the 2nd century A.D.
Toynbee said that one of man’s three objects of religious worship was “man himself”, meaning man’s collective identity or, in other words, the state. Today, this “religion” is associated with patriotism. We salute the flag as if it were an object of veneration. Young people are asked to die for their country. Two thousand years ago, worship of the state was indeed a religion. Nature worship had given way to civic celebrations honoring the community god. In the early city states, there would be a large statue of this god in half-animal form in the temple and an altar to receive sacrifices. The statue was sometimes regarded as the image of the god (or goddess) and sometimes the god himself. A city’s relative importance in a region followed the prestige of its local god. In Mesopotamia, Eridu was the holiest city because it had the shrine of the god which had created mankind.
In terms of Toynbee’s theory that man worships what he fears, nature had ceased to be a source of danger after mankind tamed name through agriculture and other technological achievements. The greater danger now came from humanity itself. To be defeated in war meant that many members of a members would be slaughtered while the survivors might be raped or carried off into slavery. Religion adapted to the new circumstances by transferring its focus of worship to the separate warring communities. One worshipped the state. Moloch, or “God worshipped as King”, demanded that blood be shed in his honor.
If an empire such as Rome’s was formed from conquering other cities, its leaders not only created administrative arrangements to incorporate those cities into the political structure but also an assembly of gods that would arrange the local gods in a hierarchy. Toynbee writes that “when the Egyptian world-state was reestablished by the Theban founders of the Middle empire, Amun, the local god of Thebes, was identified with the pan-Egyptian sun-god Re and was elevated as Amun-Re, to the headship of the Egyptian pantheon.” Wise state craft included the task of finding an honorable place for conquered peoples by enshrining their gods in a pantheon.
As the new religion of political states replaced the religion of nature worship, the two systems were able to coexist. Toynbee writes: “In Egypt, we find the worships of the Sun, the Corn, and the Nile surviving side by side with the self-worship of the cantons. In Sumer and Akkad, we find the worship of Tammuz and Ishtar surviving side by side with the self-worship of the city-states. In China we find ... an annual agricultural ritual in which the prince ... ploughs the first furrow of the new agricultural year, surviving side by side with the self-worship of the Contending States ... In this gradual, peaceful, and imperceptible religious revolution, the new religion has not only imposed itself on the old one; in many cases it has actually commandeered one of the old Nature gods to serve also as the representative of the new worship of parochial collective human power.”
And so Athena, patroness of olive cultivation, became divine protector of the city of Athens. Egyptian priests of the sun-god Re organized nine separate nature cults into a pantheon of nine gods among whom Re was chief. Pharaoh’s designation as “sun of Re” linked the political ruler to the divine order. In the myth of Osiris, the victory of Horus, Osiris’ falcon-like son, over Set was politically significant because his totemic representatives, pharaohs of the first dynasty, had conquered the northern Delta region where the worship of Set was concentrated. Pharaoh himself became worshiped as a god. His burial rites were linked to the cult of Osiris, god of the underworld.
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar both conquered Egypt and promptly succumbed to the lure of divinity. Egyptian priests told Alexander that he was the son of Amun-Re. A cult worshiping Caesar as a god was established shortly after he returned to Rome from Egypt. The Roman Senate confirmed Caesar’s deification two years after his death. While Caesar’s nephew Octavian resisted such designation, subsequent Roman emperors did not. Caligula announced that he was a god equal to Jupiter, appointing his favorite horse to be one of the priests in his cult. Nero ordered a 120-foot high statue of himself to be erected with solar rays projecting from his head in the manner of Phoebus Apollo. Domitian ordered government officials to address him in official documents as “Our Lord and God”.
The main battle fought by the early Christians was not against Jupiter, Zeus or another god associated with nature worship but against state religion. Christians, like Jews, refused to worship any god but their own. They refused to pay homage to the emperor or worship his “genius” (spirit). They also refused to bear arms for the Roman state. These Christians were what we would call “unpatriotic” but, in this case, it carried the greater stigma of treason both against the state and its civic religion. They simply would not accept Rome’s hegemony in religious affairs. Earlier Greek attempts to make Jehovah a local god and work him into an imperial pantheon with other gods had likewise failed.
World Religion - the third stage
Historians point to the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. as a time of unusual cultural and spiritual activity throughout the world. Across the Eurasian continent, from China to Greece, a remarkable set of prophets and philosophers, including Lao-tze, Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jeremiah, Pythagoras, and Socrates. While their message varied, these great pioneers of religious thought brought an ethical focus to human culture. They brought an increased sense of reason. Humanity became aware of such concepts as justice, beauty, goodness, and truth. A new way of thinking broke with tradition and made the next civilization possible.
What was this civilization? In the first phase, it was philosophical. A new type of man appeared, the philosopher, motivated to seek the truth. This was a man of great discipline who put truth-seeking above pleasures of this world. Necessarily, his was an elite occupation; the masses could not be expected to adopt this austere mode of living. In time, however, the new spirit of truth seeking worked its way into existing religions. Philosophy became infused in earlier traditions of religion to create a culture that accommodated the emotional side of life. Such values as mercy and love were added to the mix of ethical ideals. Human personalities assumed a central position in religious worship. Scripturally-based religions emerged.
Some may wonder why this spiritual awakening occurred in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.? One explanation is that it coincided with the spread of alphabetic literacy. This type of writing is believed to have originated in Palestine or the Sinai in the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. The peoples of Canaan and Phoenicia had fully developed alphabets perhaps as early as the Hebrew patriarchs. Their relatively early acquisition of writing allowed the Jews to record their religious expressions in a more primitive stage.
Yet, the same wave of ethical thinking that swept through the rest of the Old World also came to Judaea. One catches a glimpse of this spirit in the words of the prophet Amos who, quoting God, wrote: “Hate evil and love good; enthrone justice in the courts ... I hate, I spurn your pilgrim-feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies ... (Instead) ... Let justice roll on like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. ” (Amos 5: 15, 21, 24) Rituals were replaced by conformity to ethical ideals.
In the 6th and 5th centuries B.C., then, we had a fully developed system of government combined with philosophical ferment brought on by the diffusion of alphabetic literacy. Many philosophers of that age were persons aspiring to impose their ideas on governments. Confucius and Zoroaster wandered from one royal court to another looking for a king to patronize their schemes. Buddha, on the other hand, was a royal prince who renounced his throne to pursue philosophy. His life, too, served to advance the principle that philosophy was superior to worldly power. Plato put forth a proposal for a “philosopher-king”. In Judaea, the focus was upon reviving the idealized empire of King David or, in a later version, bringing about a supernatural or spiritualized “Kingdom of God”.
A factor in the decline of state religion was that truth-seeking individuals questioned the traditional values of their society. Each had his own idea of who God was. Aristotle, for instance, identified God with the philosophical concept of the Good. God became, as Toynbee suggested, a manifestation of “Absolute Reality” - i.e., an idea. Socrates played a part in this process both as a questioner of community values and a martyr for the new “religion” of truth. An Athenian jury convicted Socrates for the crime of impiety because he had caused young people to question the civic religion of Athens. But Socrates had once fought bravely for Athens. He had honest convictions and faced death with courage and dignity. The injustice of executing him for impiety gave the old civic religion a bad name.
With Jesus, the same dramatic elements were present. He, too, went to his death on a trumped-up charge while retaining his dignity to the end. In this case, the Jewish high priest and his crowd arraigned Jesus on the charge of blasphemy - claiming to be God. The Roman authorities acquiesced for political reasons. As depicted in the Gospels, it was a classic case of pitting truth against the world. The followers of Jesus went on to create a religious institution which became a pillar of the emerging civilization. While the previous type of civilization was based on military might, the second was tempered with the moral influence of religion. Goodness was said to be superior to worldly power.
The Political Origin of World Religion
Historians have too little noted that the founders of the first two world religions, Buddha and Jesus, did not arise from the tribe (or caste) of hereditary priests but from that associated with royal government. Gautama, the Buddha, was a member of the Kshatryia, or warrior, caste rather than belonging to the caste of Brahmin priests. Likewise, Jesus was not a Levite priest. Instead, he was born into the tribe of Judah which had produced David, Solomon, and other kings. His lineage was traced through Joseph to the House of David. A sign in three languages hung over his body at the crucifixion, saying “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” (John 19: 19) We are told in the Gospel of John that, even if this title was meant to mock Jesus, some took it seriously and tried to have Pontius Pilate to change the wording to read: “He claimed to be King of the Jews.” But Pilate refused.
So in a mysterious way, world religions such as Buddhism and Christianity have politics in their genes. They brought a change in the direction of religion. Religion was changing from concern with performing rituals correctly to scripturally based systems of belief. The image of government in a full-blown form underlay this new scheme. In Buddha’s case, the decisive event of his life was to renounce the throne of a small kingdom in Nepal and seek the higher good of personal enlightenment. In Jesus’ case, it was to seek the “Kingdom of God”, a divine order which would replace earthly kingdoms. We see, then, that, while such religions embraced government as the dominant institution of their day, their teaching aimed at a superior order. They were moving civilization to its next stage.
On the Anvil of Opposing Forces in the Fertile Crescent
Political history is the matrix from which Jewish prophecy sprang. Had the Jews maintained themselves as a powerful nation, no prophets need have arisen to challenge their moral direction. Through most of its history, however, this nation was politically and religiously divided. It was under attack from powerful neighbors.This unhappy historical experience conflicted with a promise which God had delivered through Moses that the Jews would prosper under his guidance and protection. They would always be on top.
The geography of the Middle East tells why the Jewish nation may have run into problems. The earliest civilizations on earth were in Egypt and Mesopotamia, in the northeastern corner of Africa and in the area north and east of the Persian gulf respectively. City-states first appeared there during the 4th millennium B.C.. For at least a millennium, those societies were unchallenged by other civilized societies, only by nomadic tribes. In the 2nd millennium B.C., we find the first known cases of military conflict between political empires. The kingdom of David and Solomon arose toward the end of this millennium. Then, in the 1st millennium B.C., things took a turn for the worse. The Jews, living in Palestine, were hammered by more powerful neighbors who had created aggressive empires.
The accompanying map shows Palestine in relation to other countries of the Middle East; it lies within an irrigated strip of land which is sometimes called the “fertile crescent”. Egypt and Mesopotamia, the two “cradles of civilization”, are at either end of this inverted U-shaped territory. The inhospitable Arabian desert stands between them. One must go to the north, through Syria, to travel easily by land. Palestine is south of Syria, on the Egyptian side of the crescent. As powerful nations situated in Egypt and Iraq had increasing contact with each other, Palestine became the buffer. Often, it was a battleground in wars between Egypt and kingdoms to the north.
At Megiddo, in Galilee, there was a fork in an ancient trade route that ran between Mesopotamia and Egypt. At one time, this city had a larger population than Jerusalem. Megiddo was the site of several important battles including one that took place in 1468 B.C. when Pharaoh Thutmose III defeated an alliance of Asian powers to become master of Palestine. We know this as the site of “Armageddon” - “Har” meaning a mountain overlooking the valley of Megiddon - the predicted battleground of the last struggle between good and evil described in the book of Revelation.
Zechariah foretold that “on that day I will set about destroying all the nations that come against Jerusalem, but I will pour a spirit of pity and compassion into the line of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then they shall look on me, on him whom they have pierced, and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning over Hadad-rimmon in the vale of Megiddo. (Yet also) ... on that day a fountain shall be opened for the line of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to remove all sin and impurity.” (Zech. 12: 10, 13:1)
So we can see that Palestine, ancestral homeland of the Jews, was a place drenched in the blood of wars between foreign powers. Egypt, to the south, was a military presence for nearly three thousand years preceding the time of Jesus. Like an anvil, it caught the blows of attacking forces from the north while at other times seeking conquest. Egypt’s northern adversaries included Hurrian, Mitanni, and “Hyksos” nomads, as well as Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, and Greeks. In the end, the Romans conquered all. Then Christianity conquered Rome.
Toynbee supposes that the Hebrew people were a nomadic tribe which settled in lands along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean sea around the 12th century B.C. This region had previously been under the influence of the Hittite and Minoan civilizations. Along with the Amorites, Phoenicians, and Persians, the Hebrews belonged to what Toynbee called the “Syriac civilization”. Such peoples invading a settled area usually came from a sparsely populated hinterland in the desert or steppe.
According to the Bible, however, the Hebrews were exiles from more ancient civilizations. Abraham, thought to be their ultimate forbearer, came to Canaan (or Palestine) from the Sumerian city of Ur. After living in Canaan for a time, Abraham’s descendants moved to Egypt to avoid famine. Moses then led an Exodus from Egypt back to Canaan. So we have a connection here with the two earlier civilizations that arose at either end of the fertile crescent.
Chapter Three: A Political History of the Jews to the Diaspora
The Jews (Hebrews) are believed to be descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Jacob’s ten sons, whose offspring comprised Israel’s ten tribes. The Book of Genesis records their trek to from Canaan to Egypt in a time of famine. They became enslaved in that land during the next centuries. Around 1225 B.C., Moses led an exodus of Hebrews from Egypt across the Sinai peninsula and back to Canaan where their forbearers had once lived. Jehovah, their ancestral god, gave Moses a set of laws for the nationi. Jehovah meant for the Jews to obey these Commandments in exchange for his favor.
Moses died before the migrating Hebrews entered the land of Canaan. Their leadership passed to Joshua. After Joshua led his followers across the Jordan river, the ten tribes of Israel lived among the Canaanite people for more than a century. Though without a central government, they worshiped Jehovah. It was the period of the judges. Throughout the 11th century B.C., the Hebrew tribes were in conflict with the more tightly organized Philistine city-states in Gaza which had a monopoly in the art of working with iron. Unable to conquer the Hebrews militarily, the Philistines seized the Ark of the Covenant in an attempt to demoralize them. Its presence among them brought only misfortune.
The Monarchy: Saul, David, and Solomon
When the Philistines denied them a blacksmith of their own to resharpen iron tools, the Hebrew tribes united under the command of Saul, who became their first king. Saul defeated the Philistines in battle. He later committed suicide after being defeated at Gilboa in 1013 B.C. Saul’s son Jonathan then ruled east of the Jordan while a Philistine vassal, David, was king of Judah in Hebron. David became king over all the tribes of Israel after he defeated the Philistines and drove them out of Canaan. He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites around 1000 B.C., built a wall around the city, and made it the capital of his kingdom. David went on to conquer the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, and the Aramaean states of Damascus and Zobah. The Canaanite population was culturally and politically integrated within the Hebrew state, which now encompassed all of southern Syria except for Philistia.
Although David had intended to build a permanent shrine in Jerusalem to house the Ark of the Covenant, the tradition of carrying the Ark around in a tent was too strong. It fell to David’s son and successor, Solomon, to build the Temple. Unlike most Middle Eastern temples, this one did not contain a statue of a god, only the Ark surrounded by statues of angels with folded wings. Solomon was a king who preferred wisdom to riches or power. Yet, he was also ruler of an empire which traded with distant kingdoms and became rich. Solomon allied himself with the Egyptian pharaoh and King Hiram of Tyre. For diplomatic reasons, he had several foreign-born wives. Foreign dignitaries visited his court. However, his ambitious construction projects strained the material resources of the nation.
The Kingdom Splits in Two; Prophets Appear
Even before Solomon’s death in 933 B.C., the empire began to crumble. The people of Edom and Damascus revolted. Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam I, rebuffed a request for tax relief from certain of the northern tribes. “My father used the whip on you; but I will use the lash,” the king told his complaining subjects. Then they, too, revolted, splitting the empire in two. Jeroboam I set up a new kingdom with a capital at Shechem which later was transferred to Samaria. During the next two centuries, this “northern kingdom” grew to be more powerful than the southern kingdom of Judah based in Jerusalem. After a century of conflict with the Aramaeans, King Jeroboam II of Israel was able to achieve hegemony over Judah after the Assyrians dealt the Aramaeans a crippling blow. However, there remained a belief hat God would channel his favor to the Jews through David’s dynasty in Jerusalem.
King Solomon’s empire contained the seeds of religious conflict. Solomon and his father had both pursued a policy of integration with the Canaanite people. In a practical sense, this meant tolerating their gods. When Solomon and his successors took foreign wives, they allowed foreign worship to be introduced at court. Contrary to instructions given by Moses, the Jewish kings allowed shrines to be built to other gods. Such practices were prevalent in the Northern Kingdom where Jereboam I, established rival cults at Dan and Bethel, using non-Levitic priests, in order to weaken the authority of the court at Jerusalem. The Golden Calf was made a symbol of God’s presence. To the Jerusalem priesthood, the Northern Kingdom represented apostasy. And when this kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., there was a ready explanation for the disaster: God had withdrawn his favor.
About this time religious prophets became politically influential. The first Syrian and Hebrew prophets were men who fell into shamanic trances. They were not tellers of the future but persons who “told forth” - proclaimed divinely revealed truths. Saul fell in with such a band of ecstatic prophets. In the 9th Century B.C., though, prophets of the Northern Kingdom began to criticize idol-worship at the court of King Ahab. Ahab had allowed his Sidonian wife, Jezebel, to set up a cult of her people’s god, Baal, in Samaria. The prophet Elijah railed against Ahab’s idolatry. He engaged in a contest with the priests of Baal, demonstrating that sacrifices to Jehovah alone would be accepted. A three-year drought fell upon the land. After working many miracles, Elijah departed from the earth in a chariot of fire.
With an even larger band of followers, the prophet Elisha continued Elijah’s work. Elisha instigated a rebellion against Ahab’s son, Jehoram (or Joram), among the king’s troops stationed along the border with Damascus. One of Elisha’s disciples anointed Jehu, the local commander, to replace Jehoram as king. Given prophetic sanction, Jehu promptly traveled to the royal palace where he slaughtered Jehoram, the Queen Mother Jezebel, and other surviving members of Ahab’s family, and then set himself upon the throne, ending the previous dynasty.
Meanwhile, the Jewish people were being drawn into a literate culture based on the alphabet. The Aramaeans and Phoenicians had originated this type of script. The northern Samarian kingdom was often at war with Damascus, center of Aramaean culture; yet merchants, prophets, and others traveled freely between the two territories. The Phoenicians at Tyre were trading partners and allies of King Solomon. Israel and Judaea were thus in the midst of an emerging literacy, incorporating the heritage of past civilizations. As religious prophets put writing to the service of their campaign against royal apostates, they added a twist to the literate culture.
Amos, a herdsman and dresser of fig-mulberries at Tekoa in Judah, was the first writing prophet. He appeared as a prophet at Bethel, the holy city of the North Kingdom, during the reign of Jeroboam II (783-743 B.C.) At the time, this kingdom was threatened by Assyrian militarism. Amos railed against the oppression of the poor both in Judah and Israel. He predicted that God would punish these nations for their sins but in the end would restore them to righteousness and glory by rebuilding the House of David. Assyria would be the instrument of God’s wrath. Therefore, it was no use to fight the impending ruin. Instead, one should look forward to the future day of the Lord.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel, while militarily stronger than Judah, was considered to be more wicked. Not only was it influenced by foreign gods, this kingdom exhibited greater social inequality. Its northern neighbor, Phoenicia, was prospering from vigorous Mediterranean trade. The elite class in Israel sought to emulate this success by promoting commerce at the expense of agriculture. The commercial class grew richer while farmers in the hinterland failed to keep pace. Issues of social justice were added to concerns about idolatrous worship. Amos declared that “righteousness” was pleasing to God.
Politically, the northern kingdom was under pressure from the expanding Assyrian empire. It made the mistake of becoming allied with Assyria’s enemy, the Aramaean city of Damascus. The Assyrians seized Gilead and Galilee from Israel in 733-32 B.C. and then captured Damascus. Rulers of the northern kingdom sought to stave off defeat through alliances with Assyria and with Egypt but these failed. When Hoshea refused to pay tribute to the Assyrians, he was deposed. In 722 B.C., Sargon of Assyria captured Samaria after a three-year siege. Over 27,000 Israelites were deported to other parts of the Assyrian empire.The prophet Hosea interpreted the distressing events as a sign that the kingdom of Israel had turned away from God. There was a lesson in the fact that the Assyrian empire was unable to take the kingdom at Jerusalem, ruled by descendants of David.
Troubles in the Southern Kingdom
Yet, certain things were also rotten in the southern kingdom of Judah. For the first half century after the northern secession, the southern kings tolerated pagan cults. King Asa (908-867 B.C.) instituted a general purge of these cults. Facing pressure from the north, Jehoshaphat made an alliance with King Ahab. Ahaziah was killed by Jehu whom the prophet Elisha had brought to power in the north. For awhile, a daughter of Jezebel ruled Jerusalem but a palace revolt brought Jehoash to the throne. Amaziah was taken prisoner by king Joash of Israel, and Judah came under northern control. After a time of prosperity, this combined kingdom faced a threat from Assyria. Contrary to advice from his adviser Isaiah, King Ahaz called upon the Assyrian king for help. Hezekiah, his successor, first defied the Assyrians and then made peace with them after a disastrous war.
The Kingdom of Judah, while nominally independent, became an Assyrian vassal state. After submitting to Assyrian rule, King Ahaz installed an Aramaean altar in the Temple and tolerated foreign cults. The prophets Isaiah and Micah warned against these practices. Having criticized the corruption of Judaean society during the prosperous reign of King Uzziah, Isaiah now argued that the Assyrians were “a hired razor from across the Euphrates” meant to shave Judah clean of its iniquities. While the Assyrians were indeed ungodly and cruel, he argued that the Jews should not put their trust in alliances or rebellions but look to God alone for salvation. After their cleansing had been accomplished, God would break Assyrian power upon the mountains of Judah, showing all subjected nations that the God of the Jews was God of the entire world.
Micah, too, presented a scenario of succumbing to Assyrian power followed by national redemption. Unlike Isaiah, he foresaw that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Because of its rulers’ wickedness, this city would become a ploughed field. Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.) was moved by such warnings, as well as by the destruction of Israel, to crack down on pagan worship in his kingdom. Renouncing idolatry, he even removed from the Temple a bronze serpent ascribed to Moses.
While a still vassal of Assyria, Hezekiah participated in an uprising against the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, led by the Babylonian rebel, Merodach-Baladan. The rebellion collapsed in 701 B.C. despite aid from Egypt. Hezekiah sued for peace but Sennacherib demanded Jerusalem’s surrender. While Isaiah had disapproved of seeking Egyptian help, he assured Hezekiah that Jerusalem would not be taken. Hezekiah then refused to surrender and Sennacherib unexpectedly returned home. While the Judaean countryside was devastated, the capital remained under Hezekiah’s control.
Manasseh, who succeeded Hezekiah as king, adopted a policy of appeasing Assyria and submitting to its rule. Judah contributed troops to the Assyrians and shared in the prosperity of their empire. Foreign merchants came to Judah, bringing diverse customs and strange dress. Doubting Jehovah’s ability to help them, the Judaean people turned to other gods. The court of Manasseh became a center of pagan worship. The cults of Asherah, a Canaanite fertility goddess, and of Assyrian deities took root there. Such developments called for religious reform; but it was not until the reign of Josiah (640-609 B.C.) that actions were taken to restore the Temple cult.
Under Josiah, foreign religious practices were again suppressed. A new set of laws and divine instructions, written around 630 B.C., were “found” in the Temple by the high priest and judged to be authentic. These writings comprise the book of Deuteronomy, which takes an uncompromising stand against worshiping gods other than Jehovah. The Passover celebration again took place in the Temple. Josiah convened a representative assembly to enter into a covenant with God to recognize the Torah. The Assyrian empire was then in the process of dissolution. However, Josiah died before he was able to realize his ambition of recovering all the territories once ruled by King David. He did create a scriptural foundation for the religion of Judaism.
Whatever comfort the inhabitants of Judah might have found in Assyria’s collapse was soon dispelled in the rivalry between Egypt and Babylon to fill the power vacuum. Josiah lost his life while opposing the Egyptians, an Assyrian ally. The Kingdom of Judah became subject first to the Egyptians and then to the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho II at the battle of Carchemish. Some interpreted Judah’s bad fortune as a consequence of Manasseh’s apostasy. The prophet Jeremiah argued its roots lay deeper. He had warned that a northern power would scourge the faithless nation of Israel. After Assyria fell, that power was seen to be Babylon.
King Jehoiakim rebelled against the Babylonians in 598 B.C. but was defeated. He died shortly before Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. Jehoiakim’s successor, Jehoiachin again unwisely plotted against Babylon relying upon help from Egypt. Although the prophet Jeremiah preached that resistance to Babylon was useless, the king persisted in his rebellion. Again Nebuchadnezzar prevailed. Jehoiachin and thousands of Jews from prominent families were deported to Babylon. The king’s brother, Zedekiah, was installed upon the throne after swearing loyalty to the Babylonian king.
Zedekiah ruled for ten years. Then, he broke his promise to the Babylonians and sought independence with Egypt’s help. Jeremiah continued to urge submission to Babylon. This time, Nebuchadnezzar descended upon Jerusalem with lethal force. After a siege lasting eighteen months, he captured the city, blinded Zedekiah, destroyed the Temple, burned Jerusalem to the ground, and deported the king and much of the Jewish population to Babylon. So began the period of the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah was given the choice of remaining in Judaea or emigrating to Egypt.
The exile to Babylon was a formative time for Jewish religion. The Jews no longer had their own government. They had only the memory of a state ruled by David and his heirs, together with prophecies that this dynasty would some day be restored through the intervention of God. Jeremiah’s reputation as a prophet of God was established by his fateful warnings that resistance to Babylon would have dire consequences. Religious Jews now took heart from his prediction that the Temple in Jerusalem would some day be rebuilt. God would offer a new covenant with his people inscribing obedience in their hearts. The House of David would again take its place among the powerful empires of the earth and enjoy God’s special blessing.
Exile and Return to Jerusalem
In Babylon, the cult of Jehovah might have been forgotten. God seemed to have let David’s dynasty expire. Josiah had decreed that Jehovah could be worshiped only in the Temple; but that Temple existed no more. In fact, the Jews preserved and strengthened their religious identity in this harsh setting. They preserved it by cultivating an attitude of separateness from other people and by creating the synagogue which was a place to study the Torah, the Jews’ portable culture. The same prophets who had predicted the destruction of Israel and Judah had also predicted that God would resurrect the House of David in an even more glorious form.
The prophet Ezekial (593-73 B.C.) was among those Jews sent to Babylon in the first wave of deportations in 597 B.C. Like Jeremiah, he prophesied Jerusalem’s destruction. Yet, his sights were set primarily upon restoration of the Temple. God would revive Israel’s dry bones so the entire world would know he was God. Another prophet of this time, known as Second Isaiah (writer of Isaiah, chapters 40 through 66), also predicted that the Jews would be allowed to return home from captivity. He even mentioned their deliverer, Cyrus, by name. The text of Second Isaiah provided strong support for monotheism. The miraculous delivery of the Jews from captivity indicated that Jehovah was god not only of the Jews but of all peoples.
Jerusalem was conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. It was not long before Babylon was, in turn, conquered by a neighboring power. King Cyrus II of Persia gained control of the Median empire in 559 B.C. In 538 B.C., he conquered Babylon. The Jewish exiles were now subject to a new empire, albeit one more benign. In the same year that Babylon was conquered, Cyrus issued an edict allowing Jews to return to their homeland. About 40,000 exiles did return. Once again, prophecy had been fulfilled. However, Judaea remained a part of the Persian empire for another two centuries.
During the Babylonian captivity, many persons who remained in Palestine continued to worship Jehovah. His cult had followers in faraway places such as Elephantine in southern Egypt. Assyrian policies of deportation had brought many Gentiles into Samaria to mix with the Jewish population. Conflict developed between Jews returning from Babylon and the Samarians who were settled in Judah. The Babylonian Jews would not allow their Samarian coreligionists to participate in the restoration of Temple worship. The latter denounced the returning exiles to the Persian court as insurrectionists wanting to establish an independent state. Permission to rebuild the Temple was rescinded. This project sat for a number of years until Darius I lifted the ban in 520 B.C. Work on the Temple was completed four years later.
Although the Temple in Jerusalem was now rebuilt, none of Ezekial’s or Second Isaiah’s other predictions had come true. There were no great miracles evidencing Jehovah’s power and glory. Instead, the Jews began squabbling among themselves. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah had interpreted the events preceding Darius’ ascension to the throne as a sign that the Persian empire was breaking up and God’s kingdom would soon arrive. They identified the Jewish governor of Judah, Zerubbabel, as the promised Messiah who would rule this kingdom. (Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, was also an ancestor of Joseph, Mary’s husband.) However, nothing of the sort happened. Events in Judaea continued along a mundane course.
There was a belief that God might restore his favor to the Jews if they faithfully observed requirements of the Covenant. Persons of mixed heritage such as the Samarians were seen as a threat to religious purity. In this xenophobic environment, a major concern was intermarriage between Gentiles and Jews. In 458 B.C., the Levite priest Ezra, along with a large retinue, arrived from Babylon. He brought with him an agenda of zealously enforcing religious rules. Citing archaic laws, Ezra and other leaders forced many Jews who had married Gentiles to become divorced. The non-Jewish spouses and children were expelled from the community.
Nehemiah, who had been the cupbearer of Artaxerxes I, returned to Palestine in 444 B.C. bearing letters of appointment as Governor of Judah. An important task was to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah and Ezra spearheaded the process of religious cleansing. The Persian emperor, Artaxerxes, had granted Ezra a charter allowing him to make the Torah law of the land for Jews in Judah and other eastern provinces. However, the Torah first had to be published. For its publication, it had to be officially compiled. So Ezra became associated with the process of codifying the Torah. These sacred scriptures allowed the Jews to retain their religious identity while remaining a people politically subservient to others.
By the mid 5th Century B.C., when Nehemiah and Ezra lived, it had been a century and a half since Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. The Jews had remained a culturally distinct people. On the other hand, the link with prophecy was weakening. God seemed no longer to be speaking to the Jews in their own time. The prophet Malachi reflects the discouragement which religious Jews felt at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. He denounced intermarriage with Gentiles and corruption among Temple priests. He recommended that the Torah be observed. Malachi’s is the last book contained in the Old Testament canon. After him, the canon was closed.
Life under Greek Rule
Then, after another century of subjection to Persian rule, a remarkable political event occurred. Alexander the Great, commanding Macedonian and Greek armies, conquered the Persian empire. Persian rule In Judaea was extinguished. Following Alexander’s death ten years later, Judaea fell under Egyptian control. Once again, it was caught in a dynastic struggle between powerful empires to the north and south, ruled by Alexander’s former generals. The southern empire of Egypt was ruled by successors of Ptolemy I; the northern Syrian empire by successors of Seleucus Nicator. The Egyptians controlled Palestine until 198 B.C. Then it was the Syrians’ turn for the next thirty years.
As with the Persian empire, Egypt under the Ptolemies was tolerant of Jewish religion. Many Jews settled in Egypt and became hellenized. Even under the Syrians, they found relatively tolerant conditions. Meanwhile, the Egyptian and Syrian dynasties fought each other for control of possessions in the east Mediterranean region. Territories such as Phoenicia, Sicily, and Cyprus often changed hands. The Syrian power grew stronger over time.
The Seleucid emperor Antiochus III (223-187 B.C.) waged war over a vast area. He forced the Parthian king to become a vassal and beat an Indian prince into submission. In 202 B.C., he went to war with Egypt for the sixth time. Judaea became a Syrian possession when the peace treaty was signed four years later. Antiochus then made the mistake of taking on Rome. The Romans defeated him in 190 B.C. at Magnesia-under-Sipylus, setting up Syria’s dismemberment. Asia Minor (Turkey) was lost. Armenia and Bactria became independent states.
While the Seleucid empire continued, there was financial pressure upon it to pay the post-war indemnity to Rome. Most of the wealth lay in temples spread about the empire. The Syrian emperors were forced to pillage these temples to raise money. Such actions aroused the ire of local populations. In Judaea, they stirred tensions between rich and poor. The rich, who controlled the temple wealth, tended to be sympathetic to Greek authority. The more numerous poor were Jewish traditionalists clinging to the Law. A rift between two rich families, the Oniads and Tobiads, escalated into the development of pro-Egyptian and pro-Syrian factions within Jewish society.
In 175 B.C., a group of Hellenizing Jews asked the Seleucid emperor, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) to turn the temple-state in Jerusalem into a Greek-style city to be renamed Antioch. The emperor was only too happy to oblige. It had been the policy of Syrian emperors to create associations of Hellenic city-states whose common Greek culture would strengthen the empire. Also, the Hellenized priesthoods at the different temples outdid each other in offering bribes to the emperor.
In 169 B.C., emperor Antiochus, on his way to Egypt to fight a war, pillaged the Jerusalem Temple with the high priest’s consent. When Rome signaled its displeasure in regard to the Egyptian expedition, Antiochus changed his mind. Returning to Syria by way of Judaea, he learned of an insurrection by anti-Hellenist Jews. While the rebellion was directed against the Temple priests, the emperor interpreted it as defiance of himself. He built a fort in Jerusalem and took military action.
In December of 167 B.C., Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning “the God Manifest”) hellenized worship in the Temple. His new cult identified Jehovah with the Olympian god Zeus. Zeus was represented by a statue in the Temple resembling the emperor himself. This act, more than any other, galvanized anti-Hellenic sentiment. Religious Jews struck back through military actions directed by Judas Maccabeus, son of the priest Mattathias.
Maccabean Rule
After killing an agent of the emperor, Judas Maccabeus and his four brothers fled to the mountains where they assembled a group of Jewish guerillas. For six years this army fought battles against the Syrian forces. At length, they recaptured and reconsecrated the Temple, forcing children of Hellenizing Jews to be circumcised. So the Hasmonean dynasty came into being. Rome entered into a treaty withthis dynasty in 161 B.C. However, Judas Maccabeus was killed in the following year when a Syrian army under Demetrius I “Soter” (“saviour’) again ravished the countryside forcing him to flee to the mountains.
After Judas’ death, succession to Hasmonean throne fell to the youngest of Mattathias’ sons, Jonathan. Ruling for seventeen years, he was the first of the Hasmonean rulers to assume the dual function of priest and king. Meanwhile, a pretender to the Seleucid throne, Alexander Balas, who claimed to be Antiochus IV’s son, fought for power with Demetrius, a son of emperor Seleucus IV. Jonathan took advantage of their five-year struggle to wrest concessions from Syria. Currying favor both with Demetrius and the Romans, he gradually expelled foreign troops from Judaea.
Jonathan was murdered in 143 B.C. by a Syrian general whom he had thought was his friend. Mattathias’ last remaining son, Simon, then assumed the throne which he occupied for eight years until he, too, was treacherously murdered. It was under Simon’s rule that the Hasmonean dynasty finally took the Seleucid fort in Jerusalem, drove the Syrians out, ended tribute to them, and gained real independence. These were heady days for religious visionaries. A Jewish state again existed in Judaea. Ancient prophesies seemed to be coming true.
Meanwhile, groups of patriotic Jews called Pharisees, who were not part of the Temple priesthood, produced new prophetic scriptures envisioning Jewish redemption in the final days. The Book of Daniel, while attributed to an earlier prophet, is believed to be one of these. Other writings have recently come to light with the discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls”, stashed in a cave near the Essene compound at Qumran as Roman armies were laying waste to Judaea in 68 A.D. These scriptures tell of a prophet known as the “Teacher of Righteousness” who led his followers into the desert but was put to death by Jewish authorities around 70 B.C. He allegedly rose from the grave and went to heaven. A script titled “The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness” captures the ferocious spirit of the Maccabean war in presenting Jewish and non-Jewish forces in sharp moral contrast.
This was a time when anti-Hellenizing Jews were dividing into religious and political factions. Josephus, the historian, mentions three groups in particular. The Sadducees were right-wing Jews who were well educated and rich; they tended to favor the Epicurean philosophy. The Pharisees were the more conservative of the militant Jews known as “Chassidim” (Hasidaeans) who wished to purge Jewish religion of foreign influences. They were popular leaders and Stoic in temperament. Finally, there were the radical Chassidim, the Essenes, who pursued a monastic life not unlike that of the Pythagorean order.
We know the Sadducees and Pharisees from the Christian Gospels. The Sadducees, a Temple aristocracy, accepted the Torah alone. They rejected doctrines such as belief in angels and resurrection of the dead which were products of a so-called “oral law’ revealed to Moses. The Pharisees, more ready to accept religious innovations, appear in a negative light in Gospel accounts of their discussions with Jesus. Historically, however, this group of Jews enjoyed much prestige among the people for their uncompromising stand in difficult times under the Hasmonean rulers. Products of an anti-Hellenic uprising, those rulers became Hellenists. The Pharisees who challenged them on it suffered great persecution .
After Simon Maccabeus was murdered by his son-in-law in 134 B.C., Simon’s surviving son, John Hyrcanus, assumed the throne and ruled for thirty years. Hyrcanus held the dual office of prophet and priest. In the first year of his reign, the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes reconquered Judaea, ravished Jerusalem, and demanded tribute from the Jews before turning his attention to Parthia. This king was killed by the Parthians in 127 B.C. A struggle for succession ensued between two half-brothers, Antiochus VIII Epiphanes (“Grypus”) and Antiochus IX Philopater (“Cyzicenus”). It lasted until 111 B.C. when they agreed to split the kingdom. Each ruled for another fifteen years.
John Hyrcanus took advantage of the Syrian civil war to reassert control over Judaea. He conquered neighboring peoples such as the Moabites, Samarians, and Idumaeans, giving them a choice between becoming circumcised, going into exile, or being put to the sword. Such zealous proselytizing brought a large increase in the number of persons adhering to Judaism. Around 110 B.C., the Pharisees questioned Hyrcanus’ right to be high priest as well as king. Hyrcanus then turned upon this group of former supporters and persecuted them. The Hasmoneans became allied instead with the Sadducees. John Hyrcanus died in 104 B.C.
Aristobulus I, who called himself “the Hellene”, succeeded his father. His short, cruel reign was marked by violence against his own family. A brother, Alexander Jannaeus, ascended to the throne upon his death in 103 B.C. This ruler continued his father’s policy of suppressing the Pharisees while siding with the Sadducees. The Pharisees, who had gined influence with the people, withdrew their support so that Jannaeus had to resort to foreign mercenaries to maintain political control. He died in 76 B.C. after ruling for twenty-five years. His widow, Salome Alexandra, ruled for the next seven years as queen-regent . Upon her late husband’s recommendation, she now supported the Pharisees and persecuted their rivals, the Sadducees.
The last five years of Jewish independence followed Salome Alexandra’s death in 69 B.C.. First her oldest son, John Hyrcanus II , a supporter of the Pharisees, became king. Then another son, Aristobulus II, seized control with the help of the Sadducees. For a time, there were two Judaean kings supported by the different parties. After the Roman general, Pompey, captured Antioch in 65 B.C., both sides appealed to him to intervene in their political dispute. Pompey backed John Hyrcanus II when the Sadducees resisted Roman rule. In 63 B.C., he captured Jerusalem, desecrated the Temple, and set up Hyrcanus as a puppet king and high priest. Real power fell into the hands of the Antipater family.
Judaea in Roman Times
The Antipaters were converts to Judaism from Idumaea in the southern part of Palestine. The original Antipater had given refuge to Hyrcanus II when he was ousted by his brother. His son, also named Antipater, became prime minister under Hyrcanus when the Romans restored that king to power. Julius Caesar, who had defeated Pompey in a power struggle, gave Antipater control over Palestine. The prime minister appointed his own sons, Herod and Phasael, to be provincial governors.
In 37 B.C., the Roman Senate appointed Herod to be King of Judaea. Herod (“the Great”) ruled until 4 B.C. He improved the harbor at Caesarea, built a temple to honor Augustus in Samaria, and rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple on a grander scale. Because of his close ties with the Romans, Herod was opposed by both the Pharisees and Sadducees. Though a Jew, he was hated for his sympathies with Greek culture.
Three sons divided up Herod’s kingdom after his death. Archelaus became ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea. Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. A third son, Philip, perhaps the ablest administrator of this group, received Batanaea, northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Augustus Caesar removed Archelaus from office in 6 A.D. after his subjects complained. Judaea was then joined to the Roman province of Syria. A Roman procurator now ruled this province.
The first Judaean procurator, Cyrenius, issued an edict that Jews register their property in preparation for taxation. This precipitated an armed rebellion led by the Zealots. Thousands were executed; their skeletons hung on trees for years. Another violent group, the Sicarii, carried concealed daggers which they used to assassinate their opponents in crowds. It was in such an environment that Pontius Pilate became procurator of Judaea in 26 A.D. He was removed ten years later after Samaritans complained of atrocities.
Jesus of Nazareth lived in Galilee, a province ruled by Herod Antipas. This is the same king who ordered John the Baptist’s beheading. The Herod who ordered the slaughter of infant males at the time of Jesus’ birth might have been Herod the Great, although the conventional calendar places his death four years before Jesus’ birth. Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover in 30 A.D. That put him in Pilate’s jurisdiction when he was convicted of blasphemy and executed on a cross. Christianity began with news of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
In 37 A.D., the Roman emperor Caligula appointed a grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, to succeed Philip as tetrarch. An able ruler, he was given control over southern Syria and most of Palestine four years later. He ruled for three years. In 44 A.D., his son, Herod Agrippa II, inherited the kingdom. In the same year, an Egyptian named Theudas proclaimed himself Messiah. He led 30,000 supporters into the desert where many were slaughtered by the Romans. Herod Agrippa II was a poor ruler who antagonized the people. Rome once again took control of Palestine.
While Jesus’ followers spread the Gospel by peaceful persuasion, Judaea and neighboring lands seethed with resistance to Roman rule. The situation built up to a head in the period between 68 and 70 A.D., when certain revolutionary groups attempted to defeat the Romans through force of arms. They were hoping to prepare the way for a Messiah who would establish God’s supernatural Kingdom. Jewish rebels took control of Jerusalem. The Roman general Vespasian was dispatched there to put down the insurrection. His armies besieged the city. Called back to Rome to become emperor, Vespasian appointed his son Titus to continue the siege.
Jerusalem was occupied by three separate groups of armed insurrectionists, each awaiting the Messiah. They controlled different sections of the city. For eight horrible months, these rival groups inside the besieged city set fire to each others’ food supply, destroyed the royal palace and house of the high priest, and looted or murdered rich individuals, while expecting Messianic intervention. Instead, Roman soldiers broke through the fortifications. The Temple and most of the city were destroyed. Almost the entire population was killed or deported. So began the Diaspora.
Judaism survived through accommodation with the Roman authorities. A leader of the Pharisees, smuggled out of Jerusalem in a coffin after the debacle of 70 A.D., received permission from Vespasian to establish an institute of Jewish studies in Jamnia. Rabbinical Judaism, organized around worship in synagogues, sprouted from that school. Another religious community, of even greater historical consequence, was that which arose from the death and resurrection of the peaceful Messiah, Jesus, who had lived in a previous time.
Chapter Four: Prophets from Amos through Second Zechariah
Albert Schweitzer begins his book, The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity, with this statement: “Christianity is essentially a religion of belief in the coming of the Kingdom of God. It begins with the message preached by John the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3: 2) It was with the same preaching that Jesus came forward in Galilee after the imprisonment of the Baptist. The Christian view of the Kingdom of God arises out of the Jewish. For this reason a knowledge of the expectation of the Kingdom of God found in the Prophets and in late Judaism is essential if we are to understand the background of the thought of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul and the earliest Christians.” (Schweitzer, p. 3)
Moses was the first and greatest prophet of Judaism. Leader of the Hebrew people in their exodus from Egypt, he was one whom God “knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10). Moses met with God on top of Mount Sinai and received a set of moral instructions for the Jewish nation. There were also prophets at the time when the Hebrews lived in Canaan before there was a king. Roaming the countryside of Syria and Palestine, these individuals carried on the shamanic practice of communicating with the spirit world while in a trance. Their ecstatic seizures were taken as a sign of inspiration from God. Fearlessly, the prophets would challenge the moral authority of kings.
After Moses, the two greatest prophets of the Old Testament were Elijah and his successor, Elisha. They lived in the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of King Ahab (869-850 B.C.) and his son Jehoram. It was customary in those days for foreign-born royalty at marriage to bring their native gods with them. Queen Jezebel, formerly a Phoenician princess, had brought the Sidonian god Baal into the royal court. However, the Transjordanian prophet Elijah was devoted to Jehovah (or Yahweh), god of the Hebrew people, whom he considered to be the only true God. A dramatic contest with the priests of Baal demonstrated Jehovah’s superior power.
Elijah’s disciple, Elisha, destroyed the house of Ahab for its religious apostasy. He instigated a rebellion against Ahab’s son, Jehoram, by soldiers stationed on the frontier between Israel and Syria. Elisha’s disciples anointed an army commander, Jehu, to be king in Jehoram’s place. Jehu carried out his mandate by traveling to Jezreel, where Jehoram was recovering from wounds, and killing the king, the king’s family, and all worshipers of Baal. Jezebel, the queen mother, remained defiant to the end. She, too, was killed and her body was thrown to the dogs.
The story of these prophets is told in the first and second book of Kings. Elijah and Elisha did not write anything themselves; their prophecies were orally delivered. The first writing prophet was Amos, a Judaean herdsman and dresser of fig-mulberries who preached at Bethel in the 8th century B.C. His prophecies concerned “the Day or Yahweh” (or Day of the Lord). Its idea was that “God was to execute judgment on the nations against whom his chosen people Israel had been compelled to maintain themselves in a series of fierce struggles ever since their settlement in Palestine, and that he would subject these peoples to Israel for all time. A reign of peace was expected, in which the mastery of the world would fall to the people of Israel.” (Schweitzer, p. 3)
Amos
The prophet Amos challenged the idea that, on the Day of Yahweh, God would side with the nation of Israel and smite its enemies. No, this day would be different from what people imagined. “God’s judgment would be executed not only upon the enemies of his people but upon the people itself as well. Because Yahweh is an ethical God, to show himself as such he must execute judgment upon all peoples, including the people which belongs to him in a special way, the verdict will be based solely on the good or evil of their deeds..” (Schweitzer, p. 4)
Because several Canaanite peoples had committed evil acts in war, their cities would be destroyed. However, God would also punish Israel and Judah for their iniquities. “Fools who long for the day of the Lord!, “ said Amos; “what will the day of the Lord mean to you? It will be darkness, not light. It will be as when a man runs from a lion, and a bear meets him, or turns into a house and leans his hand on the wall, and a snake bites him. The day of the Lord is indeed darkness, not light, a day of gloom with no dawn.” (Amos 5: 18-20)
The people of Israel trusted that God would treat them kindy because they had performed the rituals required in Yahweh’s cult. Disagreeing, Amos quoted God: “I hate, I spurn your pilgrim-feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies. When you present your sacrifices and offerings I will not accept them, nor look on the buffaloes of your shared-offerings. Spare me the sound of your songs; I cannot endure the music of your lutes. (Instead) let justice roll on like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5: 21-24) This was an important change in religious worship. No longer might one cultivate God’s favor by performing rituals. More important was whether one was a good person.
Still, Amos predicted that God would not destroy Israel for all time. The nation would fall to its enemies but a part of the people would be saved, those who had remained faithful to God’s commandments. Those persons who were pleasing in God’s sight would survive the nation’s destruction while the wicked perished. And so a kind of sifting would take place. “I will not wipe out the family of Jacob root and branch, says the Lord. No; I will give my orders, I will shake Israel to and fro though all the nations as a sieve is shaken to and fro and not one pebble falls to the ground. They shall die by the sword, all the sinners of my people, who say , ‘Thou wilt not let disaster come near us or overtake us.’ On that day I will restore David’s fallen house; I will repair its gaping walls and restore its ruins; I will rebuild it as it was long ago.” (Amos 9: 9-11)
Amos was creating a scenario of future history which set a pattern for subsequent prophecies. It departed from Moses’ promise that Yahweh would allow the Jews to prosper because they were his Chosen People. By this time, the kingdom of David and Solomon had split into two kingdoms and wickedness had set in. Amos was saying that God would allow foreign enemies to defeat the nation of Israel; but, because of his favor, that nation would later be revived. A new nation, populated by survivors of the earlier calamity, would arise under the leadership of David’s descendants. Purged of its wickedness, this nation would again enjoy prosperity. The prophets Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, who followed Amos, adopted his idea that God would punish the Jews for their evil deeds and unfaithfulness but later restore the nation through a remnant of righteous survivors.
Isaiah
Isaiah lived in the southern kingdom of Judah where he was an advisor to the king. Assyria was the dominant military power, and the King of Judah sought security by an alliance with Egypt. Isaiah advised against this policy. The Jewish nation should trust in God instead. Like Amos, Isaiah accepted that the future would bring immediate hardship before the Jewish nation was restored. God would need first to punish his people for their sins. In the end, however, a surviving remnant of the righteous could look forward to establishment of a new “kingdom of peace” ruled by David’s descendant and armed with the spirit of God.
In Isaiah, the concept of a Messiah is put forth for the first time. “Messiah” means “the Anointed”. As the prophet Samuel had anointed David’s head with oil, so the ruler of God’s kingdom would be anointed with divine spirit. This ruler be genealogically descended from King David: God was restoring the kingdom which had allowed itself to lapse into sin. Earthly empires rise and fall but the dynasty of David and Solomon would be spared the fate of ordinary empires. God would intervene to create a kingdom of lasting peace.
The words of Isaiah ring through the ages: “Then a shoot shall grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall spring from his roots. The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and power...” (Isaiah 11:1-2) “For a boy has been born for us, a son given to us to bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder; and he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of peace. Great shall the dominion be, and boundless the peace, bestowed on David’s throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it with justice and righteousness from now and forevermore.” (Isaiah 9:6-7)
Another new element in Isaiah is the idea that on the Day of the Lord nature will be miraculously transformed. Wild animals will be tamed even as men give up their warlike ways. In the coming Kingdom of Peace, “the wolf shall live with the sheep, and the leopard lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall grow up together, and a little child shall lead them ... the lion shall eat straw like cattle; the infant shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the young child dance over the viper’s net. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain..” (Isaiah 11: 6-9) “The expectation that at the time of the Kingdom of Peace God will also transform the natural world appears with ever-increasing emphasis in the later prophets.” (Schweitzer, p. 7)
Jeremiah
In the terrible period preceding Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., the prophet Jeremiah was continually preaching that resistance to the Babylonians was futile. It was God’s will that the Jews submit to Babylon. Jeremiah believed that God intended to punish the Jews for their apostasy. But, again, the punishment would be temporary. The present misfortunes would be a period of testing which would be followed by a Kingdom of Peace under a Davidic ruler. Jews of that painful period could find consolation in God’s promise of a happy ending.
“The reason why Jeremiah could expect the people to accept patiently as something sent by God all the misfortunes they had to endure was that these events were trivial compared with the time which would follow the testing. It was of no real consequence whether Judah was for a few years an independent kingdom or a vassal of the Chaldaeans. The only thing that mattered was what would become of it when the humiliation gave place to the exaltation.” (Schweitzer, p. 8-9)
The new age would begin with the return of those exiled to Babylon, whether from Judah or Israel. The new Kingdom of Peace would again be ruled by a scion of David. “The days are now coming, says the Lord, when I will make a righteous Branch spring from David’s line, a king who shall rule wisely, maintaining law and justice in the land.” (Jeremiah 23: 5) “I will heal and cure Judah and Israel, and will let my people see an age of peace and security. I will restore their fortunes and build them again as they once were. I will cleanse them of all the wickedness and sin that they have committed; I will forgive all the evil deeds they have done in rebellion against me. This city will win me a name and praise and glory before all the nations on earth, when they hear of all the blessings I bestow on her.” (Jeremiah 33: 6-9)
Jeremiah foresees that God will make a new covenant with his people. Not only the king but the people, too, will become vehicles for divine spirit. In God’s new covenant with the Jews, laws will be written not on paper or in stone but directly in people’s hearts. “The time is coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. Although they broke my covenant, I was patient with them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with Israel after those days ... I will set my law within them and write it on their hearts; I will become their God and they shall become my people. No longer need they teach one another to know the Lord; all of them, high and low alike, shall know me, says the Lord, for I will forgive their wrongdoing and remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31: 31-34)
The law of Moses is here being replaced by a new spiritualized covenant, where obedience is effected by spirit rather than through human effort. Such is the law that will govern the coming Kingdom of God. God will forgive sins, not exact punishment. Yet, while a descendant of David will rule this kingdom, God will have mercy on the Gentiles, too. He will allow them to participate in the Kingdom on equal terms with the Jews. While Judah is surrounded by “evil neighbors ...yet, If they (the neighbors) learn the ways of my people, swearing by my name ... they shall form families among my people.” (Jeremiah 12: 16) So Gentiles, too, will learn to worship the One True God. “The development of the expectation of God’s people from particularism to universalism is based upon the ethical conception of God.” (Schweitzer, p. 10) It is a theme that will continue in future prophecies.
Ezekial
Ezekial, a prophet of the Exile, was first to write prophecies which included “elaborately conceived visions and symbolic actions.” (Schweitzer, p. 11) He deals with the problem that the Kingdom resurrected after the exiles return from captivity might contain ungodly persons among those who have survived Jerusalem’s destruction. His solution is to suppose that only the good have survived. Therefore, the postexilic kingdom will consist only of righteous persons, the bad having perished.
In proposing his theory, Ezekial offers a vision of Jerusalem before it was captured. He imagines hearing God tell a scribe dressed in linen: “Go through the city, through Jerusalem ... and put a mark on the foreheads of those who groan and lament over the abominations practiced there.” To the six men carrying battle-axes who accompanied this scribe, God says: “Follow him through the city and kill without pity; spare no one. Kill and destroy them all, old men and young, girls, little children and women, but touch no one who bears the mark.” (Ezekial 9: 4-6) Thus, a process of moral selection took place before Jerusalem fell. Only those who passed the test lived to be deported to Babylon so that only morally fit persons would still be around. There would be no further need to distinguish between righteous and unrighteous persons in the Kingdom of God. The problem of determining a “righteous remnant” was solved.
Being a member of the Jewish priesthood, Ezekial did not share Amos’ disdain of ritual. Once the Jews returned to Judaea, God would restore the temple worship at Jerusalem and accept sacrifices. Ezekial had particular ideas about the design of the temple. The city of Jerusalem would be laid out in a large square with three gates on each side. The restored temple would be built within a smaller square in the center of the city. Water would gush from a spring underneath the temple and proceed to the Dead Sea whose salty water would miraculously become fresh and support many fish. Along its banks would grow fruit-bearing trees whose leaves would never wither.
Here, again, one finds supernatural elements entering into prophecies about the restoration of Israel. In Isaiah there had been “a transformation in living nature, in so far as the creatures are granted a way of life which gives them the possibility of sharing in the Kingdom of Peace. In Ezekial inanimate nature also achieves a transformation from a state of imperfection to one of perfection. The hope of the miraculous becomes increasingly prominent in the expectation of the future.” (Schweitzer, p. 13)
Ezekial is an important source of prophecies concerning the battle of Armageddon. Once God’s kingdom was established, an enemy would attack it from the north. This was “Gog from the land of Magog.” The evil army would descend upon Palestine where God had arranged that this force would be destroyed and its host become a meal for the birds and beasts that inhabit the mountainous areas. The purpose of this event would be to exhibit God’s power in the world. “I will send fire on Magog and on those who live undisturbed in the coasts and islands, and they shall know that I am the Lord. My holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel and will no longer let it be profaned; the nations shall know that in Israel I, the Lord, am holy.” (Ezekial 39: 6-7)
Second Isaiah
Second Isaiah (or “Deutero-Isaiah”) was a person writing under the name of the prophet Isaiah who actually lived during the Captivity. He was the author of the 40th through 62nd chapters in the Book of Isaiah. We can date the time of his writing because Second Isaiah referred to the exile and the fact that Cyrus had allowed the temple to be rebuilt, even mentioning the Persian emperor by name. (Isaiah 44:28) Despite his anonymity, this writer was one of the most important prophets of the Old Testament. He build a foundation for religious monotheism and presented a portrait of God’s suffering servant which bore an uncanny resemblance to Jesus.
“The preaching of Deutero-Isaiah takes the form of hymns on the imminent redemption of Israel. He is a poet-prophet. These hymns look forward to the return of the people seen as a completely supernatural event. God will lead those who return to Jerusalem. Nature will give expression to its joy at their good fortune and make itself serviceable to them by his command. The new Jerusalem will be like a home in another world.” (Schweitzer, p. 14)
Nature exhibits miracles as the exiles return home. “There is a voice that cries: Prepare a road for the Lord through the wilderness, clear a highway across the desert for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, every mountain and hill be brought down; rugged places shall be made smooth and mountain-ranges become a plain. Thus shall the glory of the Lord be revealed, and all mankind together shall see it.” (Isaiah 40: 3-5) “Come out of Babylon, hasten away from the Chaldaeans ... tell them, ‘The Lord has ransomed his servant Jacob.’ Though he led them through desert places they suffered no thirst, for them he made water run from the rock, for them he cleft the rock and streams gushed forth.” (Isaiah 48: 21)
Further evidence of Jehovah’s unique power is the fact that Gentile nations will aid in the exiles’ return to Judaea and the restoration of the temple. They will help to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and will themselves offer gifts to God. “Foreigners shall rebuild your walls and their kings shall be your servants ... Your gates shall be open continually, they shall never be shut day or night, that through them may be brought the wealth of nations ... The wealth of Lebanon shall come to you, pine, fir, and boxwood, all together, to bring glory to my holy sanctuary, to honor the place where my feet rest. The sons of your oppressors shall come forward to do homage, all who reviled you shall bow low at your feet; they shall call you the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” (Isaiah 60: 10-11, 13-14)
“The guilt of the people and their punishment by God are buried in the past. No more thought is to be given to it. Again and again the prophet preaches that henceforth God will have nothing but compassion and love for Israel. God will make a new covenant with his people and provide a descendant of David as ruler for them and for the whole world.” (Schweitzer, p. 15)
Isaiah says: “Though the mountains move and the hills shake, my love shall be immovable and never fail, and my covenant of peace shall not be shaken.” (Isaiah 54: 10) “I will make a covenant with you, this time for ever, to love you faithfully as I loved David. I made him a witness to all races, a prince and instructor of peoples; and you in turn shall summon nations you do not know, and nations that do not know you shall come running to you, because the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, has glorified you.” (Isaiah 55: 3-5)
Earlier prophets had interpreted the Exile and other misfortunes in terms of God’s punishing the Jews to cleanse them of their sins. The fact that God has dispersed the Jewish people among Gentile nations now opens up another interpretation. The Jews’ unhappy experience has nevertheless created an opportunity for the Gentiles to learn about Jehovah, the one true God. Their survival during the Exile and King Cyrus’ edict of tolerance have given the Jews renewed confidence in the uniqueness of their God. “There is only one God. It is he who created heaven and earth ... That he is the Lord of all peoples can be seen from the fact that Cyrus, the mighty king of the Persians, who does not know the true God, has to carry out what God has in mind for his people.” (Schweitzer, p. 16)
The idea that the Jews have suffered captivity for the sake of exhibiting their God gives rise to the image of God’s suffering servant: “He was despised, he shrank from the sight of men, tormented and humbled by suffering; we despised him, we held him of no account, a thing from which men turn away their eyes. Yet on himself he bore our sufferings, our torments he endured, while we counted him smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery; but he was pierced for our transgressions, tortured for our iniquities; and the chastisement he bore is health for us and by his scourging we are healed. We had all strayed like sheep, each of us had gone his own way; but the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53: 3-6)
Who was this suffering servant? Was it Jesus? Schweitzer and others believe that it initially referred to the corporate people of Israel. Yet, the image of Christ’s crucifixion comes through clearly: “He was afflicted, he submitted to be struck down, and did not open his mouth; he was led like a sheep to the slaughter, like a ewe that is dumb before the shearers. Without protection, without justice, he was taken away; and who gave a thought to his fate, how he was cut off from the world of living men, stricken to the death for my people’s transgression? He was assigned a grave with the wicked, a burial-place among the refuse of mankind, though he had done no violence and spoken no word of treachery. Yet the Lord took thought for his tortured servant and healed him who had made himself a sacrifice for sin ... and in his hand the Lord’s cause shall prosper. After all his pains he shall be bathed in light, after his disgrace he shall be fully vindicated; so shall he, my servant, vindicate many, himself bearing the penalty of their guilt. (Isaiah 53: 7-11)
Second Isaiah follows the scenario of a divine kingdom that will follow the period of suffering in which the Jews found themselves. A descendant of David would rule God’s kingdom and a new covenant would replace the previous one. God required ethical conduct to be pleasing to Him. Individuals must be ethical, not just nations. It was important to observe the Sabbath, show concern for one’s neighbor, and be humble before God. In Second Isaiah, “monotheism reaches its full development. It is no longer enough to look up to Yahweh (Jehovah) as the God who is exalted far above the gods of other peoples by his power and his ethical nature. He moves on from the conception of his uniqueness ... to that of his sole existence. (Schweitzer, p. 16)
The last four chapters of the Book of Isaiah were not written by Second Isaiah but by another prophet who lived toward the end of the Exile. While the themes of these chapters are consistent with the ones in chapters 40 through 62, they present the coming of God’s kingdom in miraculous terms. This prophet writes of a new creation. “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. Former things shall no more be remembered nor shall they be called to mind. Rejoice and be filled with delight, you boundless realms which I create.” (Isaiah 65: 17-18) “Here the idea ... (found in earlier prophets) ... that a wonderful transformation of nature will take place in the age of the Kingdom of God reaches its final conclusion. The Kingdom is beginning to become something wholly supernatural.” (Schweitzer, p.19)
Haggai and Zechariah: Prophets after the Exile
After King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in 538 B.C., he issued an imperial edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Instead of miraculous events, conflict developed between the Jews returning from Babylon and Samarians settled in Judah. The Babylonian Jews would not let the Samarians participate in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. The latter denounced the Babylonian emigres to the Persian court for seeking independence of Persia so that the emperor withdrew permission to rebuild the temple. Darius I lifted the ban in 520 B.C., the second year of his reign. Construction of the temple was complete in 516 B.C. The returned exiles were then under the leadership of Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, and of Joshua, the high priest.
The prophets Haggai and Zechariah, writing at this time, interpreted the turbulent events preceding Darius’ ascension to the throne as a sign that the Persian empire was breaking up and the Kingdom of God would soon arrive. Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, was the promised Messiah. “Although the events following the return had followed such a mundane and melancholy course, the two prophets did not cease to expect the miracle of a speedy divine intervention.“ (Schweitzer, p. 19)
Haggai wrote: “You have sown much but reaped little ... Go up into the hills, fetch timber, and build a house acceptable to me, where I can show my glory.” (Haggai 1: 6-9) “Take heart, all you people ... Begin the work, for I am with you, says the Lord of Hosts, and my spirit is present among you ... One thing more: I will shake heaven and earth, sea and land, I will shake all nations; the treasure of all nations shall come here, and I will fill this house with glory.” (Haggai 2: 4-7) “Tell Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, I will shake heaven and earth; I will overthrow the thrones of kings, break the power of heathen realms, overturn chariots and their riders ... On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, my servant, and will wear you as a signet-ring; for you it is that I have chosen.” (Haggai 2: 21-23)
Zechariah had a vision of men on horseback roaming the land to learn what the moral condition of its inhabitants might be. “How long, O Lord of Hosts, wilt thou withhold thy compassion from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah?,” an angel asked God. God replied: “I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion ... My cities shall again overflow with good things; once again the Lord will comfort Zion, once again he will make Jerusalem the city of his choice.” (Zechariah 1: 12, 15, 17) “Jerusalem shall be a city without walls, so numerous shall be the men and cattle within it. I will be a wall of fire round her, says the Lord.” (Zechariah 2: 4-5) “This is the word of the Lord concerning Zerubbabel: Neither by force of arms nor by brute strength, but by my spirit! How does a mountain, the greatest mountain, compare with Zerubbabel? It is no higher than a plain ... Zerubbabel with his own hands laid the foundation of this house and with his own hands he shall finish it. So shall you know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me to you.” (Zechariah 4: 7-9)
“Once again all these hopes were doomed to disappointment. Nothing more is heard of Zerubbabel; there is no record of what became of him.” (Schweitzer, p. 20)
Malachi
The Book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament. It was assumed that Malachi was the last prophet; the sacred scripture ends with his writings. Malachi lived in Jerusalem around 450 B.C. when Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. This was shortly before Nehemiah and Ezra arrived from Babylon to begin their program of religious cleansing. Previous hopes for a glorious restoration of Judah under the House of David had faded. Instead, there was corruption within the Temple. Malachi complained of priests who were sacrificing only those animals with blemishes and were keeping the best ones for themselves. He also complained of Jewish men who were marrying Gentile women. God was not receiving the tithes due him.
In view of this backsliding, Malachi returned to the idea that the Jews needed to be punished for their sins. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah had promised that such judgment was behind them and in the future God would show only mercy and forgiveness. Evidently times had changed. Malachi, like Amos, wrote of a process of separating good people from bad. Instead of sifting grain, he envisioned a refiner’s fire. The righteous, like a precious metal, would survive God’s fiery judgment, while ungodly persons would be destroyed. “Who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand firm when he appears? He is like a refiner’s fire, like fuller’s soap; he will take his seat, refining and purifying; he will purify the Levites and cleanse them like gold and silver, and so they shall be fit to bring offerings to the Lord.” (Malachi 3: 2-3)
The most important point in Malachi’s prophecy was the idea that before the Day of the Lord the prophet Elijah would return to earth. That great prophet of the 8th century, B.C., had not died but had ascended to Heaven in a whirlwind. (2 Kings 2: 12) It was fitting, then, that God would send Elijah back to earth in the same manner before the day of the Lord. “Look, I am sending my messenger who will clear a path before me.” (Malachi 3: 1) “Look, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. He will reconcile fathers to sons and sons to fathers, lest I come and put the land under a ban to destroy it.” (Malachi 4: 5-6)
Malachi’s is a grim message. God’s people have again gone astray. They have disregarded the Law of Moses. More punishment lay ahead. “The day comes, glowing like a furnace; all the arrogant and the evildoers shall be chaff, and that day when it comes shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of Hosts, it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in his wings, and you shall break loose like calves released from the stall. On that day that I act, you shall trample down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, says the Lord of Hosts.” (Malachi 4: 1-3)
Joel, Isaiah 24-27, Zechariah 9-14
After Malachi came a number of prophets who attached their writings to previous prophesies or wrote under another’s name. Since the canon was closed, they could not otherwise have been included in the sacred scripture. The prophet Joel lived around 400 B.C. - fifty years after Malachi. The authors of the 24th through 27th chapters of Isaiah and of the 9th through 14th chapters of Zechariah lived in the period when the Persian empire was overthrown by Greek armies under Alexander the Great. These prophets continued to look forward to the coming Day of the Lord.
Joel resumed the argument that God would defend his people Israel despite their faults. On the Day of Yahweh, they would be protected from the Gentiles who mocked their God. These Gentiles would be brought to judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat. All who called upon the name of the Lord would be saved. An important addition in Joel was the idea that the Day of Yahweh would be marked by miracles and an outpouring of spirit. It is this scripture which Peter quoted at Pentecost.
“Thereafter the day shall come when I will pour out my spirit on all mankind; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams and your young men see visions; I will pour out my spirit in those days even upon slaves and slave-girls. I will show portents in the sky and on earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. Then everyone who invokes the Lord by name shall be saved: for when the Lord gives the word there shall yet be survivors on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem a remnant whom the Lord will call.” (Joel 2: 28-31)
The author of Isaiah, chapters 24 through 27 was in general agreement with Joel. This prophet contributed two notable elements to the scenario of events relating to the final days. First, he wrote that God would punish the heavenly beings which had become disobedient. The idea of fallen angels comes from the Zoroastrian cosmology although these beings may also have been a product of the mating between earthly women and sons of God mentioned in Genesis. “On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and on earth the kings of the earth, herded together, close packed like prisoners in a dungeon; shut up in gaol, after a long time they shall be punished.” (Isaiah 24: 21-22)
His second contribution to prophecy is the idea of a miraculous feast prepared for all people on Mount Zion. “On this mountain the Lord of Hosts will prepare a banquet of rich fare for all the peoples, a banquet of wines well matured and richest fare, well-matured wines strained clear.” (Isaiah 25: 6) Those inhabiting the Holy Mountain would be spared of death. “On this mountain the Lord will swallow up the veil that shrouds all the peoples, the pall thrown over all the nations; he will swallow up death for ever.” (Isaiah 25: 7) The first passage supports what became known as the Messianic banquet. This was a feast in Heaven after God’s kingdom had been established.
Chapters 9 through 14 in the Book of Zechariah contain many passages familiar to Christians:
“Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion; shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem; for see, your king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained, humble and mounted on an ass.” (Zechariah 9:9)
"On that day, I will set about destroying all the nations that come against Jerusalem, but I will pour a spirit of pity and compassion into the line of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then they shall look on me, on him whom they have pierced, and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son.” (Zechariah 12: 9-10)
“Then they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver.” (Zechariah 11: 13)
“Alas for the worthless shepherd who abandons the sheep; a sword shall fall on his arm and on his right eye.” (Zechariah 11: 17)
“Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” (Zechariah 13: 7)
Zechariah 9-13 follows Ezekial’s lead in prophesying that a fountain of living water will flow from the temple to the sea. It is a fountain to remove sins. “On that day a fountain will be opened for the line of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to remove all sin and impurity ... living water shall issue from Jerusalem, half flowing to the eastern sea and half to the western ... Then the Lord shall become king over all the earth.” (Zechariah 13: 1, 14: 8-9)
The same writer envisions that God will destroy all the nations that make war on Jerusalem. “On that day a great panic, sent by the Lord, shall fall on them ... the wealth of the surrounding nations will be swept away ... And slaughter shall be the fate of horse and mule, camel and ass, the fate of every beast in those armies. “ (Zechariah 14: 13-15) The survivors of this attack on Jerusalem “shall come up year by year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the pilgrim-feast of Tabernacles ... Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the Lord of Hosts, and all who sacrifice shall come and shall take some of them and boil the flesh in them. So when that time comes, no trader shall again be seen in the house of the Lord of Hosts.” (Zechariah 14: 16, 21)
Chapter Five: Daniel and the Apocalyptists of Late Judaism
The original idea of the kingdom begun on the Day of the Lord was that the Jewish nation would be restored to its state of power and glory under King David. A descendant of David, the Messiah, would again be its ruler. Great hopes were placed upon such a descendant, Zerubbabel, but they came to nothing. Prophets after Haggai and Zechariah did not mention that a descendant of David would rule God’s kingdom. Who would be the ruler? God himself was the logical choice. After the Exile, the Kingdom of Judah had no king. It was a theocracy ruled by the Jerusalem priesthood.
In the 24th chapter of Isaiah it is written: “The moon shall grow pale and the sun hide its face in shame; for the Lord of Hosts has become king on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and shows his glory before their elders.” (Isaiah 24: 23) Zechariah states: “If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, no rain shall fall upon them.” (Zechariah 14: 17)
“The Messianic Kingdom of the earlier prophets and the kingdom of God seen by the prophets of the later post-Exilic age differ not only in that in the one the Messiah reigns, in the other God himself. Their whole nature is different.” (Schweitzer, p. 25)
According to Schweitzer, the Messianic Kingdom of the earlier prophets “is a spiritual and ethical dimension. It arises through the working of God’s spirit in men ... These prophets anticipate that, in the age of the Messianic Kingdom, not only will the ethical replace the non-ethical, but there will also occur a more or less widespread transformation of the natural into the supernatural. This, however, makes no difference to the nature of the Kingdom ... The operation of the Spirit of God working on men remains the dominating factor ... The spiritual and ethical character of the Kingdom is preserved.” (Schweitzer, p. 25)
“In Malachi, and in Joel and the writers of Isaiah 24-27 and Zechariah 9-14, this is no longer true. In them the Kingdom is supernatural in its very nature. It does not come in the operation of God’s Spirit in men, but appears as a ready-made divine creation. It is Daniel who draws out the consequences of the supernatural character of the expected Kingdom. Not only, like the prophets of the later post-Exilic period, does he disregard the Messianic king of David’s line: he puts in his place the Son of Man, a being whom God sends down from heaven to reign in the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 25)
Daniel’s “Son of Man”
The book of Daniel is an apocalypse, which is a prophecy published under the name of a person (a revered religious figure) living in a time before the actual writer. Its “prediction” of events therefore has the advantage of historical hindsight. “In the classical apocalypse the alleged writer undertakes to predict the course of history from his own day in the remote past to the age in which the real writer lives, as something glimpsed in a series of visions, and rounds it off with visions of the final age. Since the reader can establish the accuracy of the prophecies of past events, its is hoped that he will come to be convinced that the events still to come will occur as foreseen. It is also characteristic of apocalypses that ... they attempt to determine the date of the appearance of the Kingdom. They lay down all that must occur in order that it may come. They are at pains to give a survey of the events which, according to the preaching of the earlier prophets, belong to the final age, and thus offer a doctrine of their course and succession.” (Schweitzer, p. 26)
Daniel, the historical figure, lived in the 6th century B.C. at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. He was a page in the court of Nebuchadnezzar famous for his ability to interpret dreams. Enjoying God’s favor, he escaped from a lion’s den. In contrast, the writer of the Book of Daniel lived in the 2nd century B.C. during the period of the Maccabean rebellion when religious Jews led by the sons of Mattathias overthrew the Greek Seleucid empire to establish an independent state. We can date its writing precisely because this writer “presupposes in his prophecies the reconsecration of the Temple, but not the death of (the Seleucid emperor) Antiochus. He must therefore have completed the writing of his work between December 165 (when the temple was reconsecrated) and June 164 (when Antiochus Epiphanes died).” (Schweitzer, p. 28)
The core of Daniel’s prophecy consists of several visions regarding political empires that rose and fell in the Middle East. There were four empires, each symbolized in animal form: The first, Babylon, appeared in the form of a lion with eagle’s wings. The Median empire, which succeeded Babylon’s, was presented as a bear “half crouching .. (with) ... three ribs in its mouth.” Then came a four-headed “beast like a leopard with four bird’s wings on its back.” This was the Persian empire. The fourth and final beast, of unknown species, was “dreadful and grisly, exceedingly strong, with great iron teeth and bronze claws.” This beast also had ten horns, including a small horn in the middle with “the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke proud words.” This was the Greek empire of Alexander the Great and his successors. The empire of Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the ten horns, the most fearsome. (See Daniel 7: 1-8.)
The succession of beast-like empires described the course of political events between the 6th and 2nd centuries B.C., when the Jews were ruled by foreign powers. During this time, the prophets were promising an the end of the troubling period when God would again show favor to His People. A Kingdom of God would arrive, replacing the earlier kingdoms. Therefore, Daniel kept looking at the beasts in the vision. While he was looking, “thrones were set in place and one ancient in years took his seat ... Flames of fire were his throne and its wheels blazing fire; a flowing river of fire streamed out before him ... The court sat, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7: 9-10) While Daniel watched, the fourth beast was killed and its carcass was destroyed. Some of the other beasts were allowed to remain alive for a time.
“I was still watching in visions of the night,” said Daniel, “and I saw one like a man coming with the clouds of heaven; he approached the Ancient in Years and was presented to him. Sovereignty and glory and kingly power were given to him, so that all people and nations of every language should serve him; his sovereignty was to be an everlasting sovereignty which should not pass away, and his kingly power such as should never be impaired.” (Daniel 7:13-14)
What does this vision mean? “Daniel sees as events in which ordinary history gives place to the supernatural the destruction of the best which represents the kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes and the handing over of the sovereignty in the Kingdom which follows it to a being whose form is like a son of man (whereas the representatives of the successive world empires have appeared in the form of animals).” (Schweitzer, p. 29) This person, “one like a man”, was the Messiah. A kingdom ruled by the Messiah would succeed the four earthly empires and last forever.
In itself, the term, “son of man”, does not denote the Messiah or any other supernatural being but merely a human being. Ezekial used it this way and so does Daniel. However, in the context of Daniel’s vision of the four earthly kingdoms followed by an eternal Kingdom, “son of man” or “one like a man” assumes a new significance. This person is “the heaven-sent ruler in the Kingdom of God.” (Schweitzer, p. 30) Note that this figure represents a departure from earlier prophecies where the ruler is a descendant of David who rules a revived Jewish state, or, in some cases, God, who rules his own kingdom. In Daniel, God turns over kingly authority to a Messianic “son of man”.
Schweitzer speculates that by the time the Book of Daniel was written, Jewish prophets come to the view that God was too exalted to rule over an earthly city such as Jerusalem. God had begun delegating that function to heavenly figures such as the Archangel Michael. Also, the royal lineage descended from David was no longer in power; it could not, in any case, have ruled over a supernatural kingdom. Therefore, a new type of ruler, a supernatural Messiah, had to be found to assume the reins of control in God’s Kingdom. Daniel’s prophecy proposed the figure of “son of man”. Was this person someone who had lived on earth as a man? Was he also a “son of David”? Schweitzer is not sure.
The prevalent view among Biblical scholars is that, in Daniel, this Messianic figure is “a preexistent being, who has always, like the angels, had his home in the heavenly regions ... (and) ... is sent down from heaven.” (Schweitzer, p. 31) However, it is also possible that the Messiah will be “a man who will be exalted to heaven at the end of time and will appear from there to reign in the Kingdom, endowed with a supernatural power that is there conferred upon him.” (Schweitzer, p. 31) So the question arises whether the Messiah graduated from being a man to a supernatural state or he was always supernatural?
Daniel adds two other details to the scenario of the final days. First is the idea that right before God’s kingdom arrives, humanity will experience a period of unprecedented stress and suffering. In theological parlance, this is the “pre-Messianic tribulation”. It is one of the key signs indicating that the Kingdom of God is near. Many believe that, for the writer of the Book of Daniel, the persecution experienced under the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes IV was that tribulation. The “saints” (righteous Jews) were indeed “delivered into his (Antiochus’) power for a time ...” (Daniel 7: 25) Alexander’s Greek empire, split between many kings after his death, signified the “fourth beast” which had ten horns. Yet, some other interpreters of Daniel’s prophecy have found similarities to persons and events in other times.
The second detail arises from a description of events when the time of the earthly turmoil abruptly ends. “At that moment Michael shall appear, Michael the great captain, who stands guard over your fellow-countrymen; and there will be a time of distress such as has never been since they became a nation till that moment. But at that moment your people will be delivered, every one who is written in the book: many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will wake, some to everlasting life and some to the reproach of eternal abhorrence.” (Daniel 12: 1-2)
Daniel is here introducing the resurrection of the dead to his vision. Isaiah 24-27, writing around 300 B.C., had broached the idea in these words: “On this mountain the Lord ... will swallow up death forever.” (Isaiah 25: 7) “But thy dead live, their bodies will rise again. They that sleep in the earth will awake and shout for joy; for thy dew is a dew of sparkling light, and the earth will bring those long dead to birth again.” (Isaiah 26: 19) Daniel now ties the idea of the dead’s resurrection to deliverance of righteous Jews when the Archangel Michael appears. The dead are resurrected at the same time that the Kingdom of God arrives.
Why were the dead resurrected? “Though frequently proclaimed by the prophets as imminent, the coming of the Kingdom was constantly deferred. In the course of time the thought must have forced itself upon their minds that there was a problem here. As age succeeded age, more and more of the righteous were being deprived of participating in the Kingdom as their generation passed away. If belief in the Kingdom was to remain strong, there must be an accompanying belief in the resurrection (of the dead) which would take place at the coming of the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 32) On the other hand, if the dead of previous generations were not resurrected, “those who had striven to become righteous and well-pleasing to God in hopes of the Kingdom could have no prospect of attaining it unless its coming took place in the lifetime of their generation.” (Schweitzer, p. 32) It was therefore a matter of simple justice.
The Religion of Zoroaster
When the Jews were deported to Babylon, they became exposed to foreign cultures. Although Cyrus allowed the Jewish exiles to return home to Judaea, they remained a part of the Persian empire until the Persians were themselves overthrown by Alexander in 333 B.C. There was then a period of more than two hundred years in which the Jewish people were subject to Persia. While tolerant of their subject peoples’ religions, the Persian empire had adopted the religion of Zoroaster (Zarathustra) as its state religion. Like Jewish prophecy, this religion included a vision of the final days in which the conflicting forces were morally defined. Considering that the Jews found Persian culture to be relatively benign, it is not surprising that Jewish religion absorbed many influences from Zoroastrianism.
Zoroaster was a religious philosopher who appeared in Bactria (present-day Afghanistan) between 650 and 600 B.C. After wandering for several years in search of a royal patron, he persuaded the Persian king Vishtaspa (who may have been the father of Darius I) to accept his religious system. The new religion spread fast. Its basic concept was that life on earth reflected a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. The supreme god, Ahura-Mazdah, who had created the world, was the only real god. He led the forces of good against the evil forces led by Angra-Mainyu (Ahriman) to win a great victory in the final days. Zoroaster’s scheme of moral dualism also applied to daily life.
Zoroastrianism was a religion that encouraged progress toward civilization. Zoroaster himself was living in a time when human society was converting to agriculture from a nomadic way of life. Whatever aided that conversion was considered good while it was bad to remain with the old ways. Honesty, trustworthiness, humility, cleanliness, hard work, respect for property, and humane treatment of domestic animals were virtues to be encouraged. Evil was associated with the values of nomads who made a living from robbing farmers and herdsmen. The struggle between good and evil permeated all aspects of life. A distinction was even made between good animals such as oxen and dogs and bad ones such as frogs, snakes, ants, and scorpions. It was expected that each worshiper would aid the forces of goodness with an eye to stamping out evil.
Like Jewish prophecy, the writings of Zoroaster presented a scenario of the last days. Angels figured prominently in that event. Their existence reflected a transition from polytheistic religion to monotheism. Former gods aligned with Ahura-Mazdah became angels siding with the forces of good. The gods worshiped by nomadic bandits became demons. There were hierarchies of angels on both sides. Zoroastrianism held that the struggle between good and evil would culminate in a climactic event in which the evil forces would be destroyed and judgment would be pronounced on them.
The Zoroastrian cosmology also included a Messiah. “The picture that came to be formed of the events of the final age was that at the end of time a redeemer figure will snatch control of the world from Ahriman (the evil prince), just when he seems to be winning the final struggle. An interesting feature is that this redeemer does not belong to the heavenly powers surrounding God, but comes into existence on earth.” (Schweitzer, p. 37)
Albert Schweitzer believed that Zoroastrianism’s most important contribution to Jewish religious thought was “the indispensable idea of resurrection as a prelude to participation in the Kingdom of God.” (Schweitzer, p. 37) The Zoroastrian religion held that, after death, the souls of righteous persons would be allowed to cross the Cinvat Bridge to a heavenly domain where they would “enjoy the food and drink of immortality.” (Schweitzer, p. 37) The souls of evil persons would not be allowed across that bridge but would instead experience endless torment. Alternatively, all souls might rise together at the end of the world.
The two views could be reconciled by proposing that souls of the departed experienced a temporary state of bliss (or torment) until the end of the world when these souls were reunited with their bodies in a general resurrection of the dead and were then judged as candidates for admission to the Kingdom of God. In the Zoroastrian religion, “the final damnation at the Judgment is often replaced by a sentence of refining punishment which will one day have an end. The notion of (Christian) Purgatory probably has its roots in Zoroastrianism.” (Schweitzer, p. 38)
Both the Zoroastrian and late Jewish religions looked forward to a Kingdom of God which would appear at the end of time. Their outlooks were otherwise different. The Jews thought of God as a nationalistic deity who would intervene in human history on their behalf. Jewish religious prophecies therefore responded to political events. Zoroastrianism, on the other hand, was the product of a single thinker who was interested in creating a new civilization leading to God’s kingdom. Unlike Judaism, it shows a concern for cultural progress. In the cosmic struggle between good and evil, humanity is enlisted as God’s ally.
Zoroastrian worship made use of fire. Animal sacrifices were abolished. As in the Book of Malachi, the imagery of fire suggested moral refinement. Religious Jews picked up from Zoroastrianism the idea that on the Day of Judgment the wicked would be destroyed in a burning pit. They also absorbed its cosmology of demons, of angels and archangels arranged in hierarchies, and of Satan as the personification of evil. Daniel’s view that God was surrounded by a host of heavenly beings comes from Zoroaster. So does the idea of the archangel Michael who guards the nations.
Above all, however, Zoroastrianism bequeathed to late Jewish religion the idea of a dualistic struggle taking place in heaven and on earth. It is not just God who enters into the picture, but God battling Satan for mastery of the world. A particular legacy of Zoroastrian thought was its negativity directed against the human body. Bodily desires and temptations were considered products of the devil needing to be suppressed by the mind. The Gnostic idea of torturing the body for the sake of eternal life was a product of Zoroaster’s fierce dualism. The Manichaean religion, at one time a major rival to Christianity, also reflected this point of view. St. Augustine had been a Manichaean early in his life.
The Kingdom of God in Late Judaism
Certain prophetic writings not included in the Bible had a profound influence upon Jesus’ world view. Showing traces of the Zoroastrian cosmology, they were produced by scribes associated with the Pharisee sect in the century before Christ until Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D. Schweitzer discusses four such works: the Apocalypse of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Apocalypse of Ezra, and the Psalms of Solomon. After this time, Jewish prophecy became extinct and rabbinical scholasticism came to dominate Judaism.
The Apocalypse of Enoch and Psalms of Solomon are dated to the first century B.C., shortly before Jesus lived. They might well have influenced Jesus’ thinking. The other two works, the Apocalypses of Baruch and of Ezra, could not have been known to Jesus since they were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. However, all were products of the Pharisaic culture existing at this time.
The Pharisees were that group of religious Jews who were called “Chassidim” or “the Party of the Pious”. While outside the Temple hierarchy, they were strictly loyal to traditional Jewish religion. This segment of religious Jews supported the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid empire but later ran afoul of the Hasmonean rulers of Judaea, who were descended from the Maccabees. The Pharisees became estranged from John Hyrcanus I and his son, Alexander Hyrcanus, in the period between 110 B.C. and 76 B.C. and experienced great persecution. Persevering in their faith, they were respected by the people.
In the Apocalypse of Enoch, written during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus or his immediate successors, “we find the pious in the Pharisaic circle looking forward, in the midst of grave affliction, to the Kingdom of God.” (Schweitzer, p. 43) The Psalms of Solomon reflect the situation after Pompey the Great assumed power in Judaea in 64 B.C. The Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra were written by Pharisees in the 1st century A.D., after the Romans had destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. Their writers are concerned with the question of why God has twice allowed Jerusalem to fall.
All four works were disliked by Jewish rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem. Although they were written in Hebrew, no copies remain in the Hebrew language or in Greek, a language into which they were soon translated. The rabbis would then have nothing to do with apocalypses or Greek texts. Instead, copies of these late-Jewish works have come down to us from Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian translations. They are today among the sacred works of secondary importance known as apocryphal writings.
For us, however, the two earlier works are an important source of information about religious views in Jesus’ time. They may therefore provide clues as to what Jesus himself was thinking. Schweitzer notes that the two works show disagreement about the ruler of God’s Kingdom: “The Apocalypse of Enoch adheres to the view of the Book of Daniel, according to which the Son of Man is the ruler appointed by God over the Kingdom, which is thought of in purely supernatural terms. The Psalms of Solomon, on the other hand, look for the Kingdom of the Messiah of David’s line.” (Schweitzer, p. 42)
These four products of late-Jewish religious thinking differ from earlier Biblical prophecies in one respect: “They do not expect the coming of the Kingdom to follow upon some particular historical event, as Daniel did when he saw the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes as a sign of the end of ordinary history. True, they too are moved by historical occurrences to look out for the events of the final era and form a picture of it. But they give up the claim to be able to say anything more precise about the time when these will take place. What is new is that for them the coming of the time of the Kingdom of God depends upon conditions which must first be fulfilled in accordance with God’s will.” (Schweitzer, p. 42)
The Apocalypse of Enoch
Enoch, father of Methuselah, was a patriarch who lived before the Flood. Like Elijah, he was taken into heaven without experiencing death. (See Genesis 5: 24) The Apocalypse of Enoch was preserved in an Ethiopic translation from Greek. Like Daniel, “the writer (of Enoch’s Apocalypse) is supposed to have visions which give a survey of the events of world history as it approached the time of the end. The most important part of the book consists of the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (Enoch 37-69). These are explanations of the visions of the final events. Enoch presupposes and expands the eschatological expectation of the Book of Daniel.” (Schweitzer, p. 45)
In the days preceding the coming of God’s kingdom, the fallen angels (who had mated with earthly women to produce giants) are held prisoner in a pit above a blazing fire awaiting God’s day of judgment, when their fate will be decided. A similar situation confronts stars which have disobeyed God in failing to appear in the night sky. The fallen angels ask Enoch to petition God for mercy. Enoch learns that their petition will not be granted.
Meanwhile, the spirits of the dead are being held in the underworld until Judgment Day. The “righteous dead” and the “spirits of the martyrs”, whose claim to admission into the Kingdom takes precedence over that of the righteous living, have separate places of honor. On the other hand, souls of the wicked can look forward only to eternal damnation. Demons appear before God to accuse men of committing sins. All are awaiting the day of judgment. This day must be postponed until there are enough righteous persons and martyrs to fill a fixed number of positions.
The countdown on the final days begins with an attack on Jerusalem by “kings of the East”, meaning the Medes and Parthians. God has sent angels to stir up these people against Israel. The outbreak of war begins the period of tribulation. The evil peoples, blinded by God, start killing one another. Miraculous disturbances occur in heaven and earth: The rain will cease, and the moon will “change her order and not appear at her time.” Members of the same family “will attack one another in senseless rage.” (Schweitzer, p. 47) God has meanwhile appointed angels to stand guard over the righteous who are living in the last generation to make sure no harm comes to them. They must remain alive at the time that the Kingdom of God arrives.
The Kingdom does arrive after the period of tribulation. The dead are resurrected, the Son of Man appears, and the Judgment of souls takes place. Enoch accepts Daniel’s view that this Son of Man “is not a heavenly being belonging to God’s entourage ... he has always existed but has remained hidden until the time when he comes forward.” (Schweitzer, p. 47) “Yea, before the sun and the signs (of the Zodiac) were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name (the Messiah’s) was named before the Lord of spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous and the saints whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the Gentiles and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. For this reason has he been chosen and hidden before him (God) before the creation of the world and he will be before him for evermore.” (Enoch 48: 3-6)
In Daniel, God had conducted the Last Judgment. In the Apocalypse of Enoch, that role is turned over to the Son of Man. Both prophetic works foresee that the Son of Man will rule God’s Kingdom. Enoch says: “The Elect One (Son of Man, the Messiah) shall in those days sit on my throne and his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel: for the Lord of spirits has given them to him.” (Enoch 51: 1-3) “And he (Son of Man) sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was given unto the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth ... (while) ... the righteous and elect shall be saved on that day ... and the Lord of spirits will abide over them and with that Son of Man shall they eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever ... All the righteous shall be angels in heaven.” (Enoch 69:27, 62:13, 51:4)
Meanwhile, God’s avenging angels throw the evil kings into a burning fire in a deep valley. The Archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Phanuel do the same to the fallen angels. Sinners who repent of their sins on Judgment Day gain salvation. They are allowed to see the favor which God has bestowed on the righteous and seek a similar situation for themselves. Yet, while the resurrected martyrs are greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, these self-confessed sinners will be least . Like Second Isaiah, Enoch predicts that a new heaven and earth will emerge. “I will transform the earth and make it a blessing.” (Enoch 45:4)
While Jeremiah and Ezekial wrote that God will implant his spirit in people’s hearts, “ in Enoch they partake of God’s wisdom, thought of as a heavenly being.” The idea of wisdom personified is a Greek idea. Uniquely, Enoch places the seat of wisdom in heaven but does not activate it until God’s Kingdom comes. “When wisdom came to make her dwelling among the children of men, and found no dwelling-place, she returned to her place and took her seat among the angels.” (Enoch 42: 2) “Wisdom is poured out like water ... The Elect One stands before the Lord of spirits ... In him dwells the spirit of wisdom ... And he shall judge the secret things, and none shall be able to utter a lying word before him.” (Enoch 49:1-4) Such concepts foreshadow the early Christian doctrine of the Logos expressed in the Gospel of John.
The Psalms of Solomon
This work consists of seventeen psalm-like songs which function as an apocalypse. It was written not by King Solomon but by a writer who lived in the period following Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem in 64 B.C. The Pharisees had suffered persecution under Hasmonean kings. Thousands had fled to the desert to escape their persecutors. The Psalms of Solomon give voice to the agony experienced during that time: “In our tribulation we call upon thee for help. And thou dost not reject our petition, for thou art our God. Cause not thy hand to be heavy upon us, lest through necessity we sin. Even though thou hearkenest to us not, we will not keep away, but will come unto thee. For if I hunger, unto thee will I cry, O God, and thou wilt give to me ... Who is the salvation of the poor and needy, if not thou, O Lord ... Make glad the soul of the poor and open thine hand in mercy.” (Psalms of Solomon 5: 5-12)
The power struggle within the Hasmonean court came to an end when both sides invited the Roman general Pompey to settle their dispute. Pompey decided against Aristobulus II, persecutor of the Pharisees. The Song of Solomon therefore sees Pompey as an instrument of God to punish the Sadducees and Hasmonean rulers. At the same time, in the process of taking control, Pompey’s soldiers besieged and stormed the Temple mount. They penetrated the sanctuary and desecrated the altar of burnt offering by trampling on it. This could not be tolerated. Pompey subsequently lost a battle to Julius Caesar, fled to Egypt, and was murdered. Pompey’s corpse remained unburied for a long time. The Pharisees saw in these events the hand of divine punishment.
“Delay not, O God, to recompense them on their heads, to turn the pride of the dragon into dishonor. And I had not long to wait before God showed me the insolent one slain on the mountains of Egypt, esteemed of less account than the least on land and sea, his body borne hither and thither on the billows with much tossing, and no one buried him because he had given him to dishonor. He reflected not that he was man, and reflected not on the latter end; He said, I will be lord of land and sea, and he recognized not that it is God who is great, mighty in his great strength. He is king in heaven and judges kings and kingdoms.” (Psalms of Solomon 2: 19-30)
The writer of the Psalms of Solomon returns to the conception of a Messiah from David’s lineage found in earlier prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekial. The phrase, “Son of Man”, is not mentioned. The writings express joy that the Hasmonean dynasty, though seated upon David’s throne, had ended; for now there would be an everlasting kingdom. One day, God would appoint a Messiah descended from David to rule that kingdom. “Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, in the time when thou choosest, O God, that he should reign over thy servant Israel. And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, and that he may purge Jerusalem from the heathen that trample her down to destruction ... Then he will gather together a holy people, whom he shall rule in righteousness, and he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God.” (Psalms of Solomon 17: 21, 26)
By the 1st Century B.C., the House of David had been out of power for several centuries. Could its kingship be revived? Schweitzer thinks it more likely that by then people thought the Davidic Messiah would be a supernatural being sent from heaven. The Psalms of Solomon assume that the resurrection has taken place. Human beings who participate in God’s Kingdom must be in supernatural form. “But they that fear the Lord shall rise to life eternal, and their life shall be in the light of the Lord and shall come to an end no more.” (Psalms of Solomon 3: 11)
If the resurrected dead participate in the Kingdom, earlier conceptions of a Davidic Messiah no longer apply. What about those persons still alive when the Kingdom arrives? Are they transformed into a supernatural state to be like the resurrected dead? What about the foreigners who come to Jerusalem to serve God? There are many unanswered questions.
The Psalms of Solomon do not propose a general resurrection of the dead but only of the righteous. The unrighteous dead stay dead. Live sinners “perish for ever.” (Psalms of Solomon 15: 13) Only those whom the Messiah regards as “sons of God” are allowed life in the Kingdom. The scheme here is much like that in Ezekial where only those with marked foreheads to denote their righteousness are allowed to survive Jerusalem’s destruction. “For the mark of God is upon the righteous that they may be saved. Famine and sword and pestilence ... shall pursue the ungodly ... As by enemies experienced in war shall they be overtaken, for the mark of destruction is upon their forehead.” (Psalms of Solomon 15: 6-9)
The Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra
The nominal author of the Apocalypse of Baruch was Jeremiah’s friend, Baruch, to whom the prophecies of Jeremiah were dictated in the 6th century B.C. The author of the Apocalypse of Ezra was the priest and scribe who led the caravan of Jews returning from exile a century later. In fact, both writings originated in a time shortly after 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. They purport to describe the course of historical events from Babylon’s destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. until the Roman destroyed it again in 70 A.D., as rounded off with a vision of the final days.
In that troubled time, religious Jews had many questions. The Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra consist of a conversation with God about the authors’ moral concerns. Why did God again and again deliver his people into the hands of the Gentiles? Why was God’s Kingdom repeatedly delayed? What about the justice of last-minute repentences which allowed chronic sinners to escape punishment? Would devout Jews ever be spared of such difficulties?
The answer given by God in these two apocalypses was that much of the misery experienced in this world was a result of “original sin” incurred by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Those ignorant parents of humanity had no idea how much suffering they would cause. Why was Jerusalem’ repeatedly destroyed? God explained that this city rebuilt after the Exile belonged to the temporal world whose structures were subject to decay; but the New Jerusalem promised in the future referred to a heavenly city that would never pass away. Augustine picked up on that theme four centuries later when the city of Rome was sacked.
To placate his questioners, God kept reassuring them of their glorious future in the coming Kingdom. Ezra could not be lued away from concern for all humanity. He complained of the many righteous ones whose hopes had been repeatedly dashed. God was reduced to the reproach: “Thou comest far short of being able to love my creation more than I.” (4 Ezra 8: 47) Ezra asked for permission to intercede on behalf of others. God sternly rejected this. On the Day of Judgment “none shall pray for another, nor shall anyone accuse another; for then everyone shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness.” (4 Ezra 7: 102-105) Although God had allowed this in earlier times (as when Moses prayed for the people of Israel), it would not be possible on the Day of Judgment .
The resurrection of the dead posed a problem for believers in a Messianic kingdom ruled by a descendant of David. How could angel-like creatures coexist with human beings? Later prophets had answered this question by replacing the Kingdom of the Davidic Messiah with one ruled by a supernatural “Son of Man”. Survivors of the last generation who were supernaturally transformed would be in the same form as the resurrected dead. However, the prestige of earlier prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah was too strong for the later apocalyptists simply to abandon the idea of a kingdom ruled by David’s descendant. In prophets such as Zechariah 9-14, Malachi, and Joel, the writers of Ezra and Baruch find models of kingdoms ruled by God himself. Two different types of kingdoms were sanctioned by scripture.
The apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra therefore proposed that the two types of kingdom appear in succession. First would be the kingdom of the Davidic Messiah, inhabited by human survivors of the last generation. Those persons, remaining in a natural state, would “lead a blessed existence in a (spiritually) transfigured world.” Then would come “the general resurrection, the Judgment which is to be conducted by God, and the completely supernatural King of God. This second, eternal Kingdom will be shared by the righteous of all generations, who will have become supernatural, angel-like beings through the resurrection, together with those righteous survivors of the final generation who had previously belonged to the Kingdom of the Messiah. At the appearance of the Kingdom of God they will be transformed into the same supernatural form as those who have risen from the dead.” (Schweitzer, p. 60)
The solution to the contradiction is the same in both apocalypses: “The Messiah is not an earth-born king raised to Messiahship, but a being who comes from heaven to earth. The two kingdoms follow one another in succession, and consequently ... the Messianic Kingdom does not last for ever but is only the prelude to the everlasting Kingdom of God.” (Schweitzer, p. 60) However, the mechanism of the transition between the two kingdoms is different. Baruch does not say how long the Messianic Kingdom will last, only that the Messiah returns to heaven when it comes to an end. In Ezra, on the other hand, the Messianic kingdom lasts for 400 years. Then the Messiah dies, along with all other living persons. The resurrection of the dead takes place seven days later, and then God’s eternal reign begins.
Baruch and Ezra write from the perspective of a world that has grown old and may indeed be approaching the final days. According to Ezra, the history of the world is divided into twelve periods of equal length. Nine and half had passed when Ezra, the scribe, lived in the 6th century B.C. Now it was near the end of human history. The author of Ezra’s apocalypse, who lived after 70 A.D., was able to see that the fourth empire described in Daniel was not the Greek empire founded by Alexander the Great, but Rome. It was an eagle rising from the sea. By the 1st Century A.D., the apocalyptists believed that the underworld had almost reached its full allotment of souls. Nothing could stop the final events from taking place soon.
“The arrival of the final age will be indicated by wonderful events in nature and the occurrence of the pre-Messianic tribulation.” (Schweitzer, p. 61) “When the time of the world is ripe and the harvest of the evil and the good has come, the Almighty will bring upon the earth and its inhabitants and upon its rulers confusion of spirit and terrifying terror. And they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war ... And every man who is saved from the war shall die through an earthquake, and he who escapes from the earthquake shall be burned in the fire, and all who escape and survive all these perils will be delivered into the hands of my servant, the Messiah. For the whole earth shall devour its inhabitants. But the holy land will have mercy on him who belongs to it (righteous Jews) and will protect its inhabitants in that time.” (Baruch 70: 1-3, 8-71)
This tribulation would end when the Messiah suddenly appeared. He would accuse and destroy the last Roman emperor. Nations that were enemies of Israel would also be destroyed. The earth would bear a great increase in agricultural produce. Manna would again descend from on high. Diseases would be abolished. Wild beasts would come from the forest to “minister to men”. Even the pain of child birth would be felt no more. This would not yet be the kingdom of God. It would be the kingdom of the Messiah, a place transfigured but not wholly supernatural. Baruch described it in these terms: “It is the end of that which is corruptible and the beginning of that which is incorruptible.” (Baruch 74:2)
The first of the two kingdoms, the Messianic kingdom, would be inhabited only by those persons who had survived the tribulation. None yet would have risen from the dead. The Messiah who ruled this kingdom would be someone who had descended from heaven “since rulers of David’s line are no longer found on earth.” (Schweitzer, p. 63) This Messiah cannot be an earthly ruler on whom God has bestowed his spirit. Yet, Ezra and Baruch cannot ignore the fact that the prophets of old proclaimed that the Messiah would be descended from David.
“Accordingly they have to claim that he (the Messiah) is descended from David, and at the same time is a being who comes from heaven. The only possible solution of the problem would be to assume that the Messiah is a descendant of David born in the final generation, who begins his reign only after he has become a supernatural being as a result of having risen from the dead. This is the only way in which it would be possible for a Messiah thought of as a supernatural being to be in fact a descendant of David. This is the solution underlying the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus.” (Schweitzer, p. 63)
The souls of the righteous dead from previous generations would not be resurrected until after the Messianic kingdom came to an end and the Messiah returned to heaven. After seven days a second kingdom would begin which God himself rules. “And it shall be, after these (400) years, that my son, the Messiah, shall die, and all in whom there is human breath. Then shall the world be turned into the primeval silence seven days, as at the first beginning; so that no man is left. But after seven days shall the aeon which is still asleep awake and that which is corruptible shall perish. The earth shall restore those that are at rest in her and the dust those that sleep therein ... The most High shall appear upon the throne of judgment.” (4 Ezra 7: 29-33)
No mention is made of “Son of Man” in Ezra or Baruch except for a passage in Ezra which speaks of the Son of Man coming from Mount Zion on the clouds of heaven with the fiery breath of his mouth to destroy a great host. Schweitzer supposes that this passage has been added by a later writer to make the apocalypse consistent with other writings. Ezra takes pains, however, to refute the idea expressed in Daniel and in Enoch that God appoints the Messiah to conduct the last judgment and rule his everlasting kingdom. No, that happens only with the first kingdom. The second kingdom is God’s alone.
Such were questions asked about the Kingdom of God in the second half of the 1st century A.D. While the authors of the apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch writing forty years after the Crucifixion made no mention of Jesus, the apostle Paul, a Pharisaic Jew, was aware of the issues involved in their prophetic works. For him it was clear that Jesus was the Messiah and that, with Jesus’ death upon the cross, the Messianic kingdom was about to begin. Like Ezra and Baruch, Paul expected “two Kingdoms: first the Messianic, in which Jesus reigns, and after that the everlasting Kingdom of God. Like them, he does not speak of the Son of Man, though Jesus had used this expression of himself. Like them, he is concerned to establish that in the everlasting Kingdom which follows the resurrection of the dead no one but God comes into consideration.” (Schweitzer, p. 66)
Chapter Six: Jesus and John the Baptist
“Christianity is essentially a belief in the coming of the Kingdom of God. It begins with the message preached by John the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan, ’Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’ It was with the same preaching that Jesus came forward in Galilee after the imprisonment of the Baptist.” In the Gospel of Mark, we are introduced to Jesus with these words: “After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God: ‘The time has come; the kingdom of God is upon you; repent, and believe the Gospel.’” (Schweitzer, p. 3)
So the story of Jesus begins with John the Baptist. The two persons are inseparably linked. Both preach the same message: “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” After centuries of expecting God’s kingdom, the glorious moment has arrived. The Kingdom will come soon. Human history is about to end. A second and related message is: “Repent”. One should prepare to face the Day of Judgment by repenting of sin. One should change one’s sinful attitude to become fit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
John’s Baptism
John the Baptist began preaching near the Jordan river around 28 A.D. when Tiberius was emperor in Rome and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee. What an astonishing event! A new prophet had appeared in the land of the Jews. What an astonishing event! “For centuries the Kingdom of God had been mentioned only in writings claiming to have been written by holy men in the remote past. Now a prophet had once more appeared, speaking about the Kingdom of God to his contemporaries. Another novelty was the fact that he was not driven to speak about its coming by reason of some historical event that had just occurred. He was not even, like the writers of the apocalypses, calculating the conditions which would have to be fulfilled before it could arrive. He simply preaches that the time has come.” (Schweitzer, p. 74)
The time separating John the Baptist and the last canonical prophet, Malachi, was roughly five centuries. From our perspective, that would be like the difference in time between our generation from that of Martin Luther or Cortes. And Jewish prophecy was already old in Malachi’s day. For those many centuries religious Jews had been expecting God’s kingdom to arrive but the date had always been postponed. Now there was a strange-looking preacher who was telling people that the Kingdom would arrive soon. How soon was not clear; however one was led to believe that one needed to do something immediately to prepare for the event. One needed to repent before it was too late.
Unlike previous prophets, “John does not concern himself with a description of the final events. He is the traveler who has come to the foot of the mountains. He no longer glimpses the relative positions of the various peaks. All he cares about is being equipped to make the ascent. That is why he demands of his hearers that they repent.” (Schweitzer, p. 74) The Greek word for repentance, metanoeite, expresses not only regret for past sins but it calls for a new way of thinking as one expects the Kingdom to come.
“Still more novelty! John declares that the required repentance becomes valid and effective through an act which he performs, namely baptism. All earlier prophets came forward as preachers alone. He exercises authority at the same time. His baptism is not only an act symbolizing cleansing from guilt; it actually confers salvation.” (Schweitzer, p. 75) One becomes fit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven not by a shift in attitude but by virtue of having submitted to John’s baptism in water.
The scriptural basis for this ritual is found in Jeremiah, Ezekial, and Zechariah. Zechariah referred to “a fountain ... opened for the line of David ... to remove all sin and impurity.” (Zechariah 13 1) Ezekial said: “I will sprinkle clean water over you, and you shall be cleansed from all that defiles you ... I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you.” (Ezekial 36: 25-26) Jeremiah said: “O Jerusalem, wash the wrongdoing from your heart and you may yet be saved.” (Jeremiah 4: 14) The fact that John the Baptist is effectively removing sin by this act of drenching the sinner in water means that the last days have arrived.
Jesus’ Baptism by John
Jesus let himself be baptized by John the Baptist. One would assume that, in accepting John’s baptism, he was subordinating himself to John in the spiritual hierarchy. The Gospels make it clear that this was not the case. But the identities are unclear. John says to the Pharisees and Sadduccees whom he has baptized: “I baptize you with water, for repentance; but the one who comes after me is mightier than I. I am not fit to take off his shoes. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Matthew 3: 11) Later Jesus comes to the Jordan river to be baptized. “John tried to dissuade him. ‘Do you come to me?’ he said; ‘I need rather to be baptized by you.’ Jesus replied, ‘Let it be so for the present.’” (Matthew 3: 14-15) John went ahead with his ritual and baptized Jesus.
“As he (Jesus) rose from the water of Jordan he received a vision in which he saw the Spirit descend upon him and heard the voice of God declare that he was his beloved Son (i.e., the Messiah). It was therefore at his baptism that he experienced his call to be the Messiah. According to Mark’s account ... he received his baptism from John without any knowledge on the part of the latter of who he was or what had befallen him.” (Schweitzer, p. 77) In Matthew, on the other hand, John is aware of Jesus’ identity. In this Gospel, the heavens open and the Spirit of God descends and alights upon Jesus like a dove. Afterwards, Jesus goes off by himself into the desert where the devil tempts him. This ordeal lasts for forty days and nights.
“How does the baptism of John effect salvation? Because it is an initiation, in consequence of which the Spirit is imparted to those who have received it by a greater than John, who is to come after him. They are proved to belong to the Kingdom by their possession of the Spirit, and so are called to survive at the Judgment.” (Schweitzer, p. 77-78) One needs to possess Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, not just undergo an initiation. After John, someone else - the one “greater than John” - will come along to confer spirit upon those whom John has baptized. This person would “baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His shovel is ready in his hand.” (Matthew 3: 11)
Who is the person whom John the Baptist was expecting? “It has been naively assumed from early times that he (John the Baptist) was thinking of the Messiah, because Jesus, who did follow him, was the Messiah. If, however, we take account of the Messianic expectation of late Judaism, the question is not so simple. It is not there supposed that the Messiah will appear in earthly history as a man ... The idea of the Messiah becoming man is quite outside the range of ideas in late Jewish Messianic expectation. The Messiah is a supernatural figure who will appear in his glory at the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. But before the manifestation of the Messiah, Elijah must come ... God will send him back to earth before the Day of Judgment comes, to prepare men for it.” (Schweitzer, p. 78) Therefore, “the greater than he, who is to come after him and baptize with the spirit, can only be Elijah. The Messiah is a judge and ruler, not a baptizer.” (Schweitzer, p. 79)
John does not think of himself as Elijah, but only a prophet. His role is to preach the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God and prepare men for “the next event to occur, the coming of the great figure of the final period (Elijah) and the outpouring of the Spirit.” (Schweitzer, p. 78) Jesus, too, is not yet the Messiah, who is a supernatural figure arriving with the Kingdom. Yet, the two men, Jesus and John the Baptist, have a connection with those greater beings.
John’s role here resembles that of the angel in Ezekial who marks the foreheads of persons destined for salvation during the Chaldaean destruction of Jerusalem. Most persons whom John marks through immersion in water will later be baptized by Elijah with fire and spirit before they enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is a special case. John’s baptism sets Jesus up for his passion and death upon the cross after which he becomes the Messiah.
In the exchange between Jesus and his disciples James and John, the two disciples ask to be seated at Jesus’ right hand and left hand in the Kingdom. Jesus replies: “You do not understand what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” (Mark 10: 38) When the disciples say they can, Jesus allows them to drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism while denying them preferred seating in the Kingdom. “It is to the baptism of John that he (Jesus) is referring when he describes the passion and death which are his appointed destiny as the baptism with which he will be baptized.” (Schweitzer, p. 75)
A Question from John to Jesus
Jesus does not begin preaching until John’s preaching ends when he is imprisoned by Herod Antipas. Jesus attracts a following and performs numerous miracles. His reputation spreads. While in prison, John begins to wonder if the miracles of Jesus mean that the final days have arrived. Through his own disciples he sends a message to Jesus. “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect some other?” (Matthew 11: 2) Was John asking if Jesus was the Messiah? If we “assume that the Baptist had already recognized Jesus as the Messiah, the question from prison has to be taken as meaning that he has begun to doubt the Messiahship of Jesus. By no stretch of the imagination can the wording of the question be made to fit this interpretation.” (Schweitzer, p. 78).
John the Baptist knew neither the identify of Jesus nor of himself. That is why he asked Jesus the question. Jesus was aware of himself as the future Messiah but did not want to reveal that fact to John’s disciples. He therefore gave an evasive answer: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind recover their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, the poor are hearing the good news - and happy is the man who does not find me a stumbling-block.” (Matthew 11: 5-6) He says only that the miracles foretold in prophecy seem to be coming true.
Jesus’ own view is revealed only after John’s disciples have departed. Jesus asks the remaining people about John? Who do they think John was? A man dressed in silks and satins? No. A prophet? “Yes, indeed, and far more than a prophet. He is the man of whom Scripture says, ‘Here is my herald, whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11: 9-10) Jesus is referring, then, to Elijah who Malachi had prophesied would precede the Messiah in events of the final days. John the Baptist is that Elijah. The final days are fast approaching.
The problem is that people do not expect that Elijah will appear as a man. He was taken directly into heaven centuries earlier, and would be expected to return to earth from the same place. Yet, Jesus is telling the crowd that John the Baptist is Elijah. “John is the destined Elijah, if you will but accept it,” he says. (Matthew 11: 15)
Now John’s question to Jesus becomes clear. John was asking Jesus: Are you the promised Elijah? Jesus could not answer “yes” because that response would be untrue. Neither did he then want to give away the secret of his own identity, that he would be revealed as the Messiah at the coming of God’s kingdom. So he gave an evasive answer to John’s disciples. “It is plain from the words ‘This is Elijah’, that Jesus has understood the Baptist’s question, ‘Art thou he that cometh?’ as meaning, ‘Are you the Elijah.’” (Schweitzer, p. 80) The scriptural significance of John’s identity as Elijah (even if John himself did not realize it) was that one of the main preconditions to the arrival of God’s kingdom has already been fulfilled. The end is near.
Chapter Seven: Jesus’ Teachings about the Kingdom of God
Besides proclaiming the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom, Jesus is concerned with preparing people to enter it. He is like John the Baptist in that respect. John washed away sins through baptism. Jesus teaches the proper attitudes to have when the present world ends. The fact that the end is near colors all judgments. It were as if someone were told that he had only a week to live: He would adjust his plans accordingly. The imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God is an event of such overriding importance that all other considerations pale in comparison.
Not everyone who lives in the last generation will enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those found pleasing to God. Jesus tries to steer people in that direction. What should they do to prepare themselves for the moment of Judgment? They should cultivate the type of attitude which God finds pleasing. Jesus takes great pains to explain to them God’s point of view. What people think and do during their lifetimes will determine whether they are admitted to the Kingdom of God. Once the Kingdom comes, it will be too late.
A Higher Degree of Righteousness
Traditionally, religious Jews have thought that God prefers righteous persons. Righteousness means obeying the Law of Moses and rules intended to regulate life in obedience to the Law. Jesus teaches that this is not enough for salvation. One should obey the spirit of the law as well as its letter. “I tell you,” said Jesus, “unless you show yourselves far better men than the Pharisees and the doctors of the law, you can never enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 5: 20)
Jesus is more interested in inward thought than external action. “The Law is not, in his view, concerned with this or that sinful act, but with the thoughts that lead to it. The prohibition of murder includes hatred and the implacable spirit. That of adultery means that the entertainment of sinful lust is equivalent to the sinful act. In that of perjury we are shown how questionable all oaths are. A simple yes or no ought to be as dependable as any oath.” (Schweitzer, p. 82)
The Beatitudes name attitudes associated with true righteousness:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ...
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.”
(Matthew 5: 4-9)
In this statement, Jesus suggests inward spiritual qualities that indicate membership in God’s kingdom: simplicity of mind, humility, peaceful aspirations, absence of sinful thoughts. Then, in second clause, he suggests that persons with these qualities will participate in the Kingdom of God. The reference to inheriting the earth, for instance, “is meant to convey that, as once the people of Israel moved into the land of Canaan which God had promised them, so they will have as their dwelling-place the Kingdom of God. In the Kingdom of God the hunger and thirst of the pious for (true) righteousness will find its satisfaction. In the Kingdom they will see God face to face and be manifested as his children. Those who showed mercy during their lifetime will receive mercy at the Judgment ... The poor in spirit are those who have retained the simplicity of heart which is necessary in order to understand the message of the coming of the Kingdom. ” (Schweitzer, p. 81-82)
Jesus himself broke certain laws as a way of teaching the right attitude. When the Pharisees criticized the disciples for picking corn on the Sabbath, Jesus cured the sick on that day. When the disciples fastidiously washed their hands before eating, Jesus pointed out what was important was not what went into the mouth but what came out as directed by the heart. “Wicked thoughts, murder, adultery ... these all proceed from the heart; and these are the things that defile a man; but to eat without first washing his hands, that cannot defile him.” (Matthew 15: 19-20)
Because the Pharisees were concerned with outward behavior and Jesus with inward motivation, Jesus fiercely criticizes members of this sect for posing obstacles to the Kingdom of God. Their insistence upon observing the Law misled people. Jesus launched into a tirade against the Pharisees in Jerusalem:. “Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like tombs covered with whitewash ... outside you look like honest men, but inside you are brim-full of hypocrisy and crime ... You snakes, you vipers’ brood, how can you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23: 27-33)
Jesus’ preference for inward motivation is illustrated by the story about donations in the Temple. Rich people were donating large sums of money. A poor widow dropped “two tiny coins” into the chest. Jesus said to his disciples: “I tell you this ... This poor widow has given more than any of the others; for those others who have given had more than enough, but she, with less than enough, has given all that she had to live on.” (Mark 12: 43-44) Her greater degree of righteousness reflected the donation not in absolute terms but relative to her ability to give. Intention meant more than the amount of money contributed.
According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God requires nothing less than observing the highest standard of righteousness. While scripture allows divorce, Jesus does not allow it except for the wife’s unfaithfulness. While scripture gives the right to demand “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, the higher righteousness requires mercy. One should put up with injuries inflicted by another person and not seek retribution: “Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well ... You have learned that they were told, ‘Love your neighbor, hate your enemy.’ But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on good and bad alike.” (Matthew 5: 39-45)
Judging and Forgiving Others
Jesus advises against judging other people: “Pass no judgment, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourself be judged ... Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the great plank in your own? ... You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s.” (Matthew 7: 1-5) This statement offers practical advice with respect to entering the Kingdom of God. Those who fear harsh judgment by God need to avoid judging other people harshly: for God will treat them as they have treated others. If one does not judge others harshly, in the same way will one be judged when God’s kingdom arrives.
With respect to forgiveness, Schweitzer writes that “no limit is permitted to forgiveness. When Peter asks if it is sufficient to forgive his brother seven times, he receives the reply, ‘Not seven times, but seventy times seven.’” (Schweitzer, p. 84-85) Jesus urges forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us.” (Matthew 6: 12) After saying this prayer, he repeats the point: “For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.” (Matthew 6: 14-15)
The Ethic of Love
A lawyer asked Jesus the question: Which is the greatest commandment? It was a question often asked in those days. Jesus replied: “This first is ... ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” When the lawyer made statements seeming to agree with that principle, Jesus said to him: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12: 28-34)
Jesus stretches love to an unusual length. He demands not only that one should love one’s neighbor but one’s enemy as well. One should pray for one’s persecutors. It was an idea which had begun to be discussed in Jesus’ time. A more traditional view in Jewish religion was that one should treat the foreigner kindly, remembering how the Jews had been strangers in the land of Egypt. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus shows that kindness should not be limited to one’s own people. A priest and a Levite passed by an injured man but only the Samaritan, a foreigner, stopped to help. Which of the three was the man’s true “neighbor”? It was the despised Samaritan. “Go and do as he did,” Jesus commands. (Luke 10: 37)
Kindness and love should be present in one’s attitude toward each person one meets. At the coming of the Kingdom, the Son of Man will judge each according to how he has treated the least in society. With some sitting on his right side and others on his left, the Messiah will say to those on the right: “You have my Father’s blessing; come, enter and possess the kingdom ... For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger you took me into your home, when naked you clothed me....” The righteous will ask when they did any of those things. “And the king will answer, ‘I tell you this: anything you did for one of my brothers here, however humble, you did for me.” As for the unrighteous, they neglected to help the Messiah when they slighted these humble ones. “And they (the unrighteous) will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous will enter eternal life.” (Matthew 25: 31-46)
Doing the Will of God
Whoever wishes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven must be focused on doing God’s will. Nothing else matters. Jesus said to his followers: “Not every one who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my heavenly Father.” (Matthew 7: 21) It does not matter how close one is to Jesus personally. Members of Jesus’ birth family have little advantage. “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?, “ Jesus asked. “And looking round at those who were sitting in the circle about him he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, my mother.’” (Mark 3: 33-35)
Jesus does not believe in Original Sin. All men are capable of doing good when they are in earnest about it. “You are light for all the world ... When a lamp is lit, it is not put under the meal-tub, but on the lamp-stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. And you, like the lamp, must shed light among your fellows, so that, when they see the good you do, they may give praise to your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5: 14-16) “Is there a man among you who will offer his son a stone when he asks for bread, or a snake when he asks for fish? If you, then bad as you are, know how to give your children what is good for them, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7: 9-11)
Even so, entrance to Heaven is denied all but those who show an extraordinary goodness. God’s standards far exceed those of man. When a stranger asks Jesus, “Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life?”, Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” He then recites several of God’s commandments which had to be kept. “But, Master,” says the stranger, “I have kept all these since I was a boy.” Jesus looks at him and says: “One thing you lack: go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; and come, follow me.” At this instruction, the man’s heart fell, “for he was a man of great wealth.” (Mark 10: 17-22)
Attachment to wealth is a stumbling-block for those wishing to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus says: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10: 25) Jesus is not against wealth per se, but against its ability to control mens’ hearts. “No servant can be the slave of two masters,” Jesus declares, “for either he will hate the first and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and think nothing of the second. You cannot serve God and Money.” (Matthew 6: 24)
Again, all must be focused on doing God’s will to gain entrance to Heaven. That is a hard task for persons living in this world but not an impossible one. The disciples despair of salvation after Jesus compares the rich man to a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Jesus comforts them saying: “For men it (salvation) is impossible, but not for God; everything is possible for God.” (Mark 10: 27)
Jesus’ View of the Kingdom: Is it Spiritual?
It is customary to interpret Jesus’ views and purposes in terms of our own. In Jesus’ time, Greek thought had great influence. Plato believed that ideas were superior to the physical world. It is assumed that Jesus was saying much the same thing. When he said, for instance, that his kingdom was “not of this world”, he might have been talking about a spiritualized kingdom rather than a political one. Perhaps this kingdom was “within us” as we immerse ourselves in spiritual pursuits. Schweitzer argues against this point of view. Jesus was adhering to views of the Kingdom found in the prophets of late Judaism. That kingdom was neither spiritual nor ethical but supernatural.
Jesus may have had a spiritualized ethics, but his view of the Kingdom was not spiritual. “Historical research devoted to the life of Jesus long assumed as self-evident that he interpreted not only ethics, but also the Kingdom of God, in a spiritual way. Scholars were convinced that he rejected the expectation of the Kingdom of God current in the Judaism of his time as too materialistic and taught a more spiritual doctrine, as he did in ethics. It was likewise assumed that he did not feel himself to be the Messiah in the sense in which he was generally expected, but sought to bring the people to see in him a Messiah of a different sort. This was a Messiah who did not come in supernatural form or with supernatural might, but as a man uniquely endowed with the power of the Spirit of God. He founded the ethical Kingdom of God on earth with his preaching and summoned men to join in its realization.” (Schweitzer, p. 89)
Schweitzer rejects that view. True, in the Gospel of John “Jesus does put forth a type of teaching which he opposes to the Jewish as being more spiritual.” (Schweitzer, p. 89) However, this teaching is more closely related to the Greek idea of the Logos than to Jesus’ own view. In Schweitzer’s estimation, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are a more reliable source of information than John. Following them, “it became much more difficult to maintain the view that Jesus had a spiritualized conception of the Kingdom and his Messiahship.” (Schweitzer, p. 89) There is nowhere in these two Gospels any indication that Jesus put forth a new doctrine concerning them. “If Jesus had wished to replace the view of the Kingdom and the Messiah current among his hearers with a different one, he would have had to give clear expression to his views, and in doing so would have provided the scribes and Pharisees with plenty of material for controversy.” (Schweitzer, p. 90)
If Jesus had wished to promote a new view of the Kingdom, he might have rebuked his disciples for their materialistic values when they argued among themselves about which of them would be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus merely instructs them on qualifications for entering the Kingdom: they must be humble as a child. (Matthew 18: 1-4) Again, when Peter asks what will be his reward for following Jesus, Jesus does not criticize the selfishness implicit in this question. Instead, he informs Peter that each of the twelve disciples will have his own throne in Heaven where he will sit to judge one of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19: 27-29)
James and John want a preferred place in the Kingdom. Jesus is not offended by their request but points out that, among his followers, those who are greatest do not lord it over the others but, instead, are their servant. This arrangement applies even to himself. (Mark 10: 42-45)
What is Jesus’ Own View of the Kingdom?
“The Son of Man-Messiah is, according to Jesus, a supernatural being. He appears on the clouds of heaven, surrounded by his angels, when the time for the Kingdom has come ... When the High Priest asks him whether he is the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of God, he replies, ‘Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ “(Schweitzer, p. 91) The High Priest takes this statement as evidence that Jesus claims to be the Messiah. It also indicates Jesus’ conception of the Messiah - as “Son of Man” sitting on God’s right hand who comes “on the clouds of heaven” when the Kingdom of God arrives. This Messiah comes in a supernatural way.
Jesus sheds light on the Kingdom in the parable of the darnel in the field. He says: “The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed stands for the children of the Kingdom, the darnel for the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed the darnel is the devil. The harvest is the end of time. The reapers are the angels. As the darnel, then is gathered up and burnt, so at the end of time the Son of Man will send out his angels, who will gather out of his kingdom whatever makes men stumble, and all whose deeds are evil, and these will be thrown into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth. And then the righteous will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Matthew 13: 37-43)
The parable of the fish teaches a similar lesson. “Then the men sat down and collected the good fish into pails and threw the worthless away. That is how it will be at the end of time. The angels will go forth, and they will separate the wicked from the good, and throw them into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.” (Matthew 13: 48-50)
What we see is a picture of destruction which, as in the prophecies of Amos and Malachi, involves a fire-like process to determine who will perish and who will be saved. The devil has created wickedness in the world. Angels of God pick the good apart from the bad and destroy the latter. Elsewhere, it is the Son of Man, accompanied by angels, who separates the two groups. “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, he will sit in state on his throne, with all the nations gathered before him. He will separate men into two groups, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25: 31-33)
Jesus is describing here a purely supernatural kingdom. In this Kingdom, “everyone exists in the supernatural form of those who have risen from the dead. They are in possession of eternal life.” (Schweitzer, p. 92) When the Sadduccees ask Jesus the question about resurrected peoples’ marriages, Jesus replies: “You are mistaken ... When they (human beings) rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; they are like angels in heaven.” (Mark 12: 24-25)
Jesus also says: “Many, I tell you, will come from east and west to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 8: 11) In other words, the patriarchs of ancient Israel will also be resurrected from the dead in the final days; it will be possible then for some from the last generation to share a meal with them. Jesus promises his disciples at the Last Supper that he, too, will eat and drink with them after the resurrection. He says: “ I tell you, never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26: 29)
“There is no escaping the conclusion from these passages that Jesus was expecting a completely supernatural Kingdom of God of the kind described in the prophetic writings of the late post-Exilic period ... It is clear from the fact that as a rule he speaks of the Son of Man rather than of the Messiah that his outlook has its closest affinity with the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch. It is closest to that of Enoch. Jesus shares with Enoch the peculiar views that it is not God, as in the later post-Exilic prophets and in Daniel, but the Son of Man, assisted by his angels, who holds the Judgment, that the Judgment extends over the fallen angels as well, that there are great and little in the Kingdom of heaven, and that the rich must be regarded as lost from the very beginning.” (Schweitzer, p. 92)
The Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, written a generation after Jesus’ death, envisioned two kingdoms: a Messianic kingdom of limited duration followed by an eternal Kingdom of God. The dead would be resurrected after the first ended and before the second arrived. That is not Jesus’ view. “Jesus knows only the Kingdom which follows upon the resurrection. The expression Kingdom of heaven, which he frequently uses, is identical in meaning with Kingdom of God. It does not indicate that the Kingdom is in heaven, but that it comes to earth from heaven, so that the earth thereby acquires a supernatural perfection.” (Schweitzer, p. 93)
Why Did Jesus Adopt this View?
According to Albert Schweitzer, Jesus’ view of the Kingdom of God is “that of late Judaism. It follows that his ethics are not the ethics of the Kingdom, but those appropriate to preparation for its coming. The Kingdom, being supernatural, is beyond ethics. Those who have entered it live there as perfect, angel-like beings in a world which is perfect in every respect. As such, they cannot sin.” (Schweitzer, p. 93)
The view of God’s Kingdom in late Judaism is different from that in earlier prophets such as Amos, Jeremiah, and Second Isaiah. “For them, the Kingdom is essentially a spiritual and ethical entity. Indeed, it comes into existence when God transforms the hearts of men by imparting to them his Spirit and delegates dominion over all nations to a king of the House of David who has been equipped with the Spirit. In Jeremiah, Ezekial, and Deutero-Isaiah the Kingdom consists in a new everlasting covenant which God makes with his people, by which he gives them the strength to endure through imparting his Spirit to them.” (Schweitzer, p. 93)
Jesus might have followed that lead. “There was nothing to prevent Jesus ... from going back from the late Jewish conception of a completely supernatural and super ethical Kingdom to the earlier idea of a spiritual and ethical Messianic Kingdom, and giving it new life and depth in accordance with his deeper ethical insight. This is not what he does; instead he accepts the late Jewish view and directs his ethics toward one purpose alone. This is to prepare those who belong to the last generation of mankind ... for entry into the Kingdom, thus making the most of the last moments of the present time order between his announcement of the imminence of the Kingdom and its advent.” (Schweitzer, p. 94)
A reason why Jesus adopted the late Jewish view of the Kingdom is that he accepted the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. That doctrine was needed to do justice to the righteous persons of past generations who had died before the Kingdom of God arrived. They had believed in the promise of the Kingdom and had lived their lives in righteousness but had not enjoyed a reward for that effort. It would seem that their efforts had been in vain.
That situation was morally intolerable. However, to include those righteous persons in the promise of the Kingdom, it was necessary to suppose that the dead of past generations would be resurrected when the Kingdom came. “But this meant a fundamental change in the nature of the Kingdom. Those who have risen from the dead and men in their natural state (the survivors of the last generation) cannot both be in the Kingdom together. They must all be supernatural beings, the one through the resurrection, the others through a transformation which they will undergo at the appearance of the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 94-95)
Another reason that the view of the Kingdom had to change was that later prophets spoke of a universal God, the God of all nations and not just Israel. The Day of Yahweh, as conceived by Amos, was a day leading to the victory of the Jewish nation over its enemies. This would be a purely historical event. Later prophets, however, foresaw that God would triumph over the forces of evil and death in the world. These forces could not be conquered in the course of ordinary history but only in a supernatural order following history. The conception of the kingdom had to be “higher” than before. “The faith which sets its hopes highest and dares to expect that God will shortly make an end to the present era and bring in the age of perfection can entertain no other view but that of a supernatural and super-ethical Kingdom of God. That is why Jesus adopted the outlook of late Judaism.” (Schweitzer, p. 95)
What Impact did a Supernatural Kingdom have on the Ethics of Jesus?
Schweitzer claims that expectations of a supernatural kingdom were “responsible for a depreciation of the existing transient and imperfect world in comparison with the eternal and perfect world to come. For Jesus this is greatly accentuated by his belief that the time allotted to the present world is now very short indeed. Detachment from all that belongs to this world is therefore essential.” (Schweitzer, p. 96) If the natural world will end tomorrow, one cares little about making improvements in that world.
That is a reason why Jesus valued children. These “young children of the final human generation are destined to enter the Kingdom as they are. They pass their existence in this world in innocence and freedom from anxiety, and will never know any other way of living here because the Kingdom will have come before they are grown up. They possess a unique privilege.” (Schweitzer, p. 96) The natural attitude of children is also the attitude needed to enter the Kingdom of God. “I tell you,” said Jesus, “whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” (Mark 10: 15)
One prepares for the approaching Kingdom of God by avoiding worldly attachments. One such attachment is a desire for rank and position. Jesus addresses this issue by proposing an ethic which reverses the positions of the great and small, powerful and the weak. “Let a man humble himself till he is like this child, and he will be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven,” Jesus says. (Matthew 18: 4) Again, he remarks: “The greatest among you must be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23: 12)
Another attachment is to wealth. One is reminded of Jesus’ conversation with the young rich man who was asked to give up all his wealth. He could not do it even to gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, so strong was his attachment to wealth. Jesus urges an attitude toward earthly possessions verging on the carefree: “I bid you put away anxious thoughts about food and drink to keep you alive, and clothes to cover your body ... Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow and reap and store in barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” (Matthew 6: 25-26) “Do not store up for yourself treasure on earth, where it grows rusty and moth-eaten, and thieves break in to steal it. Store up treasure in heaven, where there is no moth and no rust to spoil it ... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6: 19-20)
“The ethics of Jesus are concerned only with the attainment of inner perfection. They renounce moral works. They have nothing to do with the achievement of anything in the world. His expectation of the supernatural Kingdom of God which is coming in the very near future puts Jesus in a position to disregard everything that ethics can achieve in this world. Their sole function is to make individual men face the need to reflect on the nature of the true good. His ethics can set up the highest, most unlimited demands.” (Schweitzer, p. 96) The lynch-pin of this ethics is the idea that the Kingdom of God will come soon. It is not worth concerning oneself with things that are important in the interim period since that situation will soon be gone. Jesus does not urge moral improvement or betterment of society; there simply isn’t time for that.
Even so, Jesus does not advise total renunciation of the world as ascetic philosophers have done. Such renunciation precludes an ethical system. He who does not act at all is not concerned with the morality of action. It is hard to find a place in this scheme for love. Unlike Buddha, Jesus accepts the need to live in this world before the Kingdom of God comes. To a certain extent, he inherits the ethical view of earlier prophets who believed that the Kingdom might come in the distant future. To believe that the Kingdom will come soon creates a certain attitude of detachment from the world but it does not cause one to neglect present needs.
There is another reason why Jesus rejects asceticism. There is no time for the personal cultivation that it requires. Only the approaching Kingdom matters. This is a time for rejoicing, not self-mortification, because the Kingdom is near. Those persons who belong to the present generation enjoy a great privilege. They should be happy about living at this time. Their daily lives should be filled with joy. Jesus often expresses joy. For instance, after preaching the parable of the sower, he says to the disciples: “Happy are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear! Many prophets and saints, I tell you, desired to see what you now see, yet never saw it; to hear what you hear, yet never heard it.” (Matthew 13: 16-17) When John’s disciples come to Jesus asking why he did not make his own disciples fast, Jesus replies: “Can you expect the bridegroom’s friends to go mourning while the bridegroom is with them?” (Matthew 9: 15) The time for fasting will come when the bridegroom is taken away.
So Jesus is relatively relaxed about moral discipline. He lets his disciples eat and drink freely. He associates with sinners. His critics say of him: “Look at him! a glutton and a drinker, a friends of tax-gatherers and sinners!” (Matthew 11:19) Jesus points out that the same types of critics accused John and his disciples of being “possessed” because they embraced an austere mode of living. He dismisses such criticism, saying “God’s wisdom is proved right by its results.” (Matthew 11: 19)
Chapter Eight: Jesus’ Messianic Secret
Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah? “We are accustomed to regard it as self-evident that Jesus came forward as the Messiah and required those who listened to his preaching to believe in his Messiahship. According to the two oldest Gospels, however, he did not do this. He never tells the masses that he is the Messiah. The believers know nothing of this.”
(Schweitzer, p. 102)
What was Jesus doing in his earthly ministry if not being the Messiah? He was announcing the future Kingdom of God and preparing listeners to be admitted to it. He was not trying to convince people of his Messianic credentials. God alone would do that. In fact, Jesus while living on earth was not the Messiah. He was only the future Messiah; he was the one who would be supernaturally transformed when God’s kingdom arrived.
Two later Gospels, Luke and John, do contain passages indicating that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Schweitzer disregards them, sticking with the two earlier Gospels. He calls attention to two incidents mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. In the first, Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem. People ask Jesus’ Galilean followers who he is. They reply: “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21: 11) If the point of Jesus’ ministry had been to announce himself as the Messiah, his followers would have known this and told the people in Jerusalem. However, despite cries from the crowd hailing Jesus as “the Son of David”, they identify Jesus only as a prophet.
The second incident, even more significant, was Jesus’ arraignment before the High Priest on the grounds that he claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus could be executed for blasphemy if convicted of that offense. The arraignment is telling. “At the trial the High Priest first tries to convict Jesus on the basis of the evidence of witnesses. Finally he makes two come forward and quote a saying that he is supposed to have uttered against the Temple. Why does he waste time with such unreliable pieces of evidence instead of establishing through witnesses that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah? He cannot, because he does not have at his disposal the three witnesses needed for a conviction according to the Law.” (Schweitzer, p. 102) In other words, Jesus did not tell people he was the Messiah or, at least, not enough of them to furnish the required witnesses.
“It never occurs to those listening to Jesus, in spite of the miracles he is working, that he might be the Messiah. In the late Jewish view the Messiah is not to be looked for as a man or as appearing in this world The Messiah of the prophets was to be born as a man and made Messiah through the bestowal by God of the Spirit. The Messiah of late Judaism, on the other hand, is a supernatural being, because the Kingdom is supernatural. Like the Kingdom, he belongs to the future. True, he is still called David’s son, as he was in the prophets. But the late post-Exilic prophets, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, never posed, let alone solved, the question how, as a supernatural being, he could at the same time actually be born as a man, as David’s successor.” (Schweitzer, p. 103)
Was Jesus Son of David?
“The Messianic consciousness of Jesus cannot therefore consist in a belief that he is the Messiah while he is still a man, but only in the belief that he is the one who will be revealed as Messiah at the coming of the Kingdom. Along with all who share in the Kingdom, he will receive, when it comes, a supernatural form of existence, and only then will be become the Messiah ... The question which those late Jewish scribes who concerned themselves with the coming of the Kingdom and the Messiah dared not ask themselves, because they could find no answer to it, Jesus has solved in the only way possible. He assumes that a man born as a descendant of David in the last generation of mankind will be revealed as the Messiah in his supernatural existence at the coming of the Kingdom. He is convinced that he is this descendant of David.” (Schweitzer, p. 103-104)
In the meanwhile, the knowledge which Jesus has of himself as the future Messiah must remain a secret. He keeps this secret to himself. Not even the disciples know it. There is, however, a certain knowledge that Jesus is descended from David. A Canaanite woman addresses Jesus: “Sir! have pity on me, Son of David.” (Matthew 15: 22) A blind beggar at Jericho shouts: “Son of David, Jesus, have pity on me!” (Mark 10:47) Boys in the Temple shout “Hosanna to the Son of David” after Jesus heals blind men and cripples. (Matthew 21: 15) Crowds of onlookers also shout that phrase when Jesus and his followers triumphantly enter Jerusalem. (Matthew 21: 9) While the phrase “Son of David” clearly implies the Messiah, it is not Jesus but others who push the title upon him. Perhaps these people are thinking that Jesus may become the type of earthly Messiah envisioned by the early prophets. Schweitzer does not pursue that possibility.
The Gospel of Mark, the oldest Gospel, does not introduce Jesus as David’s descendant. After the miraculous baptism by John, he comes forth only as a preacher and a healer. However, the Gospel of Luke reports that angels herald the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist in terms relating to the final days. John is promised “the spirit and power of Elijah.” Jesus is promised “the throne of his ancestor David, and he will be king over Israel for ever.” Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, the city of David, because Joseph, David’s descendant, went to that city to register for the census. The Gospel of Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage from David and from Abraham, naming each person (including Zerubbabel) in the genealogical chain. Yet, according to Matthew, the mother of Jesus, Mary, was only betrothed to Joseph when Jesus was born.
So we can see that Jesus’ claim to the Messiahship through David is rather tenuous. Jesus himself raises questions about the nature of the Messiah in a conversation with the Pharisees in the temple: “Jesus went on to say, as he taught in the temple, ‘How can the teachers of the law maintain that the Messiah is “Son of David’? David himself said, when inspired by the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ “ David himself calls him “Lord”; he can he also be David’s son?’” (Mark 12: 35-37) Jesus is quoting here from Psalm 110.
Schweitzer writes that “the solution to the riddle is that the Messiah in his earthly existence is subordinate to David as his successor, but in the coming Kingdom, as the Messiah, he is above him ... Jesus does not therefore mean, as was so long supposed, to call in question the view that the Messiah must be of David’s line. He accepts this as his starting-point, because he is conscious of being both the descendant of David and, at the same time, the future Messiah.” (Schweitzer, p. 104-105)
In What Sense Was Jesus “Son of Man”?
Late Jewish prophecy had identified the Messiah with a figure known as “Son of Man”. It is a term first used in the Book of Daniel. The Apocalypse of Enoch also associates the Messiah with Son of Man. The Psalms of Solomon and apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra mention only the Messiah and not “Son of Man”. Schweitzer points out that in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, “Son of Man” means simply a man. However, it carries Messianic overtones because of Daniel and Enoch. Jesus used the word in both senses of meaning.
“It is a mistake to assume that both designations (Son of Man and Messiah) were used in late Judaism as equivalent in meaning. In point of fact the combination in one figure of the Messiah and the Son of Man is first found in Jesus. This equation, like the idea of the human preexistence of the Messiah, was a considerable intellectual achievement. What is remarkable is the way in which Jesus used the term Son of Man not only for the supernatural being who comes on the clouds, but also when he is speaking of himself in his earthly existence.” (Schweitzer, p. 105)
Schweitzer speculates that the phrase “son of man”, in its double meaning, might have “helped Jesus to realize that the Messiah might first have to go through existence as a man. He may have found hidden in this strange expression for the Messiah the secret that the expected supernatural Messiah must also be born as son of a man” rather than being “an incarnation of a preexistent being” sent from Heaven. In particular, Jesus comes to see that “he is the man of David’s line who will be the Son of Man in the Kingdom of God.” Far from having a “heavenly preexistence”, Jesus may have “inclined to the view that a normal son of man (himself) selected for the office by God will become a heavenly being on the advent of the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 106)
The human and heavenly preexistent incarnations of “Son of Man” are a problem only to those who hold that Jesus was Messiah in his earthly existence. For Jesus himself, it was not such a problem. Jesus understood that the two types of existence would come in succession. First he would be a human son of man and then, when the Kingdom came, a supernatural one. This supernatural Son of Man, the Messiah, still belonged to the future. Even so, “through his double use of the term Son of Man Jesus demonstrates that he and the Son of Man who will one day appear from heaven somehow belong together. Here he is giving away something of his Messianic secret. He need not, however, have any fear that it will be understood. It is well protected. The idea that the expected Son of Man will have a human before his heavenly existence is one that never occurs to his hearers.” (Schweitzer, p. 106-107)
An Ill-Kept Secret
Although Jesus does not announce his position as future Messiah, his actions and words are continually suggesting it. He claims the authority to forgive sins. Some lawyers mutter: “This is blasphemy! Who but God alone can forgive sins?” Jesus taunts them: “Is it easier to say to this paralysed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Stand up, take your bed, and walk?’ But to convince you that the Son of Man has the right on earth to forgive sins” - he turns to the paralysed man - “ I say to you, stand up, take your bed and go home.’’ The sick man arose. (Mark 2: 7-11) Jesus elsewhere claims to be Lord of the Sabbath. He says to his critics among the Pharisees: “The Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of Man is sovereign even over the Sabbath.” (Mark 2: 28) He tells his disciples that if the people of any town refuse to help them on their journey “it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” (Matthew 10: 15)
Jesus begins to attract attention from the authority he claims. No man can claim he is God. But Jesus is telling audiences that their reward in the Kingdom of God depends on how they treat him and the disciples. “To receive you is to receive me, and to receive me is to receive the One who sent me ... if anyone gives so much as a cup of cold water to one of these little ones, because he is a disciple of mine, I tell you this: that man will assuredly not go unrewarded,” Jesus says. (Matthew 10: 40-42) The Son of Man, as Messiah, will remember on Judgment Day how people treated him on earth - whether they gave him food and drink, treated illness, clothed nakedness, etc. - and treatment of “one of my brothers here, however humble” is the same as treatment of him. (Matthew 25: 40-46)
The day of the Kingdom draws near once John the Baptist is beheaded. Although people including John himself do not realize the significance of John’s ministry, Jesus does. He tells a crowd of listeners: “For all the prophets and the Law foretold things to come until John appeared, and John is the destined Elijah, if you will but accept it.” (Matthew 11:14-15) The significance of this is that one of the last barriers to the Kingdom of Heaven has now been removed. Scripture foretold that the prophet Elijah would come before “the great and terrible day of the Lord” when God’s Kingdom arrived. (Malachi 4:5) Now Elijah has come and gone. The way is clear for the Kingdom itself to arrive.
So Jesus and his followers travel from Galilee to Jerusalem. Jesus rides into the city on the back of a donkey fulfilling the Messianic prediction: “Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion ... for see, your king is coming to you ... mounted on an ass.” (Zechariah 9: 9) Once in Jerusalem, Jesus heads straight to the Temple and takes charge. Jesus “went into the temple and began driving out those who bought and sold in the temple. He upset the tables of the money-changers and the seats of the dealers in pigeons; and he would not allow anyone to use the temple court as a thoroughfare for carrying goods.” (Mark 11: 15-16) With reference to the Messiah, it is written in Zechariah: “On that day ... every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the Lord ... So when that time comes, no trader shall again be seen in the house of the Lord of Hosts.” (Zechariah 14: 20-21)
Previously Jesus made an effort to keep his Messianic identity a secret. On the whole, he is successful although demons try to betray the secret. In the synagogue at Capernaum, a man with an “unclean spirit” shrieks at Jesus: “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? ... I know who you are - the Holy One of God.” Jesus says to the man, “Be silent”; and, to the evil spirit, “come out of him.” The man goes into a convulsion and the spirit leaves his body. (Mark 1: 24-27) There is a similar experience on the shores of Lake Galilee. “For he cured so many that sick people of all kinds came crowding in upon him to touch him. The unclean spirits too, when they saw him would fall at his feet and cry aloud, ‘You are the Son of God’; but he insisted that they should not make him known.” (Mark 3: 10-12)
The Secret is Betrayed
An important theme in the Gospels is the story of how the secret of Jesus’ Messianic identity escapes to a place where it can do harm. The secret escapes by way of the disciples. The process begins as Jesus and the disciples are departing for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. “On the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say I am?’ They answered, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others one of the prophets.’ ‘And you,’ he asked, ‘who do you say I am?’ Peter replied: ‘You are the Messiah.’ Then he gave them strict orders not to tell anyone about him.” (Mark 8: 28-30)
How did Peter know that Jesus was the Messiah? In the Gospel of Matthew, it is reported that Jesus thinks God told Peter. Jesus says: “Simon son of Jonah, you are favored indeed! You did not learn that from mortal man; it was revealed to you by my heavenly Father.” (Matthew 16: 17-18) Jesus goes on to call Peter, “the Rock”, and say he will build his church upon this rock, and give Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. These are sayings inscribed in the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Schweitzer favors another view. “We cannot reject out of hand the possibility that it (Peter’s learning the secret) was at the event generally called the Transfiguration.” (Schweitzer, p. 109) This event occurred six days after Jesus’ conversation with the disciples. Jesus took three of the disciples with him as he ascended a high mountain: Peter, James, and John. He was alone with these disciples and then “in their presence he was transfigured; his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as snow. And they saw Moses and Elijah appear, conversing with him. Then Peter spoke: ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘how good it is that we are here! If you wish it, I will make three shelters here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ While he was still speaking, a bright cloud suddenly overshadowed them, and a voice called from the cloud: ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favor rests; listen to him.’ At the sound of the voice the disciples fell on their faces in terror. Jesus then came up to them, touched them, and said, ‘Stand up; do not be afraid.’ And when they raised their eyes, they saw no one, but only Jesus.” (Matthew 17: 2-8)
Peter, James, and John learn from this event that Jesus is the Messiah, the beloved Son of God. Again, Jesus instructs the three disciples not to tell anyone of this experience “until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” The subject of Elijah comes up. The disciples are puzzled why Jesus should speak of the Kingdom’s imminent arrival when the scriptures clearly say that Elijah must come before that can happen. Jesus tells them that Elijah has already come; he has come in the person of John the Baptist. So the way is now clear for the Messiah to come.
Schweitzer discusses the curious fact that Peter and the other two disciples did not know that John the Baptist was Elijah even though Jesus had previously told this to a crowd of people. (See Matthew 11: 7-15.)
The reason is that the disciples did not hear that conversation; they were away on a trip to the towns of Israel commissioned by Jesus. (Matthew 11:1) Schweitzer here finds evidence that Peter must have learned Jesus’ Messianic secret at the Transfiguration rather than from God. The prophecy that Elijah must first appear before the Messiah would come was so ingrained in late Jewish thinking that one cannot believe Peter would not have asked about Elijah in the earlier conversation with Jesus if he had thought that Jesus might be the Messiah. This subject only came up six days later when Jesus and the three disciples were descending the mountain after the Transfiguration. That is evidence that Peter first learned of Jesus’ Messianic secret at the Transfiguration.
In any event, Peter now knows Jesus’ secret. Peter tells the secret to other disciples in the conversation at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus asks the disciples not to reveal it to anyone else. So, how does the High Priest learn the secret? “Through the betrayal of Judas. Men have always pondered on why Judas betrayed his master. The main question for historical investigation, however, is what he really betrayed. The betrayal cannot have consisted in giving away the most convenient location of Jesus’ arrest. That he went each evening to Bethany could easily have been found out from spies ... What concerned the High Priest and the elders of the people first and foremost was to find something that would enable them to proceed against him and put him out of the way. Judas gave it to them. Only from someone in the circle of disciples could they have learned that Jesus thought of himself as the coming Messiah. His admission of it when questioned by the High Priest made it possible to sentence him to death without bringing in three witnesses to it.” (Schweitzer, p. 111) Jesus’ own disciple, Judas Iscariot, supplied the key evidence to justify arresting Jesus and bringing him to trial.
Chapter Nine: Short Cut to the Kingdom
After the disciples learned at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus began speaking openly that he would have to go to Jerusalem, be crucified, and then die and rise again. He would die as a sacrifice for many. Why did Jesus come to that conclusion? Was his ministry in trouble? No.
“For many years historical scholarship held the view that Jesus had come to recognize the necessity for his death as increasing opposition made his work for the Kingdom of God impossible, so that there was no question now of anything but dying for it. This interpretation explains nothing. It does not help anyone to understand in what way Jesus’ death benefits others or could help the cause of the Kingdom at all. Moreover there is no foundation for it. The two oldest Gospels know nothing of the theory that in the second period of his mission Jesus had to give way to his opponents. It was not a beaten man who entered Jerusalem amid cries of Hosanna and, sustained by the enthusiasm of the Galilean pilgrims to the feast, could behave for days on end as lord of the Temple.” (Schweitzer, p. 112)
The High Priest and elders could have had Jesus stoned. They had every right to do it under the Law. Why did they not? They had, said Schweitzer, “the right, but not the power ... The masses who honored him as a prophet, would not have allowed it. That was why they had to arrest him at night, condemn him at a night session (which was illegal), bring him before Pilate and through him have the sentence confirmed and immediately carried out. The crowd which shouted ‘Crucify, crucify’ was not that which had cried ‘Hosanna’, but a group collected at dawn by his accusers. Jesus must hang on the cross and die before his devoted Gailileans had even heard of his arrest. That is the explanation of the fact that Jesus was not stoned but crucified.” (Schweitzer, p. 113)
Some believe that Jesus traveled in Galilee and surrounding territories to escape growing opposition to his ministry. Schweitzer argues convincingly that this explanation is untrue. Jesus fled the crowds for another reason. When he left Galilee for a time, it was not to escape the authorities or hostile critics. Jesus wanted time to be alone with his disciples. His preaching near the shores of Lake Galilee had attracted a multitude of listeners. He now had something else on his mind.
Jesus had sent the disciples, in pairs, out on a mission to announce the coming of the Kingdom, heal the sick, and perform miracles. When the disciples returned to Jesus, he said to them: “Come with me, by yourselves, to some lonely place where you can rest quietly.” (Mark 6: 30) Jesus and the disciples left the area by boat but the crowds followed them. Many were gathered at the landing place. To make the crowds go away, the disciples proposed sending people off to the farms to gather food. Jesus had another idea. Gathering fish and bread, he caused this food supply to multiply miraculously. Then Jesus and the disciples crossed Lake Galilee in a boat. Jesus walked on water during a storm. On the other side of the lake, another crowd was gathered. Many requested that Jesus heal the sick. He was busy much of the time. (See Mark 6: 36-56.)
A Change in Plans
“Far too little attention has been paid to the fact that the disciples (when they return to Jesus) have not fully carried out the commission they received from Jesus. He sent them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel to visit the cities of Israel ... In what directions and how far they went in pairs is not recorded.” They were to have visited all parts of Judaea, including Jerusalem, though not Samaria. “At any rate they do not seem to have proclaimed their message in Judaea and Jerusalem. We get the impression that they were not absent very long.” (Schweitzer, p. 114)
“Why does Jesus leave off his preaching after the return of the disciples to be alone with them? What has happened? The prospect he held out to the disciples in his speech as he sent them out has not been fulfilled. He told them to proclaim that the Kingdom had begun to dawn and promised them that the Son of Man would come before they had finished with the cities of Israel. (Matthew 10: 7, 23) ... What he had expected did not occur. In the speech delivered as he sent them out he also held out the prospect of grave persecutions which they would have to endure. (Matthew 10: 16-18) ... The disciples, however, return to Jesus without a hair of their head having been touched.” (Schweitzer, p. 115)
With respect to persecution, Jesus had warned the disciples that during their journeys around Israel, “men will hand you over to their courts, they will flog you in synagogues, and you will be brought before governors and kings, for my sake ... Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me.” (Matthew 10: 17-22). But, said Jesus, “the man who holds out to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, take refuge in another; I tell you this: before you have gone through all the towns of Israel the Son of Man will have come.” (Matthew 10: 22-23)
This is explained in eschatological terms. Jesus is warning the disciples about the pre-Messianic tribulation. The scenario of events in the final days had always included a period of intense suffering. Jesus supposed that this period of tribulation would take place when the disciples were on the road preaching to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” By this time, the prophet Elijah - John the Baptist - had already appeared. Once the tribulation was also behind them, it would be time for the Kingdom of God to come. Indeed, that is what Jesus expects. He says, “Before you have gone through all the towns of Israel the Son of Man will have come.” Simultaneously with the Messiah’s arrival comes the Kingdom of God.
But now Jesus must confront the fact that what he promised the disciples has not come to pass. Jesus must reflect upon the unexpected turn of events. What was his previous expectation? From the beginning, Jesus had preached about the tribulation. Even in the Sermon on the Mount, he had mentioned this event. Anyone expecting the Kingdom to come in accordance with scripture would have done the same. An unresolved question, however, is what would happen to Jesus and the disciples during this time. Would they, too, have to undergo the tribulation? If so, what would be their fate?
Jesus, the future Messiah, will be in the midst of the tribulation. “If he who is to be revealed as Messiah at the coming of the Kingdom is already on earth, walking unrecognized among those who are waiting for its appearance, the question inevitably arises, what will happen to him in the pre-Messianic tribulation? Jesus expects that he will have to live through it along with the faithful. In his view the persecution will range about him as the future Son of Man-Messiah. The faithful assembled around him will be particularly assailed by it. For the evil powers of the world, which vent their fury for the last time in the pre-Messianic tribulation, will be looking out for those who belong to God and who are delivered up to them for a time.” (Schweitzer, p.115-116)
Jesus expects that he will be humiliated. He expects his disciples to share the same experience. They, too, will be subject to extreme “testing”. It is possible that some of them will die. They who die faithful to him will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They who abandon him under pressure will fail to enter the Kingdom. It is therefore critical that Jesus’ followers remain steadfast in their faith during the difficult time. The idea of testing is, of course, found in the prophets, especially Ezekial. While Jesus does not cover all the miraculous events foretold in the tribulation, he does mention one feature included in the Apocalypse of Enoch. That is the idea that brother will turn against brother, father against child, children against parents, and deliver each other to death.
This expectation of a severe challenge during the period of tribulation accounts for some of Jesus’ more gruesome teachings. Sending the disciples out on their mission, Jesus said: “You must not think that I have come to bring peace to earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother ... and a man will find enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares more for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and walk in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.” (Matthew 10: 34-39)
Jesus is not thinking earthly relationships. He is thinking of the pre-Messianic tribulation. It will be, unfortunately, a time of such extreme testing that only those who give up all worldly attachments, including loyalty to family members, will be able to hold fast to him and survive.
The Lord’s Prayer
The fact that Jesus has sent the disciples out on a mission with a promise that has not been fulfilled causes Jesus to rethink the situation. Jesus now “deems it possible that it may be God’s will to spare the faithful the need to prove themselves, with the attendant danger that they may fail to pass the test. He teaches them to beg God to do this. Where? In the two last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer.” (Schweitzer, p. 119)
This prayer is often stated: “Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” Schweitzer points out the offensiveness of the idea that God is leading us into temptation. God is not wanting to make men do evil. The “temptation” is not a temptation to commit evil acts but a testing period when evil forces put pressure on individuals. It is, in fact, the pre-Messianic tribulation.In another translation, closer to the original meaning, the two petitions are stated: “And do not bring us to the test, but save us from the evil one.” (Matthew 6: 13) The forces of evil, led by the devil, are raging in the world. Some succumb to those forces while others survive. “Deliver us from evil” means, then, deliver us from the devil, who is the evil one. This prayer asks God to help us resist pressures from the devil who controls the world during that difficult time.
This prayer also asks God to spare us of the tribulation itself. “Lead us not into temptation” - alternatively worded, “do not bring us to the test” - means that we ask God to allow us to bypass that difficult experience. We want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without having to pass the test posed by the tribulation. “Jesus bids them (the disciples) pray that God may not lead them into this (i.e., make them undergo it), but that he may rescue them from the evil powers to which they are to be delivered up for a time in the tribulation. He is to make an end of the rule of these powers and to let the Kingdom appear without a prior occurrence of the pre-Messianic tribulation. What has been foreseen as the first occurrence in the scheme of events at the end of the world is to be omitted.” (Schweitzer, p. 119)
How the pre-Messianic Tribulation might be Canceled
“Because of the delay in the tribulation the prospect of which he had held out to the disciples when he sent them out on their mission, Jesus came to the conclusion that God was willing to spare believers from it if he fulfilled it in his own person. This he would accomplish by voluntarily undergoing death and so bringing about that end of the domination of evil which was to mark the conclusion of the tribulation.” (Schweitzer, p.119-120) There was, in other words, a change in plans. God does not make the disciples endure the tribulation that was expected when they went out to preach in the cities of Israel. But scripture still needs to be fulfilled. Jesus now believes that his own self-sacrifice will satisfy the requirement of the tribulation which was predicted before God’s Kingdom arrives.
Another conclusion can be drawn. According to Schweitzer, “the many for whom his death is thus a ransom are the righteous of the last generation of mankind, who are to find a place in the Kingdom. According to this view of the meaning of his death, Jesus dies only for them, not for all men. There was never any question of the righteous dead of former generations having to undergo the tribulation. They enter the Kingdom through the resurrection, without any further ado. Jesus is not thinking of future generations, since he holds that the end of time has come.” (Schweitzer, p. 120)
What Led Jesus to this Idea?
The first event to have inspired Jesus’ new thinking may have been the death of John the Baptist. Jesus believes that John is the destined Elijah. Scripture had said that Elijah would return to earth but did not say that he would die. The original prophet Elijah had been taken straight to heaven. It might have been assumed that Elijah in returning to earth would do the same when God’s Kingdom arrived. “In none of the passages which speak of his coming is there any expectation that Elijah will have to die when he comes back in the final age.” (Schweitzer, p. 120) But John the Baptist - Elijah - has already been beheaded by Herod Antipas. This happened before the period of tribulation.
“The fact that the Baptist did not suffer death in the pre-Messianic tribulation, but through a purely human plot, confirms Jesus in his conviction that a similar fate is in store for himself.” (Schweitzer, p. 120) So at the Transfiguration Jesus answers the disciples’ question about Elijah: “Yes, Elijah will come and set everything right. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they failed to recognize him, and worked their will upon him; and in the same way the Son of Man is to suffer at their hands.” (Matthew 17: 11-13)
The prophecies of Zechariah contain references to events in Jesus’ latter days. The inhabitants of Jerusalem “shall look upon me (the Messiah), on him whom they have pierced.” The Messianic king shall enter Jerusalem “mounted on an ass.” The death of Jesus shows how “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered abroad.” When one of Jesus’ companions draws a sword to protect Jesus from arrest, Jesus replies: “Put up your sword ... Do you suppose that I cannot appeal to my Father, who would at once send to my aid more than twelve legions of angels? But how then could the scriptures be fulfilled, which say that this must be?” (Matthew 26: 52-54) Jesus seems to be saying that scripture foretold his arrest by agents of an earthly state.
Schweitzer disagrees. There is “nothing in the Old Testament about the suffering and death of the Messiah. There could not be anything about it there. In the Old Testament the Messiah is a being for whom suffering and death could never be considered. Jesus too does not expect to suffer and die as the Messiah, but only as the future Messiah, who has been sojourning unrecognized as a man among men. The scripture could have spoken of this only as a secret, applying to the death of the future Son of Man-Messiah while he was walking unrecognized among men: it could not possibly name him.” (Schweitzer, p. 121)
Even so, Jesus “doubtless found the clearest prophecy of his death in the passages of Deutero-Isaiah which deal with the Servant of the Lord, whose suffering is of benefit to those who witness it though they do not know it.” (Schweitzer, p. 121-122) In the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, it is written: “He was despised ... tormented and humbled by suffering ... on himself he bore our sufferings, our torments he endured, while we counted him smitten by God ... but he was pierced for our transgressions, tortured for our inequities; and the chastisement he bore is health for us and by his scourging we are healed. We had all strayed like sheep, each of us had gone his own way; but the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53: 3-6)
When Jesus said that “the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give up his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10: 45), he may have had these passages in mind. He may have been thinking of Isaiah’s description of God’s suffering servant when he stood silent before the High Priest as the Council debated charges against him. Isaiah had written: “He was afflicted, he submitted to be struck down and did not open his mouth; he was led like a sheep to the slaughter, like a ewe that is dumb before the shearers.” (Isaiah 53: 7) So, Jesus voluntarily submits to suffering at the hands of the religious and political authorities.
“Jesus is thus convinced that the meaning and effect of the pre-Messianic tribulation are transferred by God to the suffering and death which he has freely accepted as the future Messiah. His self-sacrifice accordingly has the consequence that the final events have now arrived at the point that they would have reached after the tribulation had taken place. This means that the evil world-powers have lost the domination which they possessed alongside of God’s. According to late Jewish eschatology it was their allotted role to rise against God in a final contest at the pre-Messianic tribulation, in order that they might suffer destruction at his hands and the Kingdom could then appear. The death of Jesus thus brings about the coming of the Kingdom of God. This is its fundamental meaning. The way in which it benefits believers is that it gives them the possibility of entering the Kingdom. At the same time it also benefits them by sparing them the necessity of having to pass through the tribulation before entering the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 122-123)
Chapter Ten: The End Comes
After John the Baptist’s disciples had left, Jesus made this puzzling statement: “Ever since the coming of John the Baptist the kingdom of Heaven has been subjected to violence and violent men are seizing it.” (Matthew 11: 12) What does it mean? One interpretation is that “the Kingdom was to be realized by force of arms.” John, or even Jesus, was a political revolutionary. No, Schweitzer explains, Jesus “is only making it clear that since the preaching of the Baptist men have been exercising pressure on the coming of the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 123) Pious men have been trying to make the Kingdom come more quickly.
This leads back to the idea that mankind can make God’s kingdom a reality through work. In Schweitzer’s view, Jesus is “far from regarding believers, as Zarathustra did, as God’s comrades in the struggle for the victory of good over evil. Nevertheless, he did stand for the view that they could do something to advance the coming of the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 123) Even if God alone decides its timing, men could perhaps exert influence or, in other words, put “pressure” on God to speed things up.
Pressuring God through Prayer
“How do they (Jesus’ followers) exercise pressure on the coming of the Kingdom? By the repentance (change of heart) through which they prepare themselves for the coming of the Kingdom. They hope that this will move God to let it appear.” (Schweitzer, p. 124) The repentance which John requests of those who are baptized is one way that believers might pressure God. Jesus suggests another: the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus teaches his followers to pray for the Kingdom to come.
The opening lines of this prayer are: “Our Father in heaven, thy name be hallowed; thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as in heaven.” (Matthew 6: 9-10) One is asking God to bring his heavenly Kingdom to earth. The last two verses in the prayer (Matthew 6: 13) are, as we have seen, a request for the Kingdom to come without requiring Jesus’ followers to face “the test” - the tribulation. What of the line, “Give us today our daily bread”? Is this, as many suppose, a request for God to give people the material sustenance which they will need each day? No, it is a request for God to let Jesus’ followers participate in the banquet with the Messiah which will take place when the Kingdom is established. It is a request to let this happen today - soon.
“As a request for the speedy arrival of the time of the Messianic banquet,” writes Schweitzer, this is also “a petition for the coming of the Kingdom of God. As in the last two petitions, so in this too, the literal translation has been ignored because it did not yield any intelligible sense. It is translated, ‘Give us this day our daily bread’, instead of, literally, ‘Give us to-day, now, our bread for the future’. As in the two concluding petitions, so in this, the meaning of the literal translation can be understood only when we take into account the eschatological concept which it presupposes. It is that of the Messianic banquet. In this petition the believers implore God to let the supernatural bread of the expected Messianic banquet appear immediately in place of their ordinary bread.” (Schweitzer, p. 124)
The Messianic banquet first appears in Jewish prophetic literature in the 25th chapter of Isaiah: “On this mountain the Lord of Hosts will prepare a banquet of rich fare for all the peoples, a banquet of wines well matured and richest fare, well-matured wines strained clear.” (Isaiah 25: 6) References to this banquet are scattered throughout the Gospels. Jesus says at Capernaum: “Many, I tell you, will come from the east and west to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 8: 11) The two fish and five loaves of bread miraculously multiplied into food whose scraps filled “twelve great baskets”, feeding thousands. (Matthew 14: 18-21) The seven loaves of bread and the small fishes expanded into food to feed thousands more (Matthew 15: 36-37) are “preliminary celebrations of the Messianic banquet ... This means that the recipients, without knowing it, are called to take part in the Messianic banquet. Because they have been table-companions of the Messiah in his concealment and humility, they will be with him also in his glory.” (Schweitzer, p. 124-125)
The most important event foreshadowing the Messianic banquet would be Jesus’ “Last Supper” with his disciples. Jesus refers to the bread which is his body and to the wine which is his blood (Matthew 26: 26-28) in words recalling the words of Isaiah about the “banquet of rich fare” and the “banquet of wines” which God will prepare. If anything still is unclear, Jesus adds this clarifying statement: “I tell you, never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26: 29) Jesus is here promising the disciples that they will be with him in the Kingdom of God, again eating and drinking with him, when he has become the Messiah. He is also saying that he will die before he has an opportunity to eat another earthly meal.
“If Jesus assumed that believers by repentance and entreaty in the Lord’s Prayer for the appearance of the Kingdom of God are actually exercising pressure on its coming, this helps to bring everything into focus. We can now understand his conviction that God had ordained that, as the future Messiah, he could by his voluntary suffering and death bring about the coming of the Kingdom without the prior occurrence of the Messianic tribulation. Through his death the two last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer find fulfillment.” (Schweitzer, p. 125)
Does Jesus’ Death Atone for the Sins of Others?
Even if Jesus’ death cancels the requirement of the pre-Messianic tribulation, some have argued that this death is “at the same time a death of atonement, producing a forgiveness of sins.” In dying, Jesus may have produced the same washing away of sin that John the Baptist accomplished through immersion in water. This is an attractive and plausible theory. Schweitzer points out that in the Lord’s Prayer “the petition for forgiveness (of sins) and that for protection from the pre-Messianic tribulation come next to each other. (Yet) it is not clear that there is any connection between them.” (Schweitzer, p. 125-126) In Schweitzer’s view, Jesus’ death brings about cancellation of the pre-Messianic tribulation, and cancellation of the pre-Messianic tribulation brings about the Kingdom of God. Nothing further is required.
If Jesus’ death brings about the coming of the Kingdom, does it also guarantee each person alive a place in the Kingdom? Schweitzer argues against that point of view. The prophets had long maintained that admission to the Kingdom would involve a moral separation. Some persons would be saved and others not. What is the criterion which Jesus uses to determine which person will be saved? Is it baptism? Is it belief in him as Messiah? No, there is a simpler criterion, one which also is stated in the Lord’s Prayer. That is the principle of forgiveness. “Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us.” (Matthew 6: 12) in other words, God will forgive your sins (and let you enter the Kingdom of Heaven) if you forgive the sins of others.
“The forgiveness of sins for which Jesus bids believers pray in the Lord’s Prayer comes from God alone. It presupposes nothing but his compassion and that on their side men have forgiven those who need their forgiveness. This condition must be met in full. It should be noted that the usual translation (the one ordinarily used when the Lord’s Prayer is recited in worship) makes it sound milder than it really is. In the text of Matthew it runs not ‘as we forgive them that trespass against us’ but ‘as we have forgiven’. (Matthew 6: 12) What is required is to have forgiven, not just the sentiment of being willing to forgive.” (Schweitzer, p. 126)
Some of Jesus’ other quotations confirm that interpretation. Right after giving them the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus says to the disciples: “For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.” (Matthew 6: 14-15) The principle is clear; it succinctly states Jesus’ idea of what it takes for one’s sins to be forgiven by God so that one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Furthermore, “no saying of Jesus found in the two oldest Gospels would lead to the conclusion that he ever withdrew or expanded the simple teaching in the Lord’s Prayer about the forgiveness of sins because of the meaning he attached to his suffering and death.” (Schweitzer, p. 126)
There is an idea that humanity’s heavy load of sin required a cancellation of that sin before the Kingdom could arrive; and Jesus’ atoning death provided the cancellation. “But according to the information we have about the pre-Messianic tribulation from the later prophets and the Apocalypses, the pious have to prove themselves in it, not to expiate sins. Nor it is presupposed in late Jewish eschatology that a load of guilt encumbers the world and is delaying the coming of the Kingdom. In the Apocalypse of Ezra it is expressly stated that the coming of the Kingdom of God, when the time for it has arrived, cannot be delayed by anything, not even by the sins of the dwellers upon earth (4 Ezra 4: 38-42.” (Schweitzer, p. 127)
Jesus seems to be referring to an atoning death when he says at the Last Supper, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many.” (Mark 14: 24) “He sees his death therefore as a sacrifice offered at the conclusion of the new covenant. In the prophets the Kingdom is regarded as the new covenant which God concludes with his people.” Schweitzer argues, however, that “a sacrifice offered at the conclusion of a covenant is a very different thing from a sacrifice of propitiation. It has nothing to do with the cancelling of sins, but is only an act confirming the compact.” (Schweitzer, p. 127)
The strongest scriptural evidence in favor of an atoning death would be passages in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah which refer to “being pierced for our transgressions, tortured for our iniquities ... the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53: 5-6) Although Jesus associates the Suffering Servant with himself, “he does not, so far as we can gather ... regard his death as an atonement, but as an act of service and the payment of a ransom ... Even if the Servant passages suggest it, Jesus cannot regard his death as a sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sins. His view of the unconditional forgiveness that comes from God’s compassion precludes it ... The real meaning of his death, however, he finds in its effect in meeting the conditions needed for the coming of the Kingdom ... To judge from the indications we have of Jesus’ view of the meaning of his death, he did not regard it as an atonement which in any way effected the forgiveness of sins.” (Schweitzer, p. 127-128)
What Happened in the Garden of Gethsemane
One detail remained before Jesus could go to his death, cancel the pre-Messianic tribulation, and bring about the Kingdom of God. Although Jesus resolved to die alone, three of his disciples - Peter, James, and John - had implicated themselves in that event by promising to share Jesus’ fate. Would they, too, have to die? Jesus also wonders if, in light of God’s mercy in cancelling the tribulation, God might be willing to cancel his own suffering, too.
“Although Jesus is resolved to face suffering and death, he still retains a hope that God may be disposed to dispense with the tribulation without his having to make the sacrifice for which he is ready. There is no limit to the omnipotence of God. In Gethsemane he entreats God three times that this cup may pass him by. (Matthew 26: 37-44) As he had made believers pray in the Lord’s Prayer for protection from the tribulation, so he now prays for himself. He takes with him for this prayer James, John and Peter, leaving the other disciples behind. Why are these three to be with him? So that he may have companions to stand by him in is distress? No, the reason is a different one. These three have promised to share with him his death, which is equivalent to the pre-Messianic tribulation.” (Schweitzer, p. 129)
The incident mentioned here is James’ and John’s request that Jesus allow them to sit on his right hand and on his left hand in the Kingdom of Heaven: “Jesus said to them, ‘You do not understand what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?’ ‘We can’, they answered. Jesus said, ‘The cup that I drink you shall drink, and the baptism I am baptized with shall be your baptism; but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant.’” (Matthew 10: 38-40) Jesus has promised James and John that they would drink from his cup and share his baptism, meaning his experience of death. The same is also true of Peter who said to Jesus at the Mount of Olives: “Even if I must die with you, I will never disown you.” (Matthew 26: 35)
“Now that the time has come, he (Jesus) is anxious for the three that they may really be about to suffer and die with them. That is why they are to be with him and watch with him now. His entreaty includes them too. If God grants him not to have to drink the cup, they will escape too.” (Schweitzer, p. 129) Although Jesus urges the three disciples to remain awake, they lapse into sleep. Jesus warns them: “What! Could none of you stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake, and pray that you may be spared the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26: 41)
The Greek word used here for “test”, Schweitzer notes, is “a form of testing through suffering and the agony of death” which is equivalent to the pre-Messianic tribulation. Nevertheless, the situation is resolved: “The three were spared the suffering and death with Jesus which they had presumed to accept. He need not have been anxious for them. He (Jesus) alone goes to his death.” (Schweitzer, p.130)
Chapter Eleven: Practices and Beliefs after Jesus’ Resurrection
Albert Schweitzer asks: “In what does the primitive Christian faith consist? The fundamental element in it is belief in the immediate coming of the Kingdom of God, as it has been preached by John the Baptist and Jesus. To this article of faith, which was already present, now, after his death, another is added: belief in his Messiahship. The believers know through the disciples and from Jesus’ acknowledgment before the High Priest that he regarded himself as the coming Messiah. Because of their belief in his resurrection they are convinced that this is what he is.” (Schweitzer, p. 131)
The disciples were energized by Jesus’ resurrection because they now knew that he was the Messiah. Late Jewish prophecy did not conceive that the Messiah was a man. When Jesus was a man, he was not the Messiah. Now that Jesus had died and was resurrected, he was a supernatural being who was in the proper form of the Messiah. Therefore, Christians believed, the prophecy had come true. What Jesus had said about himself as Son of Man had happened. Christianity could rest upon a firm foundation of truth.
Still, belief in the resurrection of Jesus rests upon uncertain facts. “The earliest tradition does not know of any appearances of Jesus from which the material reality of its bodily presence could be inferred. Stories of this kind arise only in later traditions ... we must take into consideration the fact that the women who had come to the tomb in which he had been laid early in the morning on the third day, in order to embalm the body, found the tomb empty. When and by whom he had been removed from it will never be established.” (Schweitzer, p. 131-132)
The Gospel of John, written almost a century after Jesus’ death, includes the story of “Doubting Thomas”, who was allowed to put his finger inside Jesus’ wound. How could one not believe in the resurrection after an experience like that? However, earlier Gospels do not include this story; and it would have to be assumed that such powerful evidence to support Jesus’ bodily resurrection would have been included in those early writings had the disciples known of it. Apart from stories appearing at the end of the four Gospels, we also have the testimony of Paul who, besides citing the experiences of others, claimed to have seen Jesus himself while walking on the road to Damascus.
Schweitzer holds that belief in the resurrection of Jesus came about primarily because Jesus had mentioned it in his teaching. “This ecstatic experience depends upon the fact that Jesus, when he informed his disciples that he would have to die in Jerusalem, promised them at the same time that he would soon rise again. There has been a disposition to assume that the earliest tradition made Jesus promise his resurrection because belief in the resurrection had arisen in the primitive church. In point of fact the position is that this belief arose in consequence of Jesus’ promise of his resurrection.” (Schweitzer, p. 132)
Jesus’ Own View of the Resurrection
The death of Jesus and his subsequent elevation to a supernatural being put Jesus into the form of the Messiah. But it is not necessarily the Messiah people expected. That Messiah would come on the clouds of Heaven to establish the supernatural Kingdom of God. Nature and human history would then be transformed into a timeless and perfect state of existence. That obviously did not happen. Jesus may have risen again, but he was not revealed as the judge and ruler of God’s kingdom on earth. What are Jesus’ own views about this?
“How does Jesus picture his resurrection and manifestation in Messianic glory? Did he expect to be transformed into the Son of Man immediately at the resurrection and as such to appear on the clouds of heaven, or did he assume that this would happen later, as a separate event?” Schweitzer believes that when Jesus sent the disciples out on their mission, he expected that “during the pre-Messianic tribulation he would immediately be transformed into the Son of Man, whether as one who had survived it or as one who had suffered death in it.” (Schweitzer, p. 132) What about later? When Jesus offers testimony before the High Priest referring to “the Son of Man ... coming on the clouds of heaven”, does Jesus think this will happen immediately after he is resurrected? Schweitzer thinks not. That is because Jesus had told the disciples on the Mount of Olives following the Last Supper that “after I am raised again, I will go on before you into Galilee.” (Matthew 26: 32)
What is one to make of this statement? One interpretation would be that, as Jesus walked from Galilee to Jerusalem at the head of his company, so he would walk with them back to Galilee after being resurrected in Jerusalem. Schweitzer thinks that unlikely since persons resurrected from death to become supernatural beings do not walk in the company of men; they travel “on the clouds of heaven.” A more likely interpretation is that Jesus would simply appear in Galilee because that is where he preached the coming of God’s kingdom and attracted a following. It would be an appropriate place for Jesus to be revealed “in his Messianic glory”. Jerusalem would not be such a place because it was the city that killed prophets.
“Because of the words spoken (by Jesus) on the way to Gethsemane, the disciples, and with them a hundred and twenty believers from Galilee, stay on after the death of Jesus in Jerusalem. (Acts 1-2) Here they experience appearances of the risen Lord. But still he does not lead them to Galilee. This promise is not fulfilled. It is testimony to the reliability of the accounts in Matthew and Mark that the saying about going before them into Galilee was nevertheless preserved.” (Schweitzer, p. 133)
In a later tradition, the 28th chapter of Matthew includes passages about an angel instructing the two Marys to tell the disciples that they are to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. “In reality,” writes Schweitzer, “Jesus is thinking of taking the lead in a common journey to Galilee,” when he spoke those words to the disciples in Gethsemane. “This is how the disciples actually understood it. They remain in Jerusalem with the expectation of going to Galilee with the risen master who has already appeared to Peter.” (Schweitzer, p. 134)
According to Acts, Jesus continued to appear to people for forty days after his resurrection. When the appearances stopped, the Christian community believed that Jesus “was now in heaven and would descend from there to earth in his Messianic glory.” (Schweitzer, p. 134) Before being martyred, Stephen had a vision of the heavens opening and revealing the Son of Man at the right hand of God. Saul (Paul), too, saw Jesus in heaven. A later tradition holds that after Jesus’ earthly mission, he bade farewell to his disciples and promptly ascended to heaven.
“Strictly speaking, we should speak of Jesus’ coming as the Messiah, not of his return. For the earliest Christian believers his appearance in glory as the Messiah, expected in the immediate future, was so much in the foreground of their faith that they use for it the term Parousia, arrival. His previous human existence is not included in it. We find it more natural to speak of his return, and there is no reason why we should give up doing so. We must only bear in mind that for believers of the earliest period it was not the Jesus who had come forward in Galilee, but only the risen Lord, who was the Messiah.” (Schweitzer, p. 134-135)
Origin of the Atoning Death
“There arose in primitive Christianity another belief beside that in the Messiahship of Jesus. This was the belief that through his death the forgiveness of sins was available for believers.” (Schweitzer, p. 135) During his life, Jesus had taught that one would be forgiven by God and so enter God’s kingdom if one forgave others. That alone is sufficient for salvation. Yet, the early Christian community came to believe that Jesus’ death had brought the forgiveness of sins. A scriptural basis for this view would be passages in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah which spoke of the death of the Suffering Servant as an atoning death: “He was cut off from the world of living men, stricken to the death for my people’s transgression ...” (Isaiah 53: 8) Schweitzer concedes that this passage may have convinced Jesus that his death would serve others; but that was not its primary meaning.
The chief purpose of Jesus’ death was to cancel the pre-Messianic tribulation. Yet, the early Christians accepted without question the idea that Jesus’ death brought about the forgiveness of sins needed for them to enter the Kingdom. Why was this? Schweitzer believes it was because of the baptism of John. John the Baptist had introduced a ritual effective for the forgiveness of sins. In his cult, one needed to be baptized in order to be forgiven. While Jesus’ teaching was different, the principle of washing away sins to gain forgiveness was easily understood. John’s cult enjoyed much prestige among Christians. Therefore, “the idea of a forgiveness of sins to be obtained in a special way with a view to entering the Kingdom of God originates ... with the Baptist. Combined with Isaiah 53 it forms the presupposition for the rise of the view of the death of Jesus which sees it as an atonement.” (Schweitzer, p. 136)
“From the beginning, there were two doctrines of forgiveness existing side by side in Christianity. That contained in the Lord’s Prayer is simple. That which is based on the conception of the atoning death of Jesus involves questions and difficulties that no explanation can settle. How could God conceivably need the sacrificial death of Jesus in order to forgive sins? If knowledge of the atoning death of Jesus and faith in it are really necessary for the forgiveness of sins, how are we to understand that in the Old Testament god forgives sins ... purely out of compassion, and Jesus presupposes such forgiveness? ... The reason for all the difficulties ... lies in this. Something timeless, God’s forgiveness, and something which took place in time, the death of Jesus, are being combined in such a way that the timeless factor is to be made dependent on that which belongs to time.” (Schweitzer, p. 136-137)
Jesus’ straightforward doctrine of salvation put forth in the Lord’s Prayer “has been overshadowed by the doctrine of his atoning death,” Schweitzer observes. “The strict demand that we must prepare ourselves for the obtaining of forgiveness (by God) by a complete forgiving of others at once ceases to dominate the whole view of forgiveness.” (Schweitzer, p. 137) Instead of our having to forgive others, the idea emerged that Jesus’ atoning death upon the cross brings forgiveness of sins (and therefore salvation) for all who accept Him. The other doctrine, propagated by Jesus himself, “has had to accommodate itself for centuries to taking a back place behind dogmatic statements about forgiveness.” (Schweitzer, p. 137)
Outpouring of Spirit as a Sign that the Kingdom is Near
In addition to belief in Jesus as Messiah and in his Atoning Death, Schweitzer finds a third element in early Christian doctrine: “the belief that the bestowal of the Spirit has actually taken place.” (Schweitzer, p. 137) The Book of Acts reports a miraculous event on the day of Pentecost when the disciples and other followers of Jesus “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them power of utterance.” (Acts 2: 4) This experience was interpreted as a sign that the Kingdom of God was near.
Glossolaly - “speaking in tongues” - was thought to be a spiritual gift. Seized by Spirit, one was able to utter strange words coming from God. The author of Acts may have misinterpreted the Pentecostal experience by stating that the linguistically diverse group of persons who had gathered for a feast in memory of Jesus were each speaking in their national tongue. This “miracle” of speaking in particular languages belongs to a later tradition. Originally, glossolaly “consists in speaking in a state of intense ecstatic excitement in sounds which do not belong to ordinary modes of speech. This was understood by the early Christians as speech in a supernatural, Spirit-given language.” (Schweitzer, p. 138)
The apostle Paul, who had the gift himself, preferred to use ordinary language to instruct Christian communities. Gradually the practice of speaking in tongues disappeared, though it has lately been revived among charismatic groups. Its significance for early Christians was not as a display of religious fervor but a sign that the physical world was dissolving into spirit and, therefore, the Kingdom of God was near.
Christian Baptism
John the Baptist introduced baptism as a means of washing away sins and making a person fit to enter the Kingdom of God. In the Gospel of Mark, John is quoted: “I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 1: 8) John was the destined Elijah who would precede the Messiah, the resurrected Jesus. Jesus, who accepted John’s baptism, did not himself baptize. Despite a passage later inserted into the Gospel of Matthew about baptizing men “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, the rite of baptism was not a part of Jesus’ routine. How did it enter Christian practice?
“In that it (baptism) was administered in the name of Jesus, it means acceptance into the fellowship of those who believe in the Messiahship of Jesus and await the speedy appearance of the Kingdom of God, certain that they will participate in it. Through baptism the believer obtains the forgiveness of sins which will enable him to enter the Kingdom and which has been made available by the atoning death of Jesus. Through it he obtains the capacity to receive the Spirit ... Belonging to him (Jesus) effects and guarantees salvation.” (Schweitzer, p. 139-140)
Once John the Baptist died, there was no further baptism in his cult. Even Jesus acknowledged that it was a past practice. There was no need for baptism in the period following Jesus’ death and resurrection: “In the view of Jesus the believers who have gathered round him in expectation of the Kingdom of God have no need of baptism to survive the Judgment and enter the Kingdom. Without knowing it, they are in this world companions of the future Messiah who will conduct the Judgment and bring in the Kingdom. This guarantees for them that they will be with him in the world to come.” (Schweitzer, p. 139-140)
The problem was that historical time continued as arrival of God’s Kingdom was delayed. Many people joined the Christian community who had not known Jesus personally. What was the status of these people? They could not be assured of salvation as Jesus’ earthly companions could be. Something had to be done for them. As Schweitzer explains, Jesus “does not reckon with new believers, but only with those around him. He expects the immediate appearance of the Kingdom and not the rise of an ever-growing community believing in him as the Messiah. That, however, is what occurred. A practice by which new adherents could be received into the existing fellowship became essential. The baptism once practiced by John for the forgiveness of sins presented itself as the solution. It was taken over and Christianized.” (Schweitzer, p. 140)
The first Christian baptism occurred at the feast of Pentecost. Here believers who had not known Jesus were baptized by the disciples and others among the “one hundred and twenty” persons who were Jesus’ former companions. The latter had not been baptized because for them the ritual was unnecessary. However, the apostle Paul, a convert to Jesus’ teaching, did need and receive baptism.
John’s ritual was accepted by the early Christian community because its memory was fresh in their minds. Jesus himself had suggested that came from God. (Mark 11: 27-33) Christian baptism required no special authority. Salvation was gained by accepting a relationship with Jesus, the future Messiah. “The baptized now receive from him (Jesus) what had earlier been obtained through the authority of John. Because forgiveness of sins through Jesus replaces that obtained through John, Christian baptism is the continuation of his and corresponds to it.” (Schweitzer, p. 141)
Christian baptism, which confers the Holy Spirit, fulfills John’s statement about “the one who comes after me (who) is mightier than I.” Like the baptism of John, it effects salvation. The two kinds of baptism coexisted for a time as in the case of twelve Christians at Ephesus who were first baptized by John and later by Paul, who imparted Spirit. Yet, it is untrue that to receive spirit one had first to be baptized in water. The book of Acts includes numerous examples of persons (including the apostles) who received spirit without having been baptized in water. Paul consistently argued that Christian baptism brought both forgiveness of sins and a capacity to receive the gift of Spirit. Both indicated future membership in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet, baptism had a significant limitation: “The Christianized form (of baptism) had this in common with the baptism of John ... it bestowed forgiveness only for sins already committed. Neither by John nor in primitive Christian doctrine is there any suggestion of forgiveness for those (sins) which the believer commits subsequently. That the forgiveness of sins is limited in this way is to be explained by the intensity of eschatological expectation. It is assumed by primitive Christianity, as it was by John the Baptist, that by making the proper effort the believer can remain in the condition of sanctity which baptism has conferred upon him during the days remaining until the appearance of the Kingdom. But as time went on the days and weeks passed into months and years. Faith had to come to terms with the fact that the baptized would probably not experience the coming of the Kingdom, but would have to pass their whole existence after baptism still in the corporal state, with its inclination to sin. This meant that the forgiveness of sins received at baptism was not enough.” (Schweitzer, p. 142)
Another problem was that the righteous of previous generations would be denied salvation unless they received Christian baptism and believed in the atoning death of Jesus; and both were impossible. The author of the First Epistle of Peter deals with this question in supposing that Jesus preached the Gospel to the spirits of the dead in the period between his own death and resurrection. In the second century A.D., a work written in Rome, known as “the Shepherd of Hermas”, advanced the theory that those who had died before Jesus’ time would have to receive baptism at the resurrection in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
Christian Communion
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not show that Jesus ever commanded his disciples to repeat the Last Supper. Yet, it soon became a mainstay of Christian practice. There was a saying of Jesus, which Paul quotes in First Corinthians (11:23-25), to the effect that his followers should repeat that meal in memory of him. Originally, the meal was called “the breaking of the bread”. It was “a community meal at which there was thanksgiving and exultation." (Acts 2: 47) Although it is a repetition of the last meal of Jesus with the disciples, it is not a funeral meal, but a festive one ... Not only bread, but any kind of food can be used ... It is a genuine common meal, to which each believer brings his own contribution.” (Schweitzer, p. 145) Paul called it a “love feast” and a “thanksgiving meal.”
Christians came to associate the Eucharist with a ritual which regards the bread as the body of Christ and the wine as Christ’s blood. The Last Supper became a mystical experience for the community of worshipers. While in the Gospel of Luke Jesus says “this is my body” in reference to the bread consumed at the Last Supper, such symbolism played little part in the early communal meal. Paul referred to it as a sobering influence: The Corinthians were instructed not to allow that joyous meal to degenerate into an orgy but be mindful that it commemorates Jesus’ death. “He (Paul) does not think of expounding them in the sense that the forgiveness of sins earned by the atoning death of Jesus is obtained in the eating and drinking of the elements.” (Schweitzer, p. 145)
No, to the early Christians, the communal meal eaten in commemoration of Jesus’ last supper with the disciples was simply a meal of thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for what? “Not only for food and drink,” but for the “grace” implied by participating in a future meal to take place shortly in Heaven. “The grace involved is of a special and higher kind. In it thanks are given to God for the Messianic banquet to which the believers are looking forward at this gathering to a communal meal with one another, and for the Kingdom which will shortly appear.” (Schweitzer, p. 146)
Indeed, the theme underlying this meal which Jesus’ followers had together in his memory was much the same as that for Jesus’ meal with the disciples shortly before his death. In both cases, those seated at the table were celebrating a feast prophetically linked to the Kingdom of God. Jesus is clear about this. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus asks the disciples to drink wine from a cup. He says: “I tell you, never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26: 29) From a prophetic standpoint, this meal hearkens back to the passage in the 25th chapter of Isaiah where “the Lord of Hosts will prepare a banquet of rich fares for all peoples, a banquet of wines well matured” on his holy mountain. (Isaiah 25: 6) It means simply that whoever participates in this meal with Jesus will soon be in the Kingdom of God.
During his own life time, Jesus had made several references to this miraculous meal. He had taught the disciples to pray: “Give us today our daily bread” (Matthew 6: 11) Again its true meaning is not to ask to be well-stocked with food in this lifetime but to partake of the promised feast in heaven. Also, Jesus had participated in a miraculous feast with his followers in Galilee when he multiplied the loaves of bread and fish. (Matthew 14: 15-21, 15: 32-39) “In this way, without knowing it, they (Jesus’ followers) became table-companions of the future Messiah, and thereby secured an invitation to be his companions also at the Messianic banquet.” (Schweitzer, p. 146)
When Jesus Might Return
The thanksgiving meal was not a meal of simple thanks for food and drink but for the promise of a similar meal to come in Heaven. Schweitzer finds confirmation of this in the Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, which was written at the end of the 1st century A.D. Its prayer asks God to gather together his church “from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom,” meaning that those who now belong to the church should also be gathered together in Heaven. The prayer ends with the words “Marana tha. Amen.” “Marana tha” is an Aramaic expression which means “Our Lord, come!” A Greek translation says: “Amen: come, Lord Jesus!” The early Christian community was looking forward to Jesus’ appearance as the Messiah who would usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The fact that at the Last Supper Jesus had spoken of drinking wine anew with the disciples suggested to them that they should repeat the supper in hopes that Jesus might attend. “Their interpretation of it was that during a thanksgiving meal he would come to them to celebrate it with them as a Messianic banquet in the Kingdom which would appear at the moment of his return. Day after day, probably from the first Easter on, they and the hundred and twenty believers from Galilee kept on celebrating the thanksgiving meal in order that the hope aroused by that saying might come to fulfillment. They held the daily thanksgiving meal in the same room in which they were with Jesus at the Last Supper.” (Schweitzer, p. 148)
Some believe that Christians first held their communal meals in the house of the mother of John Mark, who accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey. This might also be the room where Jesus and the disciples held their last supper. Unlike that event with Jesus, however, the post-Resurrection communal meal took place in the morning. “This was necessary because the return of Jesus was expected to take place at it (the meal). In view of the belief that his resurrection had occurred in the morning, it was assumed that his return would take place at this time of day.” The fact that Jesus’ followers expected their Lord to return at one of these meals also accounts for the ecstatic excitement. “It is highly probable that the speaking with tongues on the morning of Pentecost began during the prayers at the thanksgiving meal.” (Schweitzer, p. 150)
As the Christian community became dispersed to many places, the idea that Jesus would appear to his followers at a communal meal became harder to accept. There was no longer a meal in one place (such as the house of John Mark’s mother), but in places throughout the Mediterranean area. Therefore, the earlier view “was replaced by the more general idea, looking to a celebration held in several places at the same time, that the return of Jesus would take place simultaneously with the celebration. This, however, presupposes that the many celebrations are all being held on the same day at the same hour ... In the course of time the celebration came to be held everywhere early in the morning of the day after the sabbath. As the day of resurrection it was especially appropriate for the occurrence of the Lord’s return.” (Schweitzer, p. 151) The Didache called the day after the Sabbath “the Lord’s Day”, which would be the day when the Eucharist would be celebrated each week.
The Easter holiday was also related to expectations of Jesus’ return. “Believers all over Christendom unite on that day (Easter) in looking with a special hopefulness for the return of Jesus and the appearance of the Kingdom. This (however) presupposes that Easter is everywhere celebrated on the same day. There were difficulties about this in the Early Church. Because Easter is a movable feast, the day on which it is to be observed can be established in different ways. The churches of Asia Minor have a different reckoning from that in use at Rome.” (Schweitzer, p. 152) The bishop of Rome demanded that other churches conform to the Roman dating of Easter. When the churches of Asia Minor refused, relations between them and the Roman church were suspended and remained broken for a century. Finally, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it was decided that Easter should fall on the first Sunday after the spring equinox.
“The importance of Easter, like that of baptism, has its roots in the hope of the immediate appearance of the Kingdom and the coming of Jesus in Messianic glory. Through baptism and the forgiveness of sins obtained at it, the believer acquires his claim to entry into the Kingdom. Participation in the eucharist means for him the ever-renewed experience of assurance that he belongs to the Kingdom and will share in the Messianic banquet.” (Schweitzer, p. 152 ) Only after hopes of the Kingdom and of Jesus’ return to earth had subsided did the Eucharist become a celebration of “consecrated elements”. (Schweitzer, p. 153)
Chapter Twelve: Paul’s View of the Kingdom
The Apostles believed that the Kingdom of God would arrive soon after Jesus’ resurrection. Even so, there was an interval of time when that event was expected but had not yet happened. The Kingdom seemed to be perpetually delayed. Paul could not accept that view. Paul “could not do it because he was not only a believer, but also a thinker.” (Schweitzer, p. 154) Paul sought knowledge of the state of redemption.
The chief facts relevant to this knowledge were the death and resurrection of Jesus. “When the usual belief assumes that we can only wait for the Kingdom on the strength of the death and resurrection of Jesus, it is in error. Knowledge establishes that it must somehow have already come. In the resurrection of Jesus, we are shown that the resurrection era has already appeared. It does not, however, belong to the era of this world, but to that of the Kingdom of God. That too must therefore have come already.” (Schweitzer, p. 154)
It is a remarkable feat of logic to suppose that the Kingdom of God must already have come when the prophets and Jesus himself believed that the Kingdom would be a supernatural realm suddenly replacing the physical world. This notion defies common sense. Visible evidence after Christ’s death and resurrection suggested that the physical world remained intact. Far from coming under God’s complete direction, evil seemed to be increasing in the world as historical events moved towards Jerusalem’s destruction by Roman armies. In that context, Paul was arguing that the Kingdom is “already present”, but “its appearance is yet to come”. (Schweitzer, p. 155) What does that mean?
“Paul finds the solution of the problem given in the view that, from the death and resurrection of Jesus onward, the world is in process of transformation from its temporal state into the supernatural state of the Kingdom of God. At first the Kingdom begins to achieve its realization invisibly. It remains in this state during the short period until the coming of Jesus in his glory. When this occurs it will be visible in its complete reality. The new day is therefore on the point of dawning, only the sun has not yet risen.” (Schweitzer, p. 155) We find ourselves, then, in that period of twilight as the light of the sun slowly brightens to illuminate the landscape.
Paul sees the world moving from processes of corruption to an incorrupt state associated with the Kingdom. It is a movement from the visible to the invisible as Spirit gains increasing presence. He wrote in the letter to the Corinthians that “the whole frame of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7: 31) The transformation had gone furthest “with those who are called to the Kingdom of God. They possess a bodily nature which, like that of Jesus, undergoes in a special way the operation of the transforming powers that are at work in the age of the Kingdom of God. What has happened with the bodily nature of Jesus is on the point of being accomplished in them. From the moment of his death and resurrection, they too have begun to undergo death and resurrection, so that they may count as having died and risen.” (Schweitzer, p. 155-156)
This “mystical idea of dying and rising again with Christ” is the image which Paul puts forth to explain the condition in which the early Christian community found itself. Christian baptism, which brought a person into association with Jesus, meant that the person shares Jesus’ fate. “Because he belongs to Jesus Christ who died and rose again, the powers of death and resurrection are now at work in him (the baptized person).” (Schweitzer, p.156)
Paul states this plainly: “Have you forgotten that when we were baptized into union with Christ Jesus we were baptized into his death? By baptism we were buried with him, and lay dead, in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead in the splendor of the father, so also we might set our feet upon the new path of life. For if we have become incorporate with him in a death like his, we shall also be one with him in a resurrection like his ... In the same way you must regard yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God, in union with Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3: 3-5, 11)
Such words would be incomprehensible to one unfamiliar with Paul’s eschatological thinking. His mystical perspective arises, not from the Greek mystery religions, but “in an enhancement of hope for the Kingdom by which the temporal and supernatural worlds are already interwoven into one another.” (Schweitzer, p. 157) Like Jesus, Paul believes that Jesus’ death will bring about the Kingdom; however, their views were otherwise different. While still alive, Jesus foresaw that his own death would cancel the prescribed period of tribulation which was then the only obstacle left to the Kingdom’s arrival. Paul, on the other hand, cannot deny that Jesus’ death and resurrection has already taken place. Therefore, for Paul, the Kingdom of God has come already.
Satan’s Angelic Host
“As far as its outward course is concerned, Paul sees the Kingdom of God as meaning the overcoming through Jesus Christ of the angelic beings who exercise a dominion alongside of and contrary to God’s. In the late Jewish view these were responsible for the deplorable condition of the natural world. The Messiah was destined to put an end to their rule.” (Schweitzer, p. 157)
Recognizing him as an adversary, the evil one had tried to defeat Jesus by having him crucified. Christ’s subsequent resurrection from the dead showed that this angelic force led by Satan had no power over him. In fact, the crucifixion marked a turning point in God’s relationship with all who love Him. After the resurrection, the angels were no longer able to reproach men before God. In Jesus, humanity had a potent intercessor. “Who will be the accuser of God’s chosen ones?” Paul asks in his letter to the Romans. “It is God who pronounces acquittal; then who can condemn? It is Christ - Christ who died, and, more than that, was raised from the dead - who is at God’s right hand, and indeed pleads our cause. Then what can separate us from the love of Christ.” (Romans 8: 33-35)
Even so, the evil force tried to resist its decline by throwing obstacles in the path of those who would spread the Gospel. Paul believed, for instance, that it was Satan who prevented him from returning to Thessalonica. (1 Thessalonians 2: 18) At other times, an angel of Satan struck Paul with his fist. ( 2 Corinthians 12: 7) Satan himself propagated an adulterated version of the doctrine concerning Christ’s death and resurrection. (2 Corinthians 11: 13-15) The evil force would continue to have some power until death itself was abolished at the end of time. It would only be extinguished at the end of the Messianic kingdom when the resurrection of the dead took place and the Kingdom of God succeeded the Kingdom of the Messiah.
The Two Kingdoms
Paul’s view of the final days includes the two supernatural kingdoms which late Jewish prophets thought would come after the Messiah’s arrived on earth. The first was a kingdom ruled by the Messiah which would last for a certain time. The second was God’s kingdom which would follow the other one and last forever. A general resurrection of the dead would occur between the two reigns.
Paul differs from Jesus in this respect. “For Jesus, the Messianic Kingdom is identical with the Kingdom of God. This is shown in the fact that for him the elect not only of the final generation but of all generations belong to it ... Paul, on the other hand, presupposes the eschatology of the scribes, which we know from the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra. He distinguishes, as they do, between the Messianic Kingdom and the Kingdom of God, which follows it.” (Schweitzer, p. 159-160)
While Paul’s conception is based on scripture, he must adapt his scheme to the known teachings of Jesus. As a result, his eschatological view matches neither that of Jesus nor Baruch and Ezra, but is a hybrid. The two late Jewish apocalyptists had envisioned that only the righteous elect of the last generation would inhabit the Messianic Kingdom. Along with others, they would later be resurrected into a supernatural form to enter the Kingdom of God. Paul changes this scheme “to make the participants in the Messianic Kingdom exist in the resurrection state, either because they actually have risen from the dead or because they have been transformed. This Kingdom then ceases to be different in kind from the Kingdom of God. It differs only in so far as those who belong to the final generation of men possess in it a blessing in advance which other generations will only enjoy later.” (Schweitzer, p. 160)
Paul retains the view of Baruch and Ezra that in the Kingdom of God God alone is the ruler. That means that the Messiah must give back to God the power which he had held as ruler of the Messianic kingdom when the Kingdom of God arrived. In the Gospels, Jesus has nothing to say on this subject since for him the Kingdom of God and the Messianic kingdom are the same. His followers and the righteous dead are both resurrected into this Kingdom. What to make of the older view that the Messianic kingdom includes only those righteous ones who were alive in the last generation? Paul sees a continuation of the process which began with Jesus’ own resurrection. The elect still alive will be resurrected at the coming of the (Messianic) Kingdom as will those righteous persons who have died.
Paul’s views are expressed in a passage from First Thessalonians which describes an event known as “the Rapture”. Paul writes: “We believe that Jesus died and rose again; and so it will be for those who died as Christians; God will bring them to life with Jesus. For this we tell you as the Lord’s word: we who are left alive until the Lord comes shall not forestall those who have died; because at the word of command, at the sound of the archangel’s voice and God’s trumpet-call, the Lord himself will descend from heaven; first the Christian dead will rise, then we who are left alive shall join them, caught up in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4: 14-18)
Spirit Gradually Appearing
Prophetic tradition had always held that God’s Kingdom would come in a cataclysmic event bringing an end to human history. Jesus himself believed this. When the Kingdom of God arrived, his followers would be suddenly transformed into a supernatural state to become like angels. Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead seemed to demonstrate how that could happen. Paul, however, is compelled to face the fact that no such cataclysm has taken place in the world. Instead of happening suddenly, he sees the transformation into a supernatural state as “a process that takes time. He (Paul) is therefore able to see the time that intervenes between the resurrection of Jesus and his return as that of the invisible development of the Kingdom which has been in existence ever since his resurrection.” (Schweitzer, p. 162)
The outpouring of spirit prophesied by Joel was thought to be an event preceding the Kingdom, like Elijah’s appearance or the pre-Messianic tribulation. Paul is forced to recognize that the spiritual manifestations at the feast of Pentecost occurred after the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ resurrection introduced the Kingdom, that meant that the appearance of spirit was occurring within the Kingdom rather than before it arrived. The Kingdom would then have to be something different than what was previously imagined. Most early Christians retained the earlier scheme. For them, the outpouring of spirit suggested that the Kingdom, however near, had not yet come. Paul, on the other hand, concluded that the Kingdom had arrived with Jesus’ resurrection and that Spirit, belonging to this age of the Kingdom, was evidence that it had come.
Because Paul assumed that the Kingdom had already come, he had now to “proceed to see the Spirit as a manifestation of the Kingdom as already present, and try to understand what this means.” (Schweitzer, p. 162) What about speaking in tongues? Paul saw this as a visible sign of spirit and cautioned against being unduly proud of such gifts. Everything constituting the now-present Kingdom of God must be a result of spirit. Spirit is that which drives the transformation of the physical world into the supernatural world of God’s kingdom. “Its activity begins in those (followers of Jesus) who belong to the Kingdom. The resurrection of Jesus is the work of the Spirit dwelling in him. As the Spirit of resurrection it gives believers the capacity to rise before their time.” (Schweitzer, p. 163) Christians as a community, who together belong to Christ, experience Christ’s resurrection. Paul said they are given “first fruits of the Spirit.” (Romans 8: 23)
Whereas Jesus had gathered a band of followers who gained entry to the Kingdom by virtue of being his companions on earth, Paul “assumes that believers belong to the risen Lord in a mystical body in a way that begins at baptism. (See 1 Corinthians 12: 13.) They have no longer any real existence of their own, but have their body in common with Christ and all other believers. Paul says that they are ‘the body of Christ.’ The expression he most commonly uses for this is being ‘in Christ’. Believers have a source of new vitality in the Spirit of God, which comes from Christ and flows over them.” (Schweitzer, p. 163-164) They partake both of Christ’s and God’s spirit. However, Christian believers must take pains to remain in a spiritual state and not lapse into worldliness and again be ones who “live in the flesh”; for then they would lose their claim to enter the Kingdom of God, including the power to rise from the dead.
As ones possessing the Spirit of God, however, Christians have a special kind of knowledge. It is knowledge, like Christ’s, which comes directly from God, and has been generally available only since the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was this knowledge which inspired Paul when he was writing the epistles. This Gospel, he wrote in a letter to the Galatians, “is no human invention. I did not take it over from any man; no man taught it (to) me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1: 11-12) Therefore, Paul was not drawing inspiration from memories of the earthly Jesus, or from any of his sayings, but from the spirit of the living Christ. Not “Jesus in the flesh”, but Jesus as the risen Messiah, was sending Paul this knowledge.
Chapter Thirteen: Paul’s Ethic
Paul’s view of God’s kingdom required a different ethic than what Jesus had preached. Jesus had put forth an ethical scheme appropriate to the Kingdom expected shortly to appear. He meant to prepare his followers for that situation. Paul likewise looks forward to the Kingdom’s replacing the current order of the world, but he must also tell the Christian community how to act in the meanwhile. His was, however, also an ethic of the Kingdom, since Paul believed it had come with Christ’s resurrection. The implications of this belief were anything but clear.
The Spirit of Jesus taught Paul that love is the highest good. Paul often urged Christians to show love to one another and to the world. “Stand firm in the faith ... Let all you do be done in love.” (1 Corinthians 16: 14) “If we are in union with Christ Jesus, circumcision makes no difference at all, nor does the want of it; the only thing that counts is faith, active in love.” (Galatians 5: 6)
The Ethic of Love
Perhaps Paul’s best-known statement on the subject of love is found in First Corinthians: “I may speak in tongues of men or of angels, but if I am without love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal. I may have the gift of prophecy and know every hidden truth; I may have faith strong enough to move mountains; but if I have no love, I am nothing. I may dole out all I possess, or even given my body to be burnt, but if I have no love, I am none the better. Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude, not quick to take offense ... When I was a child, my speech, my outlook, and my thoughts were all childish. When I grew up, I had finished with childish things. Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we shall see face to face. My knowledge now is partial; then it will be whole, like God’s knowledge of me. In a word, there are three things that last forever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.” (1 Corinthians 13: 1-5, 12-13)
Jesus also had put forth an ethic of love. This ethic superseded the Law as a requirement for the higher righteousness necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. In Paul’s case, it was not a question of qualification to enter the Kingdom of God. God granted such entrance to all believers through the grace imparted by Christ’s death. Man being inherently sinful, it is impossible to achieve love by willful acts seeking righteousness. Love comes about only through the spirit of God. It is present only in that “higher state of human existence (given by God) through the granting to them of the Spirit. Their love flows from God’s love poured out upon them and the whole world, ‘shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost.’ (Romans 5:5) Only through this have they become capable of love.” (Schweitzer, p. 167)
Paul does not base his ethic of love upon Jesus’ teaching. “He has to present it entirely in his own words as something only revealed later by the Spirit which comes from Christ, and made possible only by the Spirit.” (Schweitzer, p. 168) Therefore, the Christian doctrines concerning love come from two different sources: Jesus and Paul. For Paul, this ethic pertains to the period “between the resurrection of Jesus and its appearance at his return. In the state of its concealed existence, it is at the same time both supernatural and ethical. The world of incorruption has not yet completely broken through that of corruption.” In such a way, Paul moves away from late-Jewish eschatological expectations to the view of earlier prophets according to which “the essence of the Kingdom lies in the fact that God has granted men an ethical spirit which enables them to act according to his will.” (Schweitzer, p. 168)
Paul’s ethic pertains only to the Kingdom in a period of incomplete development. Once Jesus appears in glory, a purely supernatural Kingdom will emerge without any need for ethical guidance. Those who inhabit that Kingdom will be “perfect beings” eternally redeemed from the imperfect world. In reality, “the months and years which Paul envisaged for the concealed existence of the Kingdom ... have, however, become centuries. His saying about the present Kingdom which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit has been true for centuries and will be true for all time. Without knowing it, he (Paul) has presented Christianity, as it was beginning to enter on its appointed pilgrimage through the ages, as its password for the journey.” (Schweitzer, p. 169)
Concessions to the World
For a religion which foresaw the end of the world, Christianity did not “go off the deep end” in urging complete neglect of worldly concerns. Paul, even more than Jesus, acknowledged the practical realities which Christians faced in their lives. While they needed to “free themselves” of worldly attachments, that did not mean ignoring all requirements of the physical world. Paul showed, for instance, a certain ambivalence about marriage: If married, a person should stay married; if not, refrain from marriage. While the world may end soon, one would not want meanwhile to lapse into sinful desire. Make no changes potentially damaging to salvation. “The essential thing for him (Paul) is spiritual, not outward, detachment from the things of the world.” (Schweitzer, p. 169)
Paul’s teaching about work is pragmatic: “The man who will not work shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3: 10) Expecting the world to end soon, the early Christian community had an economy based on property donations. There was no use in piling up goods which would disappear as soon as God’s Kingdom arrived. On the other hand, to abandon work as a requirement for using property presented an unwholesome opportunity to free-loaders. Paul “accords an importance to work because he regards idleness as a spiritual danger. It (work) is valuable in his eyes in so far as it confers the material independence which is essential for the moral personality. He demands it as a man who takes pride in living by his work as a weaver of canvas, instead of allowing himself to be supported by his congregations.” (Schweitzer, p.169. See also 1 Thessalonians 2: 9.)
Paul believed in orderly processes. Even when gifts of the spirit are displayed, “all things (should) be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14: 40) He urged Christians at Thessalonica to “live at peace among yourselves ... admonish the careless, encourage the faint-hearted ..” (1 Thessalonians 5: 14) For this reason, too, Paul recommended cooperation with worldly authorities to whom God had entrusted the responsibility for maintaining order in society. “Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution.” (Romans 13: 1-2) Late Jewish tradition, responding to foreign domination, had adopted the same attitude. So long as the Jews were allowed religious freedom, they accepted political subservience. Paul extended this policy to the Christian community.
Christ’s Atoning Death
Jesus foresaw that his own death would bring about the Kingdom of God because it would cancel the prerequisite of the pre-Messianic tribulation. Living after Jesus’ death, Paul regarded this death as an atonement for sin. The crucified Jesus was a sacrificial offering whose blood redeemed many. “For all alike have sinned ... and all are justified by God’s free grace alone, through his act of liberation in the person of Christ Jesus. For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death, effective through faith.” (Romans 3: 23-25) Christ’s self-sacrifice brought forgiveness of sins.
Because Paul believed that Christ’s resurrection brought about the Kingdom of God, his views were different from those of many other Christians. Paul did not see that Christians would have their sins forgiven when the Kingdom came in the future. He thought their sins were already forgiven. Christians were already living in the Kingdom because, as members of Christ’s corporate body, they had died and risen with him. Existing in a resurrected state, they were unable to sin. They were, in Paul’s words, “dead to sin” (Romans 6: 11) even as Christ was. Sharing in his resurrection, their feet were on a “new path of life.” (Romans 6: 4)
The result of having died and risen with Christ was that baptized Christians were freed from demands of their bodies. They were free of sin and emancipated from death. Having received spirit, they lived in a spiritualized world which was the Kingdom of God. This view raises the question, however, of what happens to Christians who relapse into physical desire. They then lose spirit and become able to sin again. They are again subject to death. “It follows, my friends, that our lower nature has no claim upon us; we are not obliged to live on that level. If you do so, you must die. But if by the Spirit you put to death all the base pursuits of the body, then you will live.” (Romans 8:12-13) Like the writer of the Apocalypse of Baruch, Paul believed that sin and death came into the world through Adam. Believers might recover their primal heritage by renouncing sin and bodily desires to become resurrected like Jesus.
Opposition to Law
Paul was strongly opposed to moral claims based on the Law of Moses. It was not just that he believed that Christ’s way was superior to the Law but that the latter was an actual impediment to faith. It was holding people back from the promise of God. Paul, like many scribes of the day, believed that “the Law is valid only till the age of the Kingdom of God.” He therefore had “to oppose the view that Gentile Christians were under any obligation to take it (the Law) upon themselves. Unfortunately he could not do this by simply representing it as something that had become unimportant and unnecessary ... He had to make the tremendous claim that to take over the Law would cost them their salvation.” (Schweitzer, p. 173)
Those in the early Christian community who were looking forward to a future arrival of the Kingdom would, of course, believe that the Law was still valid. The Judaizing Christians were opposed to Paul’s position. Paul, however, argued that the Law was not given to Moses by God but by God’s angels. “Then what of the Law? ... It was promulgated through angels,” Paul said. (Galatians 3: 19) Late Jewish thinkers had come to think of God in such exalted terms that they could not conceive of his having direct contact with men. Only angels would communicate with them.
From that insight, Paul “goes on to claim that the obedience demanded to the Law does not concern God but only the angels ... he draws the conclusion that the existence of the Law points to the presence of angelic dominion. Accordingly to subject those who had previously been Gentiles to the Law after they had become Christians means, in Paul’s view, nothing less than handing them over to the dominion of the angelic powers just at the moment when these are about to become impotent, handing them over to the rule of the enemies with whom Christ is locked in struggle, because they are holding up the coming of the Kingdom and trying to stop men from taking the road to it. In taking over the Law, Gentile believers are therefore, without knowing it, giving up their existence in Christ and so losing their calling to belong to the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 174)
Even before Paul, some late Jewish scholars had argued that the Law would not help men achieve righteousness as for man had inherited an incurable tendency to sin from Adam. The Law “cannot help him (man) become good, but can only hold the vision of the good before him and so bring him to an awareness of his sinfulness.” (Schweitzer, p. 174) The Law was not in itself bad; “only it can be of no help to man in his sinfulness. It was not because they desired their well-being but because they desired their misery that the angels gave the Law to God’s people. They keep them at the attractive-looking but hopeless task of trying to fulfil the Law in order to keep them under their sway. They (the angels) leave the people believing that by striving to keep the Law they are proving themselves to be God’s people, when in reality it is ensuring that the people belong to them.” (Schweitzer, p. 174-175)
Now that Christ’s resurrection has won salvation for members of the Christian community, the “angelic powers” try frantically to maintain control by propagating a “gospel of ignorance.” They promote the false idea that Christians must first “acquire membership in the Jewish people by fulfilling all the requirements, and ... strive for the righteousness according to the Law.” (Schweitzer, p. 175) In reality, Christian believers are justified by faith, not by obedience to Law. “For our argument is that a man is justified by faith apart from success in keeping the law,” Paul said. (Romans 3: 28)
The centerpiece of Christian salvation, however, is not faith but the forgiveness of sins that comes from the mystical participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Belonging to his corporate body, “we die to the Law, as we do to the flesh, to sin and to death.” The atoning death of Jesus justifies salvation through faith but does not in itself entail freedom from the Law. This latter principle is based on “the mystical doctrine of existence in Christ”, which Paul obtains through his “special knowledge” (as one guided by Spirit). (Schweitzer, p. 176)
Paul takes it for granted that Christians will make “a continuous effort to do what is good”, but good works alone will not gain salvation. This is won by “existence in Christ won through faith and baptism.” (Schweitzer, p. 176) On the other hand, a person guided by Spirit will necessarily show good works. Good works are a sign of salvation, if not its cause. This means that a person lacking the fruit of good works will not be someone possessing the Spirit. It is inconceivable that someone should be truly redeemed and not bear fruit.
Paul advanced the controversial doctrine that “while Gentile believers should not adopt the Law, Jewish believers ought to go on observing it.” This was not to be considered disparate treatment but obedience to the general principle that “the believer should remain in the outward condition in which he was first converted.” Therefore, Jewish converts to Jesus should remain obedient to the Law, and Gentile converts should stay outside its jurisdiction. The same principle applies to slave and free person, married and single worshiper; they should stay in their original condition. That is because “from the moment anyone is in Christ, his true nature is entirely determined by this. His natural form of existence and everything that goes with it have become meaningless.” (Schweitzer, p. 177)
Do Baptized Christians Stay Saved?
Along with other early Christians, Paul believed that the forgiveness of sins imparted by Christ’s atoning death and communal participation in his resurrection “only applies to sins committed before baptism.” (Schweitzer, p. 178) Christian baptism is not carte blanche to commit sins and be forgiven for the rest of one’s life but a forgiveness of past transgressions. The possibility that one might continue to commit sins did not trouble the early Christian community because it was assumed that God’s Kingdom would come soon. “At the time when Christian baptism arose, it could be assumed that they (individual Christians) would remain in this condition (of sanctity) simply because, in view of the proximity of the Kingdom, there would be no time for further acts of sin. Paul, writing two decades later, makes it possible to understand that, with the right will, they still had the capability of remaining in it.” (Schweitzer, p. 179)
Paul believed that baptism brings a person into the community of those who share Christ’s death and resurrection and are thereby granted entrance into the Kingdom of God. “There is no thought of an effort to obtain the assurance of forgiveness and a struggle to receive it intellectually, such as Luther presupposes. Paul shares the primitive Christian view that believers are saints in virtue of their baptism.” (Schweitzer, p. 178) As John the Baptist offered salvation through a simple ritual, so the followers of Jesus believed that Christian baptism in itself brought forgiveness of sins and thereby put one in a state of grace with respect to the Kingdom.
Still, Paul needs to deal with the fact that many baptized Christians did relapse into sin because the Kingdom in its final state failed to come as soon as expected. “Paul never comes to grips with it in its full range and all its difficulty. He seeks to check this relapse into sin by urging believers to realize its consequences.” (Schweitzer, p. 179). Paul names certain kinds of behavior - fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, etc. - which would cause a person to forfeit the Kingdom of God. Even so, he never closes the door to the possibility that persons committing such sins may nevertheless find salvation. Only one sin is beyond forgiveness: “that of falsifying the gospel by the doctrine that Gentile believers should be made to take the Law upon themselves.” (Schweitzer, p. 180) This sin is worse than the others because instead of just harming the sinner himself it causes another person to go astray. It leads innocent people away from Christ.
Paul’s Legacy
“The Idea of the Kingdom as already present and developing appeared alongside that of the Kingdom of pure expectation in the very earliest age of Christianity and strove to replace it. Paul comes to the conclusion that it must somehow have come already, when he comes to deal with the fact of its nonappearance. In the effort to grasp the fact that it must have come in Jesus’ death and resurrection and nevertheless has not yet openly appeared, he finds the explanation in the assumption that it is at first invisible. In a transformation of the temporal into the supernatural world which is already in progress, it is developing into the Kingdom which will shortly make its visible appearance. The primitive Christian believers were quite unable to understand this view, well-founded in its own way, although it arose and is quite intelligible in the burning expectation of the Kingdom which they shared with Paul.” (Schweitzer, p. 181)
Both Paul and others in the early Christian community expected the Kingdom of God to arrive on earth in a palpable way. It obviously had not happened. The same old rotten things continued to happen in this world. Schweitzer argues that Paul was determined to find a way that the Kingdom of God could have arrived already, with Jesus’ death and resurrection, so that Christianity would have a future. Subsequent generations of Christians may not have understood their predecessors’ urgent expectations of the Kingdom, but they did have the epistles of Paul. “From them, without being acknowledged or understood, and as a doctrine of the already present Kingdom of God, it (Paul’s writing) has exercised in succeeding centuries a unique influence on the formation of the Christian faith through the ideas and presuppositions that are bound up with it.” (Schweitzer, p. 181)
Paul gave Christianity the “doctrine of the Spirit”. Without this, Christians would have had to interpret the outpouring of spirit at the feast of Pentecost as a sign that the Kingdom was near. “With nothing to point to but these, the problems which arose as the expectation of the Kingdom moved from the near to the remote future could never have been solved. As it was, Paul’s conception of the Spirit as the new vital energy coming from faith in Christ gave it the possibility of claiming and understanding that redemption was already present.” (Schweitzer, p. 181-182) Christians could accept the Gospel as true.
One gift which the Christian community received from Paul was his “doctrine of the forgiveness of sins”. Paul taught that forgiveness came through faith in Christ’s atoning death. An alternative view places the means of salvation in church sacraments. From Paul’s writings, Protestant Christians obtained the concept of “continuous forgiveness of sins”; and, from that, “the doctrine of justification by faith”. (Schweitzer, p. 182) The idea of continuous forgiveness of sin through faith in Jesus solved Christianity’s most difficult problem, which was the Kingdom’s failure to come in such a time and a manner as was expected.
In giving Christians a spiritual basis for the Kingdom, Paul has created “a deep and inward piety ... handed down from generation to generation. Those who know it find edification in those strange-looking words about being in Christ, dying and rising with him, walking in a new state of existence. They (subsequent generations of Christians) do not know what they originally meant. Nor can they give them any very clear meaning. They seem to them like incomprehensible parables of spiritual experience. They are felt as something special ... Through them men find strength, light, peace job, quietness and comfort. They walk with them on the peaks of faith. They receive all this from them (Paul’s writings) because they are words in which he who was first to reach the knowledge that it must have already come is speaking of the blessedness of life in the Kingdom.” (Schweitzer, p. 182-183)
If Jesus is the Messiah who brings the Kingdom of God, this Kingdom must already have come: that was Paul’s belief. “Dominated by this conviction, he (Paul) experienced in the spirit its present reality in the imagery of his time. The expectation of the Kingdom which would come of itself was not to find actual fulfillment. For centuries Christianity looked for it in vain.” Paul’s doctrines helped the Christian community to come to terms with this fact, and “renounce its old ideas and learn anew.” (Schweitzer, p. 183)
“The task was laid upon it (the Christian community) of giving up its belief in the Kingdom which would come of itself and giving its devotion to the Kingdom which must be made real ... We learn from this knowledge which comes to us through him (Paul) that the way in which the coming of the Kingdom will be brought about is by the coming of Jesus Christ to rule in our hearts and through us in the whole world. In the thought of Paul the supernatural Kingdom is beginning to become the ethical and with this to change from the Kingdom to be expected into something which has to be realized. It is for us to take the road which this prospect opens up.” (Schweitzer, p. 183)
Chapter Fourteen: The Christian Church Comes
When Jesus was crucified, all seemed to be lost. This Galilean who had aroused such hope had gone the way of a common criminal. Even his disciples had betrayed him or denied that they knew him. Then, on the morning after the Sabbath, two women named Mary discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty. They saw an angel wearing a white robe who said that Jesus had risen from the dead. The news electrified his followers; for the fact of resurrection put Jesus into a supernatural state like that of the expected Messiah.
The belief that Jesus was this Messiah caused those who had known him in his earthly career to preach the Gospel of the risen Christ. That activity generated one of the most remarkable movements in the history of the world. The “Kingdom of God” may not have come as expected, but a spiritual kingdom focused on Jesus, the church, did come. It had a remarkable history.
Its Early Heritage
As the story of Jesus combines elements of political history, prophetic scripture, and personal action, so the history of the church involves some of the same elements. When Christianity began, it had only a small group of Jesus’ followers, memories of his earthly activities and teachings, and belief in his resurrection. His followers now looked forward to Jesus’ return as a Messiah who would arrive on the clouds of heaven. It was this belief which held the group together after Jesus’ death and attracted converts to Christianity as a religion.
The New Testament provides a scriptural record of Christianity in its early days. It combines stories of Jesus and of the early Christian community with the sayings and teachings of Jesus and writings of the Apostles. The most important part of the New Testament would be the four Gospels. Until they were written, knowledge of Jesus’ life was held in the memories of persons who knew him. Stories about him circulated by word of mouth. Matthew and Mark, the two oldest Gospels, were written around 70 A.D. in a period when the Romans were destroying Jerusalem. The Gospel of Luke was written between 70 A.D. and 100 A.D; and that of John, in the early part of the 2nd century A.D.
The New Testament book titled Acts of the Apostles carries the history of the Christian community from Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances through Paul’s arrival in Rome to plead his case before the emperor. Then comes a section containing the letters of Paul and other apostles to Christians in several cities. These letters, written around 50 A.D., predate the Gospel narratives. The final book in the New Testament is the Book of Revelation, which is a Christian prophecy written by John of Patmos near the end of the 1st century A.D.
Organizationally, the early church was split between a group which favored continued observance of Jewish lawsand a group which wished to be rid of law as the Gospel of Christ was preached to Gentiles. A specific issue was whether Gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. Jewish traditionalists favoring that requirement were associated with the Jerusalem church led by James, brother of Jesus. The other group, which argued that Christ’s resurrection had made the Law obsolete, appealed to a broader audience. The apostle Paul was its champion.
Paul was at odds with the prevailing opinion within the church that Jesus would soon return to earth as the triumphant Messiah. Paul developed a rationale for the fact that this event evidently had not yet taken place. He explained that the death and resurrection of Jesus had brought about the Kingdom of God; it was evidenced in increased spiritualization taking place in the world. Yet, Christians have continued to look for a dramatic event that would begin God’s kingdom. The Book of Revelation created a new scenario of the struggle between good and evil in which steadfast Christians were persecuted by earthly kings led by a character known as the Anti-Christ. Believers in a Second Coming take inspiration from it.
Spreading the Word
The early Christians preached the Gospel of the risen Christ. It was a message which met stiff resistance from Jewish traditionalists. A young man named Stephen attacked their attitude in a statement before the High Priest: “How stubborn you are, heathen still at heart and deaf to the truth! You always fight against the Holy Spirit. Like fathers, like sons. Was there ever a prophet whom your fathers did not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One; and now you have betrayed him and murdered him.” (Acts 7: 51-52) True to form, some persons from the audience stoned Stephen. He was the first of many Christian martyrs.
One who held the coats of Stephen’s murderers as they attacked him was Saul, soon to be renamed Paul. He was converted to faith in Jesus by a blinding vision on the road to Damascus. Paul was a Jew schooled both in the Pharisaic writings and in Greek philosophy. He put his intellectual talent to good use in interpreting scriptural issues and setting policy for the church. Paul, Barnabas, and others journeyed to places in the east Mediterranean region preaching the Gospel while admonishing and comforting Christian communities. They found Gentiles receptive to the message that Jesus was Messiah.
In this first generation after the crucifixion, there were many within the Christian community who had known Jesus personally. They remembered what he had said and done. An important undertaking was to reduce this experience to writing so that future generations would have an accurate picture of Jesus in his earthly career. Biblical scholars differ as to whether Matthew or Mark was written first. In any event, the four Gospels and other writings were compiled in the New Testament, a second part of the Bible which followed the Jewish sacred scriptures. Possessing its own literature, Christianity made the crucial transformation from a movement sustained by personal memories to a scripturally based religion.
For much of the 1st century A.D., religious Jews chafed under the yoke of Roman rule. Jesus had set an example of a peaceful Messiah who did not challenge political authority. His sights were set upon a kingdom “not of this world”. During this period, there were Messianic movements and groups such as the Zealots that did up arms against Rome. This approach resulted in Jerusalem’s total destruction in 70 A.D. Christianity’s peaceful policy was proven to be wise. While Rome persecuted Christians, the fact that they accepted martyrdom instead of challenging Roman authority helped to avert mass bloodshed. The community of believers was saved.
The holocaust of 70 A.D. drove Jewish populations from their Judaean homeland to cities throughout the Roman world. Raised with Messianic expectations, they spread the message of the risen Christ. Cities such as Antioch, Corinth, Alexandria, and Rome itself acquired substantial Christian populations. Christian missionaries became engaged in an ideological struggle with Jewish traditionalists, Greek philosophers, and officials of the Roman state. Around 55 A.D. Peter left Antioch for Rome to become head of the church in that city. Both he and Paul died there while tending the flock. Rome became the new center of Christianity.
Struggles within the Roman State
When Rome burned in 64 A.D., the Roman emperor Nero blamed Christians for setting the fires. There followed a period of intense persecution which claimed the lives of Peter, Paul, and many others. Historians tell of Christians being thrown to the lions to amuse crowds at the Coliseum. Yet, there were other reasons why Rome hated the Judaean sect. The early Christians were pacifists who refused to serve in the imperial army. They refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the emperor or honor his spirit. In Roman eyes, they were unpatriotic, morbid types who embraced the slave values of love and submission over those of manly strength. Their irrational faith in a crucified leader mocked the higher truths of philosophy. Their Eucharistic feast smacked of cannibalism.
Even so, many Christians remained steadfast in the faith. Some chose to die rather than pledge allegiance to the pagan state. The blood of the martyrs became seed of the church. In fact, Christianity’s clash with the Roman state was a struggle between competing religions. Emperor worship was the official religion. Additionally, the state used other religions, philosophies, and mystery cults as a means of enlisting popular support. The traditional gods and goddesses of Rome were combined with other people’s gods in a pantheon of national gods to create a spiritual structure mirroring the empire. But the spirits of Rome had to be supreme; and Judeo-Christian monotheism could not accept that arrangement.
Other religions also vied for dominance of the Roman world. The Persian religion of Mithras had a savior-god who slew a bull. The god Jupiter Dolichenus, from northern Syria, was a favorite of Roman soldiers. In Egypt, the cult of Isis and Osiris featured a grieving mother and reborn savior. Manichaeism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism founded in the third century A.D., gained many converts. The philosophy of neo-Platonism functioned as a religion, as did the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies. Additionally, there were mystery cults such as those devoted to the Phrygian goddess Cybele, Demeter and Persephone in Eleusis, and the Greek god Dionysos, which performed symbolic rituals and promised eternal life.
Within Christianity itself were several sectarian movements spawned by philosophical arguments about the nature of Jesus. Was Jesus a God or was he a man; or was he, perhaps, both? Gnostic Christians, influenced by neo-Platonism, stressed Jesus’ divine nature while tending to ignore his human side. Arian Christians, on the other hand, denied that Jesus was a god, or Son of God, maintaining that he was entirely subservient to God, the Father. Marcion, an advocate of pure love, denied the Law of Moses. Montanus claimed to be the Spirit of Truth promised in the Gospel of John. Pelagius, opposing Augustine’s view of grace, taught that man was inherently good and could willfully defeat sin. Given these different beliefs, the church felt it necessary to impose ideological order. It did so in the name of combating heresies.
So an important role in the church was played by “church fathers”, theologians, and apologists for the faith who opposed divergent religious views and kept the faithful on the right track. In Roman times, Justin Martyr defended Christianity against criticisms brought by pagan philosophers and Jewish traditionalists. He responded to the charge of “atheism” which supporters of emperor worship leveled against the church. Tertullian refuted the idea that Christians were disloyal to the Roman state. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, composed a liturgy and effectively protected the interests of the church against the Roman state. Origen, a scholar of Biblical texts, reconciled Christian teaching with tenets of Greek philosophy. Jerome created a Latin version of the Bible. The greatest theologian, perhaps, was Augustine who wrote “The City of God” to explain how God could allow Rome to fall into ruin after the barbarian devastations of Italy and North Africa. He is chiefly responsible for the doctrine of Original Sin.
Christianity was out of favor, if not actively persecuted, during the first three centuries of its existence. As its strength grew, Roman emperors starting in the mid 3rd century A.D. tried to stamp out this threatening religion. Some of the worst persecution came under emperors Diocletian and Galerius. The situation was about to change. Galerius, on his death bed, revoked his previous anti-Christian edicts in 411 A.D. and granted freedom of worship. In the following year, Constantine converted to Christianity. Having abandoned their former pacifism, Christians were by now well-represented within the Roman army. Legend has it that Constantine, in a dream, saw two Greek letters representing the name of Christ together with the words “with this sign you will be victorious”. He ordered his soldiers to paint that slogan on their shields. Constantine went on to win a battle against Maxentius, a rival contender for the imperial throne, and then to defeat another rival to gain the supreme power.
Christianity as Rome’s State Religion
After consolidating his political power, Constantine became an active patron of the Christian church. Yet, he also remained loyal to the cult of Sol Invictus (“the Unconquered Sun”) and retained the title of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of Rome’s civic religion. Two actions undertaken during his reign were of importance to the church. First, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. to decide the matter of Christ’s identity. The formulation worked out in the Nicaean creed - that Jesus was both God and man and a member of the Trinity - became the basis of Christian orthodoxy. Second, Constantine created a second capital city on the Bosporus straights to improve imperial administration. The two capitals at Rome and at Constantinople became centers of western (Roman Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) Christendom respectively.
Except for Julian the Apostate, Constantine’s nephew, subsequent Roman emperors continued to favor the Christian religion. Gratian (367-83 A.D.) closed temples of non-Christian religions and seized their property. At Ambrose’s urging, Emperor Theodosius I completed the liquidation of rivals at the end of the 4th century. Meanwhile, the neighboring Roman and Persian empires were engaged in a series of wars. This had religious significance in that the Christian and Zoroastrian religions were state religions in their respective spheres. Roman authorities regarded adherents of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean religions as “fifth columnists” potentially sympathetic to Persia while the Persian authorities had similar views of Christians in their realm. On the other hand, Nestorian Christians, persecuted as heretics by the Roman authorities, were given political asylum in Persia.
Even after the Council of Nicaea, controversies about Jesus’ nature persisted. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, had questioned the idea that the Virgin Mary could give birth to a divine child. His views were condemned at the Council of Ephesus, convened in 431 A.D. The Christian community at Antioch became deeply divided over this question. Nestorius’ followers first emigrated to Persia and then, as missionaries, went to India, China, and central Asia. Monophysite Christianity, which held that Jesus had a single divine nature, arose in reaction to Nestorianism. Derived from the teachings of Eutyches, this doctrine became popular in Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and Abyssinia. The Council of Chalcedon condemned it as a heresy in 451 A.D. The East Roman emperor invalidated that decision buthis successors vacillated. The persecution of Monophysite Christians paved the way for Islam’s quick military victories in Syria and Egypt.
After Christianity became Rome’s state religion, Christians assumed leading positions in Roman society. The monastic movement spread in reaction to the increased worldliness of the church. St. Antony, an Egyptian hermit, pioneered this way of life. In 285 A.D., he withdrew to the desert to pursue a life of solitude. Here Antony was attacked by wild beasts and tempted by womanly apparitions. His ascetic example inspired imitation. A number of other hermits settled around him in the desert. After ignoring them for twenty years, Antony organized these people into a community of monks. Such “Anchorite” monks were given to extravagant feats of self-deprivation. For example, St. Simeon Stylites sat for thirty-five years atop a stone pillar. In time, monastic life evolved into communities where individuals could live in holiness through simple living, contemplation, and prayer. The self-sacrificing monks gave the church models of personal heroism after the age of martyrdom had passed.
Meanwhile, a church hierarchy was being organized along the lines of the imperial structure. Cities that had been chartered as Roman municipalities became seats of Christian bishoprics. The prefectures of the eastern empire were divided between the patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople while the patriarchate of Rome assumed authority over the three prefectures of the western empire.
Technically, the Pope was only Bishop of Rome - leader of the Christian community in Rome. He became leader of the entire church by virtue of the apostolic origins of that office. As a spiritual kingdom the Papacy based its authority upon a continuous line of succession running back to Peter. A passage in the Gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus: “You are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church ... I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19)
Even so, the position of the church depended upon political events. The experiences of the western and eastern church were different. In the west, the Roman empire came under attack from invading tribes of Germanic nomads. After the Visigoths defeated the imperial armies at Adrianople in 378 A.D., the empire’s northeastern front became severely exposed. Alaric, king of the Visigoths, sacked Rome in 410 A.D. The west Roman empire from north Africa to Europe was then overrun by barbarian tribes. Odovacer, a barbarian king, deposed the last western emperor in 476 A.D. After that, there was no more Roman government in those territories.
In the east, however, the imperial government headquartered at Constantinople continued to function for another millennium. This meant that the Patriarchate at Constantinople continued under the protection of the east Roman Byzantine government, while the western church at Rome became free-standing. Political Events
After Rome’s Fall
While the western church was politically at the mercy of Germanic kings, it had the advantage of being heir to Rome. The church inherited the cultural prestige of the fallen empire. Barbarian rulers came to believe that only through Christian baptism could they join civilized society. Since earthly rulers held their thrones by divine appointment, the church had the power to confer legitimacy upon particular kings. Alternatively, it could refrain from blessing rulers who opposed its interests. Later, the power to excommunicate individuals - deny them access to Christian sacraments - gave the church much leverage in the world. Pope Leo I (440-61 A.D.) was instrumental in establishing the Roman church as a power separate from that of the Byzantine empire and in separting ecclesiastical and secular authority. Through skilled diplomacy, he persuaded Attila the Hun to abandon his invasion of northern Italy.
St. Patrick, a Christian monk from Britain, converted Ireland to Christianity in the mid 5th century, A.D. The Irish church became a center of learning and evangelical advance. In the 6th century, St. Benedict founded a monastery at Monte Cassino in Italy which stressed service to God. As Christianity spread to northern Europe, the monasteries established in remote places resembled armed garrisons of the Roman state. The disciplined monks were like soldiers of an expanding spiritual empire.
In 597 A.D., Pope Gregory I recruited a Benedictine monk named Augustine to lead a mission to the British Isles. He and his retinue were greeted cordially by King Ethelbert and given land at Canterbury to build a church. His timely arrival in Britain helped check the spread of Irish Christianity which might have challenged Roman Catholicism for leadership of the western church. An agreement reached at the Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D. regarding the method of calculating the date of Easter and the shaving of monks’ heads tipped the scales decisively in favor of Rome.
Clovis, king of the Franks, began to create a new European empire in the late 5th century B.C. He conquered the Alamanni tribe in 496 A.D. and the Spanish Visigoths in 507 A.D. By the time of his death in 511 A.D. the Frankish kingdom controlled all of Gaul except for Provence. Clovis’ successors later annexed Thuringia and Burgundy. Unlike other Germanic tribes which had converted to the Arian faith, this dynasty embraced Roman Catholicism. Effectively, they were political allies of the Pope.
The Merovingian dynasty of Clovis was weakened by its practice of dividing territories among several heirs upon a monarch’s death. Major-domos in its household effectively ran the government. One such official, Pippin III, petitioned Pope Zacharias to recognize his family’s claim to the Frankish throne. Upon receiving a favorable response, he deposed the Merovingian ruler and began his own, Carolingian dynasty. In turn, Pippin came to the Pope’s rescue when the Lombards invaded northern Italy and threatened to take Rome.
Pippin’s son, Charles, became sole ruler of the Franks in 771 A.D. when his brother, who was co-ruler, suddenly died. He is today known as Charlemagne. This powerful king annexed the Lombard kingdom in Italy in 773-74 A.D., conquered Saxony between 772 and 802 A.D., and defeated the Avars of Hungary between 791 and 805 A.D. The conquest of Saxony brought Charlemagne’s empire in direct contact with the Danes who responded with naval attacks upon its territory. So began nearly two centuries of Scandinavian marauding along Europe’s northern seacoast.
The Frankish empire under Charlemagne encompassed most of present-day France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries. It was comparable in size to the lands once ruled by the west Roman empire. It seemed that imperial rule might be revived when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day in 800 A.D. However, the Franks’ inheritance rules did not allow this empire to be passed intact to an heir. After his death in 814 A.D. Charlemagne’s three sons divided it into separate domains.
Even so, the office of Holy Roman Emperor continued until 1806 A.D. when the last officeholder renounced the title. It was an elective position which became a secular counterpart to the Pope. A power-sharing arrangement between the religious and temporal (political) authorities controlled medieval society. In theory, the religious authority was the stronger of the two because it came from God. Advancing the doctrine of the “two lights”, Pope Innocent III argued that “the moon derived her light from the sun and is inferior to the sun ... in the same way that royal power derives its dignity from pontifical authority.”
The Papacy was often in conflict with secular authority. In 1077 A.D. Pope Gregory VII kept Emperor Henry IV waiting barefoot in the snow for three days before granting him absolution from excommunication. Henry had previously tried to depose Gregory over the issue of lay investiture: Political rulers wanted power to appoint local clergy while the Pope wanted to retain the power in Rome. The Concordat of Worms finally resolved this issue in the Pope’s favor in 1122 A.D.
The power of the church was based on its ability to control the Christian sacraments. Seven were most important: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony. Church doctrine held that the sacraments were the means by which God transmitted his grace to humanity or, in other words, forgave sins. All men were sinners who were unable to achieve salvation by their own efforts. An ordained priest was needed to perform the required rituals.
With respect to the Eucharist, the Roman church accepted the doctrine that the bread eaten during this ceremony was literally the flesh of Christ and the wine was his blood. Others believed that these substances were merely symbolic. In any event, salvation from sin and death and entrance into Heaven now depended upon ceremonies performed exclusively by ordained priests. Representing a departure from earlier doctrines, this view became an issue in the Protestant reformation. The Roman church had put itself in a position of choosing whom God would bless. It also claimed an unerring ability to interpret scripture and decide theological questions.
Christian Europe also exhibited a flowering of artistic and philosophical culture evidenced in Gothic cathedrals and in theological works such as those of St. Thomas Aquinas. There was an economic and cultural intensity which, in the next phase of history, burst upon the entire world.
The Eastern Church
The Christian church which was headquartered in Constantinople followed another course. A church council held in 381 A.D. had decided that it ranked second after the See of Rome. At the Council of Chalcedon, the Byzantine church was given spiritual authority over western Turkey and the eastern part of the Balkan peninsula. Since the imperial structure at Constantinople remained in place, political rulers there tended to dominate their religious counterparts following the principle which emperor Justinian I had laid down in the 6th century A.D. that “nothing should happen in the Church against the command or will of the Emperor.” So the eastern church became like a department of religion within the Byzantine government.
Eastern or “Orthodox” Christianity put more emphasis upon theological questions and less upon the sacraments than its Roman counterpart. This church accepted neither the formulation of Christ’s identity adopted at the Council of Chalcedon nor that embodied in the Nicene creed: that the holy spirit had proceeded “from the Father and the Son”. Orthodox theologians tended to stress Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity.
A particular issue within the eastern church was a controversy concerning icons. Hoping to curry support among his Jewish and Moslem subjects, Emperor Leo III in 726 A.D. waged a crusade against the use of icons (religious statues or images) in the church. He demanded that these icons be destroyed. His “iconoclastic” reform met with stiff resistance, especially in the monasteries. The controversy continued through the reigns of several emperors and empresses in the 8th century A.D. Finally, a church council decided to ban three-dimensional images but permit two-dimensional ones.
Until Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 A.D., the east Roman government continued to rule over territories adjacent to the capital city. This empire had two major enemies during its thousand-year history. First, it was engaged in protracted wars against the Sasanian Persian empire. The last one, the Romano-Persian war of 604 to 628 A.D., was so long and so bloody that both sides were exhausted when another military threat arrived in the form of Islamic armies.
The Moslems quickly extinguished the Sasanian empire and reduced the east Roman empire to a small territory surrounding Constantinople. Arab armies laid siege to the city in 674-678 A.D. and again in 717-18 A.D. but were unable to penetrate its walls. However, the Roman government at Constantinople had to contend with hostile Moslem forces, both Arab and Turkish, until the time that Ottoman Turks captured the city in the 15th century. Bulgarians and Norman French were also a military threat.
The western and eastern churches went their separate way over a theological issue. The eastern church did not accept the “filioque clause” - Father and Son - in the Nicene creed. Pope Leo XV brought on the “Great Schism” by excommunicating Michael Cerularius in 1054 A.D. However, there had been tension between the two churches for some time. The Pope’s coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor challenged the authority of the Byzantine empire and its captive church. “Photianism” - independence from Rome - became a burning issue in the east. After Frankish crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 A.D., it became impossible to reconcile the two branches of Christendom. While the Byzantine emperor did accept Rome’s spiritual authority in the 15th century, his overture came too late to save the empire from Turkish conquest.
What did save Orthodox Christianity was its missionary work among Slavic peoples. In the 9th century A.D., the patriarch of Constantinople had sent a pair of scholarly brothers from Thessalonica, Constantine and Methodius, on a mission to neighboring peoples. They went first to a Slavic kingdom then known as Great Moravia (Czechoslovakia and Hungary). Constantine, also known as Cyril, brought with him the Glagolitic script which he had developed for Slavs. Eventually this script became adapted to the Bulgarian and Russian languages.
Bulgaria converted to the Eastern Orthodox faith in 863 A.D. Missionaries from Bulgaria brought the Old Church Slavonic liturgy and the “Cyrillic” alphabet to Kiev, whose ruler, Vladimir, converted to Orthodox Christianity in 987 A.D. After two centuries of Mongol rule, the dukes of Moscow annexed territories, including the Ukraine, to create the Russian empire. When Ivan III married the last Byzantine emperor’s niece and took the title of “Czar” (Caesar), Moscow became the new center of Orthodox Christianity. A monk called it the “Third Rome”, after Constantinople and Rome itself. Christianity was the cultural thread connecting these capitals.
The Secularizing Effect of the Crusades
The religious ruler of the first Rome, the Pope, enjoyed unchallenged worldly power as the first millennium A.D. ended. However, the worldliness of the Roman church contained the seeds of its undoing. Christianity had begun as a movement among the powerless and poor within society. By medieval times, the church had become powerful and rich, adorning itself with precious works of art. Even more telling, Christianity had abandoned its original pacifism to become an instigator of war. It had orchestrated a holy war against the Moslem rulers of Palestine in a series of increasingly foolish military expeditions known as the Crusades.
Responding to reports that Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were abused by the Moslem authorities, Pope Urban II in 1095 A.D issued an appeal for European Christians to recapture Jerusalem. A large army led by Godfrey of Bouillon was assembled in Constantinople to carry out the Papal mission. “Deus volt” - God wills it! - was the battle cry. In 1099, the crusaders captured the Holy City after a battle in which 70,000 civilians were massacred. A French king was seated upon the throne of Jerusalem.
A second crusade was called fifty years later when the Turks captured Edessa in northeastern Greece from the Latin Kingdom. This one, whose armies pillaged the Byzantine empire en route to Jerusalem, was a complete failure. In the sixth crusade, the Pope excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II for failing to commence hostilities promptly enough. Frederick went through the motions of compliance with the Pope’s command. Upon arriving in the Holy Land, he and the Sultan of Egypt sat down together and, after an amiable discussion, negotiated a sham agreement for Jerusalem’s surrender. In the “Children’s Crusade”, thousands of idealistic boys assembled for embarkation to Palestine were sold into slavery or else perished from hunger and disease. In all, nine crusades were carried out between 1095 and 1272 A.D. In the end, Moslems still ruled Jersualem.
Besides tarnishing the reputation of the church, the Crusades gave the peoples of Europe worldly experiences which led them away from religiosity to other kinds of intellectual, artistic, and commercial pursuits; they were a spur to the Renaissance. The discovery of ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts in Byzantium and other places gave rise to humanist scholarship. The commercial enterprise required to equip and transport large armies in distant places stimulated banking and trade. Meanwhile, the church initiated a bloody campaign against Albigensian heretics in southern France and another against Bohemian followers of John Hus. In the 14th century, the institution of the Papacy was undermined when two rival Popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon, France, each claimed legitimate succession from St. Peter.
Roman Catholic society did make one remarkable advance. While the Ottoman Turks were extinguishing Christian rule in Constantinople, Christian kings were putting pressure on the Moorish rulers of Spain. By the late 15th Century, the combined kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, ruled by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, pushed the Moslems out of the Iberian peninsula. In 1492, the same year when this was accomplished, Christopher Columbus made his first voyage across the Atlantic ocean to the Americas. Here was a new continent to be won for Christ.
In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued a bull dividing all the newly discovered trans-Atlantic territories between Spain and Portugal provided that they convert the native people to Christianity. Protestant English and Dutch, who ignored the Pope’s ruling, began colonizing the east coast of North America a century later. But the Spanish and Portuguese, aided by Jesuit and other priests, did establish Christianity in its Roman Catholic form in South and Central America. This part of the world remains a stronghold of the Christian faith.
The Protestant Reformation and its Aftermath
During the Renaissance, Popes of much worldliness undertook to construct a new St. Peter’s church at the Vatican in Rome. It was adorned with costly sculptures and paintings. To raise money for this and other lavish undertakings, the church aggressively solicited donations. In 1509, the Pope announced a special Jubilee indulgence. When a Dominican preacher arrived in Saxony to promote the new dispensation in 1517, Martin Luther posted his “95 Theses” on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg to condemn corruption within the Roman church. This manifesto was widely distributed. Luther was soon branded a heretic. Unlike others so stigmatized in the past, Luther had powerful friends among the German princes. Luther burned a copy of the papal bull condemning his views in a bonfire.
The Protestant Reformation divided the states of Europe into warring camps. Protestant Christians were religious fanatics in the tradition of the Byzantine iconoclasts who abhorred “graven images”. Such images abounded in the Roman church. The Protestants also questioned the cults of the Virgin Mary and Christians saints, the supernatural qualities attributed to the Mass, the ability of sinners to win salvation by receiving church sacraments, and the presumed power of priests to mediate between God and man.
Instead, Luther followed Paul’s lead in teaching that individuals were justified by their faith in Christ. “Scripture alone”, not church dogma, was the source of religious truth. Each worshiper was entitled to learn the truth directly from the Bible; but for that to be effective, the Bible had to be translated from Latin into popular tongues. Christians had to be educated to read scripture themselves.
Catholics responded to the Protestant challenge with reform movements of their own. There were efforts such St. Ignatius Loyola’s Jesuit order to revitalize the faith through spiritual discipline and education. The Jesuits evangelized native peoples in North and South America. They sent missionaries to China, India, and Japan. The Protestants meanwhile split into a number of separate denominations including ones such as the Mennonites, Anabaptists, and Quakers which held radical views.
The most important Protestant figure after Luther, John Calvin, became the theocratic leader of Geneva, Switzerland. His book, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, set down theological principles underlying that school of Protestant belief known as Calvinism. The doctrine of “predestination” is among its better-known principles.
The “Thirty Years War”, between 1618 and 1648 A.D., pitted Catholic against Protestant nations. It was among the bloodiest wars in European history. Again, religious warfare had the effect of turning people against religion. Toynbee supposes that it was at this point in history that European intellectuals became weary of theological arguments and channeled their energies instead into natural science. Christianity had again become tainted with blood.
As well, it became tainted with intellectual intolerance as its clerics persecuted scientists such as Galileo. When the established religions in Europe punished religious dissenters, America became a haven for persons with unorthodox views. The French Enlightenment produced a backlash against religion. Writers such as Voltaire railed against religious superstition. Mindful of the dangers inherent in state religion, the framers of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights provided for the separation of church and state.
Today Christians are scattered throughout the world. Proportionately fewer live in Asia, and more in Europe and the Americas. Latin America, heavily Roman Catholic, shows the effect of colonization by Spain and Portugal. Russia and other east European nations retain their Orthodox heritage. The United States, with a larger Protestant population, is denominationally divided along the lines of past immigration from Europe. Equatorial Africa, too, has a burgeoning Christian population because of missionary work and colonization by European states.
All around the earth, Christians continue to evangelize as well as carry on their traditional religious practices. The modern communications media have been harnessed to deliver the Gospel of Jesus Christ even while most Christians continue to read the Bible. Many expect Christ’s return in the near future.
Chapter Fifteen: Prophecies of a Second Coming
When Jesus died and resurrected in 30 A.D., it became possible to argue, as Schweitzer and others have done, that the Kingdom of God had arrived because Jesus was now in the supernatural form of the promised Messiah. Yet, this experience was unsatisfying to the extent that the expected worldly events did not visibly occur. No one came down upon the clouds from heaven to earth. No perfect order of being under God’s control replaced worldly corruption. In order that Christian belief could continue, a new set of prophecies emerged that were focused upon what has been called Christ’s “Second Coming”. Like those prophecies in the Old Testament which shaped Jesus’ career, these ones, too, are based upon writings in the Bible.
Some of the writings about the Second Coming are found in the Gospels of the New Testament where Jesus himself describes the circumstances of his return. There are also passages in the letters of Paul about the “Rapture” and such things. Additionally, Christians continue to look for guidance from prophecies in the Old Testament, especially Ezekial, Daniel, and Zechariah. Christianity has, however, its own book of prophecy in the concluding work of the New Testament: the Revelation of John.
“This is the revelation given by God to Jesus Christ ... He (Jesus) made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who, in telling all that he saw, has borne witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 1: 1-3) As Jewish prophecy absorbed the idea of Satan as God’s adversary, Revelation has created an evil counterpart to Jesus in the Anti-Christ.
John, the author of Revelation, is traditionally believed to be the same man as the author of the Gospel of John and perhaps even John the disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. Modern scholars tend to doubt that. In any case, the Book of Revelation was written by a Christian living in exile on the island of Patmos in the Aegean sea. He probably died in the city of Ephesus in present-day Turkey. The Book of Revelation was written around 95 B.C. during persecutions of the Roman emperor Domitian. The Christian community was then under great pressure to renounce faith in Jesus and worship the emperor.
Some argue that Revelation was merely an “exhortatory” work intended to encourage persecuted Christians to persevere in their faith. The time to which it refers may have been the period of the Roman emperor Nero’s reign, between 54 and 68 A.D. Nero set fire to the city of Rome so he could rebuild it on a grander scale. He then blamed Christians for the fire. Many died in the ensuing persecution. John of Patmos may have written Revelation to let Christians see beyond their immediate troubles to a time of redemption when the Roman empire would end and God’s kingdom would begin. The image of Jesus as a lamb encourages non-violent resistance to pressures to worship the emperor.
Many others today believe that the Book of Revelation describes events which have not yet happened. They are still waiting for Jesus, the Messiah, to return to earth in power and glory. A Time-CNN poll taken in 2002 found that 59% of Americans believe that the prophecies in Revelation will come true. If this book of prophecy merely described the situation in Nero’s or Domitian’s Rome, few would still be interested in it. Clearly the appeal of Revelation lies in the belief that John is presenting a vision of events in our own time or in a time shortly to come. The symbolism found in his work comes alive in resemblances to historical events happening before our eyes. The challenge is to see them more clearly.
The Prophecy of Revelation
Revelation is a Christian prophecy drawing upon imagery and themes of the Old Testament prophets. The symbolic identification of beasts with empires or nations is reminiscent of Daniel. The idea of marking people on their foreheads who are to be saved comes from Ezekial. The scenario of a period of great persecution followed by a climactic appearance of the Messiah who will defeat the wicked power of earthly rulers and establish a Kingdom of God is patterned after concepts found in several of the prophets.
The Book of Revelation is describing a process that leads to the appearance of the Messianic kingdom which, in this case, lasts for a thousand years. Then Satan comes back, another battle is fought, and God’s eternal kingdom is established. The imagery of Revelation is often gruesome. Its symbolism of numbers helps to establish connections with persons, kingdoms, or events that can be recognized in history.
This prophecy starts with John’s greeting to seven churches, which are the Christian communities in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. He is sending them Christ’s message which he reads on a scroll. Next, heaven opens up and John sees a throne. One “whose appearance was like the gleam of jasper and cornelian” sits upon this throne, surrounded by twenty-four other thrones and by four beast-like creatures, each with six wings. The One seated on the throne, who is God, has a sealed scroll in his right hand.
A Lamb, who is Jesus, “with the marks of slaughter upon him”, having seven horns and seven eyes, takes the scrolls from the one seated on the throne. He breaks the first seal, and the next, and the next, until all seven scrolls have been unsealed. The first four times, he sees a horse - white, red, black, and sickly pale - symbolic of death and destruction. Breaking the fifth seal, he hears the groans of the righteous who have been persecuted. After the sixth seal is broken, violent earthquakes and disorderly occurrences in heaven can be seen. The day of Christ’s vengeance has come.
At this point, an “angel rising from the east” who carries God’s seal calls a halt to the destruction about to be unleashed by four other angels. He instructs these angels to “set the seal of our God upon the foreheads of his servants”, who come from the tribe of Israel. One-hundred forty-four thousand persons receive this mark on their foreheads, twelve thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. A “vast throng”, robed in white, gathers before the throne of God and before the Lamb, praising God. An elder explains to John: “These are the men who have passed through the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Now is the time for the Lamb to break the seventh seal. There is silence in heaven for the next half hour.
When the seventh seal is broken, seven angels prepare to blow their trumpets. A great natural disaster occurs after each is blown. Heavenly disturbances take place. When the fifth angel blows his trumpet, smoke rises from an abyss and from the smoke comes a plague of locusts which torment (but do not kill) those persons who do not have the mark of God’s seal on their forehead. When the sixth angel blows his trumpet, a voice instructs this angel: “Release the four angels held bound at the great river Euphrates!” The angels who are released proceed to kill one third of humanity through their “squadrons of cavalry”, numbering two hundred million. Even so, there are many men who continue to worship devils and idols.
Now another angel comes down from heaven holding in his hand a little scroll. John is instructed to take that scroll and eat it. The scroll tastes sweet but makes his stomach sour. He is next given a measuring rod and asked to measure the Temple, the altar, and the number of worshippers. The Gentiles, in the outer court of the temple, are set to “trample the Holy City underfoot for forty-two months (or twelve hundred and sixty days) while two witnesses, dressed in sackcloth, prophesy. They are protected by the Lord. After this period, a beast comes out of the abyss and kills them. Their two corpses lie unburied on the street for three and a half days. Then God breathes new life into them and they are taken up into heaven. At the same time, a violent earthquake kills seven thousand in the city. God’s temple in heaven is exposed and the ark of the covenant is plainly seen.
Now, for the main event, a pregnant woman appears in heaven. A second portent appears: “a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns”, a diadem on each head. This dragon stands in front of the pregnant woman, waiting to devour her child when it is born. She gives birth to a male child “who is destined to rule all nations with an iron road.” God removes the child to a safe place in heaven while the mother flees into the wilds. She will remain there for the next twelve hundred and sixty days. Meanwhile, a war breaks out in heaven. Michael and his angels defeat the dragon, Satan, and hurl him down to earth. The earth becomes Satan’s stomping ground.
The dragon pursues the mother in the wilds but God allows her to escape. Furious, the dragon next wages war against ‘the rest of her offspring”, Christ’s followers. Now a great beast with ten horns and seven heads rises from the sea. The dragon confers its power and authority upon this creature. The beast resembles a leopard but its feet are like a bear’s and its mouth like a lion’s. Its mouth speaks bombast and blasphemy. The beast is allowed to reign for forty-two months as it wages war against God’s people. A mortal wound, which seems to have healed, is on one of its seven heads. Men worship both the dragon and the beast.
Then, still another beast comes out of the earth: “it had two horns like a lamb’s, but spoke like a dragon.” Wielding its authority, this second beast persuades men to worship the first beast by performing miracles. A statue of the first beast is erected for men to worship. Those who refuse to worship the beast are put to death. There is a regulation that individuals need to have the mark of the (first) beast on their foreheads or right hand in order to buy or sell merchandise. The mark can be either the beast’s name or number. Its number is six-hundred sixty-six.
(Note: The alphabet used by the Greeks and Jews in those days consisted of letters which doubled as numbers. A equaled 1, B equaled 2, C equaled 3, etc. The idea is to assign the equivalent numbers to each letter in a person’s name. If the numbers add up to 666, the person becomes a possible candidate for the beast in this scenario of the final days. The beast mentioned in Revelation is the Anti-Christ.)
Meanwhile, the Lamb stands on Mount Zion along with the one-hundred and forty-four thousand who had God’s name written in their foreheads. These are virgin men. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes and sing a new song difficult to learn. An angel flies through heaven urging men to fear God; for the judgment has come. A second angel announces that Babylon the great has fallen, she who made the nations drink the wine of her fornication. Then a third angel cries that who who worship the beast or bear his mark on their forehead or hand will incur the wrath of God. Happily, the dead will be spared of this punishment.
Now one like a Son of Man sits on a white cloud. He wears a crown of gold and holds a sickle in his hand. An angel urges him to pass his sickle across the earth and reap the harvest which is like grapes for God’s wine press of wrath. Another portent appears in heaven: Seven angels with seven plagues consummate the wrath of God. Those who have won a victory over the beast and his name are holding harps and singing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb. Afterwards, the sanctuary of the heavenly tent of Testimony is thrown open. Out come the seven angels with seven plagues. A voice instructs the angels: “Go and pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.”
So the seven angels in succession pour out their bowls, turning the earth’s waters to blood. Those who bear the beast’s mark develop sores on their body. The fourth and fifth bowls burn men with flames or plunge the beast’s kingdom into darkness. The sixth angel pours his bowl on the Euphrates river, causing it to dry up and preparing the way for the kings from the east. Then from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet (the second beast) three foul spirits come forth, which are devils with the power to work miracles. They are sent to enlist the support of the earth’s kings to do battle against God. The kings are assembled in a place called Armageddon.
When the seventh angel pours out his bowl, a voice from heaven cries: “It is over.” Immediately, there are flashes of lightning, an earthquake, and a hail storm of unprecedented severity. The great city (Jerusalem) is split in three. Other cities, including Babylon, lie in ruins. Then one of the angels that had held a bowl offers to show John what will be the judgment visited on “the great whore, enthroned above the ocean.” This woman is seated on a scarlet beast which is covered with blasphemous names and has seven heads and ten horns. She is clothed in purple and wears much jewelry. On her forehead is written: “Babylon the great, the mother of whores.” She is drunk with the blood of God’s people and of those loyal to Jesus.
The angel informs John that this beast with seven heads and ten horns is no longer alive. The angel says: “The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They represent also seven kings, of whom five have already fallen, one is now reigning, and the other has yet to come.” The beast who was once alive is one of the seven kings doomed for perdition. The ten horns are ten kings whose reigns have not yet begun. They will share royal authority with the beast for one hour; their purpose is to confer their power and authority on the beast. When they wage war on the Lamb, the Lamb will defeat them. The ocean where the great whore sat is the sea of humanity. The ten horns, future kings, will come to hate the whore, strip her naked, and burn her to ashes. “The woman you saw is the great city that holds sway over the kings of the earth,” Revelation says.
An angel cries out that Babylon the great has fallen. All people should abandon her. The merchants who profited from her commerce may weep for this woman, but heaven will rejoice in her demise. Hurling a large stone into the sea, an angel says: “Thus shall Babylon, the great city, be sent hurtling down, never to be seen again!” Her sorcery has deceived the nations. “For the blood of the prophets and of God’s people was found in her, the blood of all who had been done to death on earth.”
The heavenly throng rejoice that God is entering his reign. Happy are those invited to the wedding-supper of the Lamb. Then the heavens open and a white horse is seen. Its rider, whose name is Faithful and True, wears diadems on his head and wears a garment drenched in blood. He is the Word of God, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” A sharp sword projects from his mouth to smite the nations. Then an angels tells birds in the skies to “gather for God’s great supper”, which means that they are to feast upon the kings and their horde who are opposing God.
“Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies mustered to do battle with the Rider and his army. The beast was taken prisoner, and so was the false prophet ... The two of them were thrown alive into the lake of fire with its sulphurous flames. The rest were killed by the sword which sent out of the Rider’s mouth; and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” (Revelation 19: 19-21)
Next an angel comes down from heaven to seize the dragon, Satan, who is put in chains and locked away for one thousand years so that he can seduce the nations no more. After the thousand years, however, he must again be set loose for a time. Now the souls of those beheaded for Jesus’ sake and those others who have died refusing to worship the beast spring back to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest have to wait until after his millennial reign is over. This is the first resurrection.
Afterwards, Satan is loosed from his dungeon. He again seduces the nations and musters them for battle against God’s people. They include the “hosts of Gog and Magog.” They lay siege to Jerusalem. But fire comes down upon them from heaven and they are destroyed. Satan is flung into the same fiery lake were the beast and false prophet have been, suffering eternal punishment.
After this event, John sees a great white throne and God seated upon it. Heaven and earth have passed away. The dead are standing before the throne, awaiting judgment. Another book is opened, and the dead are judged according to their deeds. Death and Hades give up their dead until they, too, are thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death. All whose names are not recorded in the roll of the living are flung into the fiery lake.
Now a new heaven and earth arise. There is a new Jerusalem. God at last dwells among his own people. All evil doers have passed away, flung into the fiery lake. An angel shows John the bride of the Lamb, which is the holy city of Jerusalem. There are twelve gates, twelve angels, twelve apostles, twelve tribes of Israel. The city is made of jewels and precious metals. There is no temple since God and the Lamb rule directly. There is no falseness or filth, and there will no no night. The water of life flowing from the throne of God runs down the middle of the city’s street.
Matching Events in Revelation with a Time of Fulfillment
To relate this strange tale to historical events, we run into a problem with symbols. For example, Revelation mentions “Babylon the great”, which, though a city, is represented here as a whoring woman. There once was a great city called Babylon on the Euphrates river in present-day Iraq, about fifty miles south of Baghdad. It was the capital of the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar. The Persians conquered the Babylonian empire and the Greeks conquered Persia. Much of Babylon’s population was removed to the city of Seleucia around 275 B.C. The historical city of Babylon had become politically insignificant by the time that the Book of Revelation was written in 95 A.D.
No doubt the city of Babylon retained its reputation as a rich and corrupt place in the Jewish consciousness, dating back to memories of the Babylonian captivity. As a real city, however, it had lost much of its power and wealth by the Christian era. It seems therefore more likely that the city of Rome would be cast symbolically as “Babylon the great”. At the time the Book of Revelation was written, Rome was the center of political power in the western world. It was also a place of much commerce.
When the angel said in the 17th chapter of Revelation that the woman - the whore who is Babylon - sits on seven hills, one is reminded of Rome’s seven hills. The reference in the same chapter to “the great whore, enthroned above the ocean” reminds one of Rome’s location near the west coast of Italy whose peninsula lies in the middle of a large sea. Certainly the Christians experienced severe persecution in Rome so that the statement that this woman, Babylon, was “drunk with the blood of God’s people” is apt. If, on the other hand, Babylon is meant to refer to a city or nation in our own time, the reference is unclear.
The Book of Revelation mentions a great battle between the forces of good and evil in the period leading up to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. The Lamb, who is the rider on the white horse leading God’s army to victory, is Jesus Christ, now the risen Messiah. The dragon is clearly identified as Satan, chief angel of evil, who is the same as “that serpent of old that led the whole world astray.” (Revelation 12: 9) The Lamb, Satan, and, of course, God Himself are timeless beings who could enter history at any point. Most speculation centers upon the other two figures of evil: the first beast, usually called “the beast”; and the second beast who had “two horns like a lamb’s, but spoke like a dragon.” This second beast is also called “the false prophet.”
The first beast, who is the anti-Christ, is introduced in the 13th chapter of Revelation as a creature rising out of the sea which had “ten horns and seven heads. On its horns were ten diadems, and on each head a blasphemous name.” One of the heads appeared to have sustained a mortal wound which had healed. The beast itself resembled a leopard, but it also had feet like a bear and a mouth like a lion. It was allowed to reign over the world for forty-two months. There was an image (or statue) erected of this beast which people were required to worship; and those who refused were put to death. Also, everyone who wanted to buy or sell in the marketplace had to display the beast’s mark, either name or number, on his right hand or forehead. The number of this beast, representing his name, was six hundred and sixty-six.
The beast’s numerical identification has attracted much attention. Several well-known historical persons have had names which match this number by the technique of gematria which assigns numerical values to letters in the alphabet. Some of them include the Roman emperor Nero (who had portrayed himself as a God in a giant statue) , Napoleon, and even Franklin D. Roosevelt. Because Ronald Wilson Reagan had three names with six letters each, some tried to make his name fit the 666 pattern. John F. Kennedy received 666 votes at the 1956 Democratic convention. But these are superficial numerical resemblances; gematria counts letters in the name according to an ancient numbering scheme.
Another indicator would be that this beast, the Anti-Christ, had ten horns and seven heads, and a diadem, or crown, on each horn. Such imagery is consistent with words in the Book of Daniel, describing political empires. The empire would be a single political organization encompassing ten separate kingdoms. Diadems suggest kingdoms, or, in contemporary parlance, nations. In our own time, the European common market and the European Union have attracted prophetic attention. Some look with suspicion on the United Nations since Revelation says the beast will rule the entire world. However, political entities involving the nations of Europe are preferred candidates for the beast since they imply the resurrection of imperial Rome.
The second chapter of Daniel refers to a metallic statue of a man in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which the prophet Daniel interprets. The first four sections of the body represent empires which have already passed from the scene. The Roman Empire, the fourth, is symbolized by two legs of iron. The fifth, its feet, are part iron and part clay. Analysts of prophecy associate this last section with the European Union. While the European Union now consists of twenty-five nations, only ten of them enjoy full membership. The beast of Revelation has ten horns. Presumably, a strong leader will emerge from the European Union to fulfill the beast’s evil destiny, according to this view. Some Protestants suspect that the Roman Catholic pontiff may be one of the main evil characters.
Numerology is another approach to identifying the final times. One of the best-known examples was the Millerite movement of the 1840s. In 1831, William Miller became convinced from reading the Bible that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur in 1843. He attracted a large following which anticipated that event. When the promised date passed without incident, Miller rescheduled the event for 1844. Again, he and his followers were disappointed. A remnant of Miller’s flock lives on in the Seventh Day Adventist church.
The basis of Miller’s expectation was a statement in Daniel 8: 14. In answer to the question how long true religion would be trodden down, the answer is written: “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, then the Holy Place shall emerge victorious.” In Numbers 14: 34 and Ezekial 4: 6, the principle is set forth that (in God’s eyes) each day equals a year. Therefore, 2,300 days equals 2,300 years by that equation.
Miller started his calculation with the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. which allowed Levite priests and other Jews to return to Jerusalem from Babylon. (See Ezra 7: 12-26) The year 1844 marked the 2,300th anniversary of Artaxerxes’ decree. Miller, who announced this discovery in 1831, believed that a spectacular meteor shower which occurred on November 13, 1833, confirmed Jesus’ saying that, shortly before his return, “the stars will fall from the sky.” (Matthew 24: 29)
By such logic, William Miller adressed one of the main questions underlying modern interest in Biblical prophecy: Why has Jesus’ return taken so long? Two-thousand years of world history furnishes many examples of wars, earthquakes, religious persecutions, moral degeneracy, and the like. But why has God waited so long to schedule Christ’s Second Coming? Why should we who live so many years after Jesus lived continue to believe in his imminent return? Something must be unique about our own time that would place Jesus’ return here. Miller found the answer in a particular number of years separating the time of prophetic events from his own.
Focus on Israel
For students of Biblical prophecy today, a compelling new element is that the state of Israel has recently been revived. The Jews had no nation of their own for nearly two millennia after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Now they are back in their original homeland. Since 1948, they have had their own state. In the 1967 war, Israel captured lands from Jordan which again put the Jewish people in control of Jerusalem. Another significant event might be the rebuilding of the Third Temple, whose site is now occupied by mosques. Even if the script is incomplete, the fact that Jews are back in Palestine as a political entity puts them in play in several of the Old Testament prophecies and in the Book of Revelation.
The main interest now centers in an event known as the battle of Armageddon. It is not always clear from Revelation and other scriptures what predict might happen. What do contemporary analysts of prophecy say? Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum has devised a scenario of events surrounding the great battle.
For him, a necessary precondition is that a significant number of Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah. Satan, fearing the end of his reign, then sows anti-Semitism in the world in hopes of destroying the Jews so they will be unable to plead for Christ’s return. Two-thirds of the Jewish population is killed. Satan orchestrates the campaign of Armageddon to exterminate the remaining one third.
During the first half of the seven-year period of tribulation, the world is ruled by ten kings. They combine a number of false religions into a single worldwide system. In the middle of the seven years, the Anti-Christ (the beast) turns against these ten kings. Three of them are killed in a war and the remaining seven submit to the beast’s authority. The Anti-Christ then takes charge of the world, politically and religiously. He takes over the Temple in Jerusalem, seats himself in the Holy of Holies, and declares himself God. An intense persecution of the Jewish people begins.
In the first stage of Armageddon (beginning with the sixth bowl judgment in the 16th chapter of Revelation), three unclean spirits come out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet as the angel pours his bowl upon the Euphrates river. These spirits, who are demons, persuade the kings of the earth to wage war on the Anti-Christ’s behalf against God and Jesus, the Lamb. The kings are gathered for battle at a place called Armageddon which is in the valley of Jezreel. This is not the site of the battle, but only a gathering place.
Babylon is meant to be the capital of the Anti-Christ’s worldwide empire. In the second stage of the campaign, this great city is destroyed. God uses Gentile believers to destroy the city which becomes inhabitable. Jews are warned to flee the city before it is too late. In the 18th chapter of Revelation, an angel announces Babylon’s fall.
The Anti-Christ receives the news that his capital city has fallen. Inspired by Satan, he takes the kings in his army to attack the city of Jerusalem, moving south from Armageddon. The inhabitants of Jerusalem fight fiercely but they are no match for the Gentile kings. Half the Jewish population is taken away into slavery, while the other half remains in the city. The soldiers of the anti-Christ plunder and rape.
Most Jews are no longer in Jerusalem. The third of the population which remains has fled to a safe place, known in Hebrew as Bozrah. Its Greek name is Petra. This is a city in southern Jordan, easily defended, which is surrounded by cliff rocks. This territory has eluded domination by the Anti-Christ.
Having destroyed Jerusalem, the armies of the anti-Christ now march south against Bozrah, hoping to destroy all the Jews who remain. Before the Messiah can come, the Jews must confess their iniquities. One sin, in particular, they must confess: that they rejected Jesus as Messiah. Having done that, they must then mourn for Jesus, as for an only son, and plead for him to return.
Somehow, the Jewish leaders recognize their mistake. They do repent and, for two days, confess Israel’s national sin. The Jews then plead for the Messiah to return and save them from the anti-Christ’s armies which are approaching Bozrah. There is a national regeneration of spirit accompanied by new acts of prophecy, both true and false, as the Jews plead for the Messiah to save them.
Jesus, the Messiah, does respond to those pleas. He returns to earth at Bozrah. (This is the person mentioned in Isaiah 63: 1 who is “coming from Edom, coming from Bozrah, his garments stained red.’) The Messiah alone fights the nations at Bozrah and defeats them. He is stained with their blood. A chorus of Hallelujahs is heard in heaven. In Revelation, the heavens open up exposing a white horse upon which sits the Messiah, who then smites the nations with a sharp sword emanating from his mouth. The deed is done. The armies aligned with the Anti-Christ are slaughtered, and birds pick at their carcasses.
Actually, the battle between the Messiah and the armies of the Anti-Christ continues from Bozrah into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is east of Jerusalem. The Messiah first saves the tribe of Judah before he rescues the Jews of Jerusalem. The Anti-Christ himself is one of the first casualties when the Messiah swings his sickle. This evil character descends into Hell. Many on earth view the Anti-Christ’s body, marveling that he was defeated so easily. The blood of the slain runs thick for more than a hundred miles to empty into the Red Sea.
When the fighting has ended, Jehovah ascends the Mount of Olives. Several cataclysms take place in nature as the Great Tribulation comes to an end. A cry, “It is ended”, comes from heaven as the seventh bowl is poured into the air. The city of Jerusalem is split in three. This opens up a new valley which allows the Jews in Jerusalem to escape and be saved. So ends the event known somewhat erroneously as the Battle of Armageddon. According to Dr. Fruchtenbaum, it’s all about saving the Jews and restoring their true religion through Jesus, the Messiah.
This is, of course, but one interpretation. The main event proposed for the future is scarcely recognizable in terms of the current situation. Even so, the Book of Revelation makes it clear that the Jewish remnant mentioned in the seventh chapter - the hundred and forty-four thousand from the tribe of Israel who receive God’s sign upon their forehead - are to play a special role in the final days. They, along with the righteous throng of Christians, are to survive the great tribulation and participate in the Messiah’s triumph.
For there, at the beginning of the 14th chapter of Revelation, these hundred and forty-four thousand Jews who are marked with God’s name stand with the Lamb, Jesus, and sing a new song which no one else can learn. And later the Messiah, on a white horse, defeats the armies of the Anti-Christ. An angel seizes the dragon, Satan, and locks him up for a thousand years. After that, Satan comes against Jerusalem once again but is again defeated and then is flung eternally into a lake of fire. Finally, Jerusalem is rebuilt of jewels and precious metals. God and Jesus, the Messiah, rule over this holy city of Israel.
Prophetic Influence on Current Policies
Looking through historical eyes, one might wonder what to make of such prophecies in relation to our own time. The fact is that they are believed in the highest circles of the U.S. Government. By all accounts, President Bush is himself a sincere believer in Jesus and in the Biblical prophecies.
When a visitor to the Jack Van Impe Ministries web site asked Van Impe if he thought President Bush “believes and knows he is involved in prophetic events concerning the Middle East ”, Van Impe revealed that he had been contacted by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and been asked to prepare an outline of Biblical prophecies for the White House. “He (President Bush) will know exactly what is going to happen in the Middle East and what part he will have under the leadership of the Holy Spirit of God,” Van Impe said.
Secular Americans find it troubling that religious ideology should thus sway policies of a modern government. The Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration, James Watt, raised a few eyebrows when he commented that protecting the natural environment would not matter so much if Christ returned to earth soon. Apocalyptic expectations, focused on the short term, would seem to contradict the long-term imperative of saving the earth from environmental degradation.
With respect to the war in Iraq, some secularists accuse President Bush of placing himself in a Biblical drama of the end times which would lead him to pursue certain policies that would otherwise make little sense. Does the President see himself as an heroic figure in prophecy by acting to hasten the Messiah’s return? Such a view seems exaggerated. As Van Impe said, Bush would be acting “under the leadership of the Holy Spirit” rather than consciously trying to force events to go in a particular religious direction.
The fact is that the prophetic scenario presented in the Book of Revelation does not include a positive role for any political or religious leader. The only positive characters in the story are the Lamb, which is Jesus the risen Messiah, and, of course, God. The one-hundred and forty-four thousand Jews marked with God’s sign and the community of persecuted Christians, while also positive, play a passive role in the drama. The two principal human figures, the Anti-Christ and the false prophet, are both strongly negative characters. Men in positions of worldly power and authority can only contribute to Satan’s cause.
One should recognize that in Revelation the Lamb does not need human assistance in defeating the beast’s forces that are gathered at Armageddon. He accomplishes this himself by a sharp sword protruding from his mouth, which is the word of God. To an extent, human beings can hasten the day of Second Coming by preaching the Gospel of Jesus throughout the world. Jesus himself told the disciples that “this gospel of the Kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the earth” before the end came. Dedicated Christians can also “put pressure” on God, as Schweitzer terms it, by reciting the Lord’s Prayer, which asks God to bring his heavenly Kingdom down to earth soon. But the decision when this should happen is God’s alone to make.
Why the great interest in Biblical prophecy? Jesus asks his followers always to be ready for the Kingdom, whenever it may arrive. There is no need to know the exact date. One should keep oneself in a state of moral readiness at all times, not just when there would be no more time to repent and be saved. “Be alert, be wakeful,” says Jesus. “You do not know when the moment (of the Kingdom’s arrival) comes.” (Mark 13: 33)
Why try to learn the date beforehand? There is, indeed, something presumptuous, perhaps even sacrilegious, in trying to speed up the process of the Kingdom’s arrival because of one’s personal desire. Does one want to have the Kingdom come sooner because one loves Jesus so much? Is one afraid of dying before the Judgment Day arrives? The Bible is clear on the fact that the righteous dead will be resurrected into the Kingdom of God. There’s no need to worry on that score.
The effect of prophetic knowledge is not so much an ability to influence events as to develop certain attitudes about historical persons, institutions, nations or groups. If the beast is a political empire in Europe, one would tend to view all such entities with grave suspicion. All “One World” schemes are potentially linked with Satan; they should, of course, be shunned like the plague. On the other hand, the state of Israel is a nation uniquely favored by God; and God will bless those who bless the Jews. One should therefore sympathize with the Israeli government, for instance, in discussions concerning its policies with respect to the Palestinian people.
The prophet Daniel foretold a peace negotiation that would lead to the destruction of many people in Israel and elsewhere. (Daniel 9: 26-27) “We have made a treaty with Death and signed a pact with Sheol ... for we have taken refuge in lies and sheltered behind falsehood.” (Isaiah 28: 15) Are not secularized Europeans pressuring Israel to sign a peace treaty with the Palestinians? The Anti-Christ will pose as a man of peace while, in fact, he unleashes the period of tribulation. America should not join in appeals for a false peace, say some inspired by their reading of prophecy. So when President Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, thousands of angry emails flooded the White House.
If the focus is upon God’s Kingdom rather than politics, let those who are incurably curious peek into the details of Biblical prophecy. Inquisitive persons will, of course, want to know. Jesus himself said, however, that in those times there will be many false prophets claiming to speak in his name. For those who would prepare themselves for the arrival of God’s Kingdom, he offered a piece of timeless advice: Forgive the offenses of others and God will forgive you. We receive this moral instruction, thanks to Schweitzer’s close reading, from Jesus himself; it’s really all we need for our own salvation
What Jesus was Thinking
6:50 AM | BY ZeroDivide
EDIT