Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts

Five Questions Concerning “The Resurrection”

Resurrection Questions

by Edward T. Babinski

Dear Richard Carrier,
The five questions (that you prepared for your recent radio discussion with Gary Habermas and Mike Licona on “the resurrection”) were well put. In case anyone missed them, they were:

  1. “In the Book of Acts the Apostles are having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from God all the time. We hear of similar experiences reported in that era from Jews and pagans, who were also having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from a variety of gods and angels. Why isnʼt this happening now? And why was that happening back then, even to pagans and Jews, who werenʼt seeing or hearing what the Christians were seeing and hearing?”
  2. “This might sound like a frivolous question, but it really isnʼt. I mean it quite seriously. Why does God give me more evidence that smoking cigarettes is harmful than he gives me that Jesus lives?”
  3. “The Gospel according to Matthew says (27:52-54) ‘the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City and appeared to many’. Do you believe this happened? If Yes: How could this amazing event have escaped everyone elseʼs notice, even the other evangelists? If No: How could the author of Matthew get away with such a lie?”
  4. “The following three questions are all closely related and really amount to one question. Why did the risen Jesus only appear to his followers, and to only one previously obscure enemy among the thousands opposing his Gospel? Why didnʼt he appear to Pilate or Herod or Caiaphas or the Roman Senate? Why didnʼt he also appear to deliver the Gospel to China—or to the Americas, as the Mormons claim he did?”

    Or… “Why was the death of Jesus so public, but his resurrection so private?”

  5. You seem to trust what the Gospels say is what actually happened. I want to understand why. I have an analogy that I think might help. Suppose I hauled you into court on a murder charge, and the only evidence I had against you was a bunch of letters that described you murdering the victim in vivid detail. Of course you would ask who wrote those letters. I answer, “Joe, Mike, Bob, and Dan.” You then ask, “Who are they?” And I answer, “I donʼt know for sure.” Thatʼs a dead end, so you would ask, “How do they know any of the things they claim in those letters?” And I answer, “I donʼt know. They never say exactly where they are getting any of their information.” Okay. Imagine that happened to you. Would you conclude that I had a convincing case against you? Do you believe the jury should conclude that you committed the murder those letters describe you committing?”

Dear Richard Carrier,
You mentioned some errors that you made during your aforementioned radio discussion on the resurrection. One of which was simply choosing the wrong questions with which to begin, and not even getting through all of the above questions, but getting bogged down discussing minutely a few less relevant questions. Perhaps the most common error was the assumption by all concerned that communication can take place with relative ease and transparency, when in fact, communication is never that easy, especially between two people who have read many different books and articles, known different people, and who espouse widely different philosophical and/or religious views.

I suppose that if a Designer had wanted people to communicate with greater ease then S/he/it might have installed a port in the side of everyoneʼs cranium through which we could download and upload data with others, i.e., whole lifetimes of learning and experience being shared quickly and easily. Or in lieu of such a physical port perhaps such a Designer might at least allow two people to share their knowledge and experiences in some “psychic” fashion so as to be able to focus sharply and intently on their greatest singular points of agreement, disagreement, and in-conclusiveness. (I suspect that each pair of individuals engaged in a discussion has different points or major singularities that overlap and mean the most to each of those individuals concerning each question. Hence for two individuals to “connect” at points that they both find equally significant, equally meaningful, and/or equally perplexing, is a task in itself.)

Instead, as things stand in this cosmos, misunderstandings of the sort that you mention occur with great frequency.

And what about the choice of the showʼs producer to interview people lying on far sides of a question (i.e., putting an atheist together with people speaking for revealed religion) means that large gaps in communication and understanding were being sought by the interviewer, perhaps to keep listeners a bit more interested and boost ratings, because listeners would then get to “root” for their “team” which is a team distinctly different from that of the “other side.” Instead, if moderate believers in revealed religion were chosen to discuss matters with conservative believers in revealed religion, like a moderate Christian arguing a visionary interpretation of the resurrection with a conservative Christian arguing a physical interpretation of the resurrection, then each side might have been able to listen more openly and comprehend the views of the other side a bit more easily, since the otherʼs views would have lain just a bit further down the road from their own, and not across the canyon-sized gap of atheism and revealed religion.

Indeed, Christians have spent far more time and written far more books debunking each otherʼs interpretations of their Bible and theological views than non-Christians have ever spent debunking Christianity. Today thereʼs even a burgeoning series of “viewpoints” books published by Zondervan and Intervarsity in which Christians of the Protestant Evangelical kind debate their differing views both practical and theological and scientific, including debating the meaning of Genesis, Revelation, and the brain-mind question as well (not all Evangelicals believe in substance dualism!), not to mention differing interpretations concerning differing “Christian” responses to a host of questions.

A Few Relevant Quotations

“Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son.”
—C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

“Theology is a comprehensive, rigorous, and systematic attempt to conceal the beam in the scriptures and traditions of oneʼs own denomination while minutely measuring the mote in the heritages of onesʼ brothers.”
—Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic

“Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, ‘It is a matter of faith, and above reason.’”
—John Locke

Conclusion

At base, I suspect that most debates shed little light because they begin with ignorance. Polls reveal that not many Christians in America can even name all four Gospels. Many people also are far more ready to defend the Bible than read it. Or they are ready to state they believe the Bible “cover to cover” without having studied whatʼs between the covers or thought about it very much. (There are some excellent college level lectures by the way produced by “The Teaching Company” that are available online. They sum up a lot of major scholarly views of which anyone studying or debating religion ought to be aware. Iʼd suggest directing Christians to learn more about what theologians really believe today than spend much time arguing matters.)

Neither does life leave the majority of mankind with much time for studying the worldʼs questions. Life is short and we all have to spent time and effort on surviving, maintaining families and friendships, even maintaining our health. Emotional ups and downs also play a role throughout our lives. And our beliefs can be influenced by all manner of things, including social factors, familial factors, national factors, tragic or happy events, individual psychological factors including fear of death, the joys of feeling certain about what we already believe, or simple mental inertia after we have imbibed or developed a view of the world (the brain/mind does not eagerly rearrange all the furniture it has previously laid down in specific spots just in order to accommodate a new end table).

“We believe in nothing so firmly as what we least know.”
—Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Essays

“Even the weakest disputant is made so conceited by what he calls religion, as to think himself wiser than the wisest who thinks differently from him.”
—Walter Savage Landor (1775-1864)

“Only a Designer would have made it sooooo easy to find the ‘one true faith’ that even your parents could pick it out for you, and in most places on earth, they do. Itʼs even easier to find a ‘true’ Christian as opposed to a false one, or a ‘true’ Moslem as opposed to a false one. The ‘believer in the true way’ (of a religion or denomination or interpretation) is always the one with whom you are speaking at the moment.”—E.T.B.

“Only a Designer would have made it so that ‘The type of person who devotes himself to the pursuit of wisdom is most unlucky in everything, but above all in begetting children—as if Nature had taken pains, I suspect, to keep the disease of wisdom from spreading too widely among mortals.’”
—Erasmus, In Praise of Folly

Lastly,

“Remember to be kind to everyone you meet, for everyone is fighting a great battle.”
—Philo of Alexandria

Lilith: Adam's First Wife

Adam, Eve and Lilith

Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia
1949-1950 Volume 1, Page 64

Adam and Eve

In Rabbinical lore and Moslem theology there is a tendency to deify an ideal ancestor. The Rabbinical Adam is a gigantic being reaching from earth to heaven. God caused a sleep to fall on Adam, and removed a portion of every limb. Thus he lost his vast stature, but remained perfect in every part.

His first wife was Lilith; but she fled from him when Eve was created. The happiness of the human pair excited envy among the angels, and the seraph Sammuel tempted them to their fall. According to the Koran, all the angels paid homage to Adam, except Eblic, who, on account of his refusal, was expelled from Paradise. To gratify his revenge, he tempted them to sin.

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2 Volumes
Hendrickson Publishers
Volume 1, page 48

“Divorce in Magic”

An excellent example of the legal nature of magic occurs in certain Aramaic incantation bowls that take the form of a legal divorce writ, a ‘get’, against the demons, usually Lilith. These texts include the opening formula of the Jewish divorce writ, combined with a reference to a rabbit to authorize the procedure, and the identification of the demon Lilith by name. The Lilith, cited as the adulterous wife, was forbidden to return to the house, in accordance with the usual rules of divorce, which applied to the magical as well as the normal situation.

Although there is no exact parallel from ancient Babylonia to an actual magical divorce writ, there is a corpus of magical texts directed against the demon Ardat Lilî, the equivalent of the Aramaic Lilith. In these incantations the Ardat Lilî a dangerous succubus, seeks sexual union with a human victim to compensate for her premature death, without either spouse or child. “The maiden is like a woman who never had intercourse… like a woman who was never deflowered. The maiden is (one who) never experienced sex in her husbandʼs lap, … never peeled off her clothes on her husbandʼs lap, … no nice looking lad ever loosened her (garment) clasp … who had no milk in her breasts, but only bitter liquid comes out. Who never fulfilled (her) sexuality nor satisfied (her) desires in a manʼs lap.” The ritual in these incantations involves making an image of a female and male demon, dressing them, and conducting a marriage ceremony in which the demonic images are said to offer wedding vows to each other: “May you be my wife… May you be my husband.” The sexual imagery is implicit in the accompanying phrase that “he brought her pleasure like the garden fruit… she brought him pleasure like the garden fruit. The result is that the attentions of the demons are directed toward each other and away from possible human companionship.

The descriptions of this demon as the spirit of a young girl who died without spouse or children finds resonance in Jewish midrashic literature. Lilith in Jewish legend was Adamʼs first wife, who was divorced before conceiving children and consequently takes her revenge on the children of Eve; in this role Lilith assumes the characteristics of another Mesopotamian demon, Lamashtu, who attacks babies at childbirth.

Myth of a Massive Exodus of Hebrews from Egypt and their Overnight Genocidal Conquest

Exodus of Hebrews

Holding Tightly Onto A Bloody Sword

J.P. Holdingʼs Defense of the Bible
Myth of a Massive Exodus of Hebrews from Egypt and their Overnight Genocidal Conquest of a Land Flowing with Blood and Honey
by Edward T. Babinski

At “Theology Web” forums, JP Holding continues to defend ancient tales of Biblical massacres as sociologically and psychologically consistent (or at least not commonly unexpected) for their day. Perhaps he forgets that relying on such an argument only makes the Bible appear as soaked in questions of “situation ethics” as the secular philosophies he rejects. Such a “defense” of the Bible certainly reveals no innate superiority of Biblical ethics if he admits it was common for certain ancient cultures to practice genocide.

In fact, Holding shouldnʼt stop with justifying genocide as a common practice, since neither does the Bible condemn slavery, polygamy, or concubinage, nor refer to any of them as “sins.”

Speaking of the non-sin of godly genocide itʼs interesting to reflect on the case of Puritan colonists in America who arrived at the Biblical conclusion that God had led them to their new home in America which was to them, typologically speaking, a new land of Canaan, and the native Americans were like the Canaanites of old, worshipers of false gods and hence, if the natives refused to convert they were worthy of extermination. Or consider these further examples of “situation ethics” in the Bible: The same Moses who taught “Do not kill” also commanded the Israelites to “kill every [Midianite] male among the little ones.” (Num. 31:17) Even the littlest male child had to die? Hadnʼt Moses or Yahweh ever heard of adoption?

The word “Blessed/Happy” is used to describe two very different sentiments in Matthew 5:9 and Psalm 137:9, respectively: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.” Fair enough, but what about this other use of the word, “blessed?” “Blessed will be the one who dashes your little ones against the rock.” Is enjoying revenge and listening to the craniums of babies smash on rocks anywhere near as “blessed” as promoting peace? Letʼs hope not. Not by a mile.

Other verses likewise depict both man and even Godʼs enjoyment over revenge: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance, he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10) “The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you” (Deut. 28:63)

Whatʼs really weird about such verses is that another verse in the same Bible tells you NOT to “rejoice” when your enemy falls in battle: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles… If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink… He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished.” (Proverbs 17:5; 24:17 & 25:21—Of course the “Proverbs” in the Bible consist of collected wise sayings, many of which might not be original to Israel, since scholars agree that parallels to such wise sayings have been found in collections of wisdom from neighboring cultures in Egypt or Babylonia.)

Or consider Psalm 34:14, “Seek peace, and pursue it,” and add the pro-peace declaration at Jesusʼs birth, “Peace on earth, good will toward men!” (Luke 2:14), and also add a further peace-promoting saying of Jesus, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God” (Mat. 5:9). And then compare those pro-peace messages with two very different saying of Jesus, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” (Mat. 10:34) “Do you suppose that I [Jesus] came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division… I have come to cast fire on the earth and how I wish it were already kindled.” (Luke 12:49,51) Ouch! Bad hair day, Jesus?

Or consider this from Jesus, “Blessed are the merciful” (Matthew 5:7), and then read the following merciless commands of God: “Leave alive nothing that breathes… show them no mercy.” (Deut. 7:2); “The Lord hardened their hearts… that they might receive no mercy.” (Joshua 11:20); “I [the Lord] will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them… A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lordʼs work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed.” (Jer. 13:14; 48:10—NIV)

Thereʼs even this command of Jesus, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44) that you can compare with “Chase your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword.” (Lev. 26:7) “A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed… You are My war-club… with you I shatter old man and youth… young man and virgin.” (Jeremiah 48:10; 51:20,22)

But Aside from Holdingʼs “Sociological Defense”

There is no archeological evidence that a massive army of Hebrew invaders marched from Egypt to take over Cana, exterminating Canaanite city after city. No evidence exists of a massive Hebrew Exodus followed by the violent conquest of a multitude of Canaanite cities. Even those who do not deny an Exodus took place admit that the numbers of the Hebrews who left Egypt could not possibly have been as high as those given in the Bible.

In fact today there are plenty of full-fledged professors of archeology, many of them Jewish, who agree that the Exodus story is way overblown, and that the evidence points in the direction of indigenous people in Canaan taking the place of other indigenous people in a relatively slow fashion. Native people who lived in the hills started moving to the valleys and spreading some new ideas and culture there. The process was relatively less a matter of genocidal conquests one after the other than native and natural assimilation of indigenous cultural changes. In fact the Hebrew language is not filled with Egyptian loan words at all, just as one might expect if their ancestors ALL came over from Egypt after having remained there for four and a half centuries. Instead, the Hebrew language is merely a dialect of the same root language that the Canaanites spoke, Akkadian. (The Catholic Encyclopedia understates the obvious when it admits, “Notwithstanding the long sojourn in Egypt [sic], the number of Egyptian words that have found a place in the Hebrew vocabulary is exceedingly small.”)

For Further Reading

Archaeology and the Exodus” by Rabbi Ken Spiro

“As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Whilting”
eunacom.net/Rabbis_Bible.htm
See also the book, It Ainʼt Necessarily So by Matthew Sturgis which is an excellent introduction to the current state of archaeological discovery, focusing on its divergence from traditional biblical interpretation. It is actually helped in some way by being written by a journalist instead of an archaeologist, so that terms are better explained, and disputes better clarified.

Amazon.co.uk Review
It Ainʼt Necessarily So is a well crafted book which ties in with the ITV series presented by former Beirut hostage John McCarthy. The series and the book recount recent archaeological investigations in the Holy Land and try to show how much or how little the diggers find that match the heroic stories of the Old Testament. The results are not encouraging for Biblical fundamentalists as the author concludes that virtually all of the early stories of the Bible are fabrications. However, not surprisingly, the later one delves into the history of the Holy Land the more the archaeological evidence coincides with the Biblical history.
The author is a professional writer with an interest in historical subjects. He has researched the book professionally and presents the facts with admirable detachment. The problem with the book is that it feels researched by a writer rather than written by an enthusiastic expert. Despite this criticism, it provides a readable and fascinating insight into the historical background of the Bible. If there is a scepticism about the Biblical account there is also a proper scepticism about the conclusions of the rather inexact science of archaeology. As a result we are often left with tantalizing questions about Biblical times which will probably never be answered.—Dwight Longenecker

Synopsis
In six 30-minute programmes scheduled for transmission in autumn 2001 John McCarthy travels through the Holy Land to examine the validity or otherwise of stories from the Old Testament. Bringing in history, archaeology and new research, his intriguing journey is the subject of this thought-provoking tie-in which looks at: the truth behind Jerichoʼs ‘tumbling’ walls; the mystery of the Promised Land; who was Solomon; when did the Jews become monotheists; what was Zion; and when was the text of the Old Testament actually written? The book offers fresh, sometimes unsettling, perspectives on the Bible and its history.
The following are remarks included in the book:
‘The expected discoveries of specific biblical artefacts and buildings, were simply not made, and certainly not at the rate that had once been hoped. Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever-increasing archaeological record became more noticeable and harder to ignore’. (p.28)
‘The later of archaeologist Kathleen Kenyonʼs dates removed the destruction of Jericho from the world of the biblical Joshua by several centuries…For Bill Denver…widely regarded as one of the leading figures in the field, Jericho still makes him shake his head…‘I always say to people - ‘if you want a miracle, hereʼs your miracle - Joshua destroyed a city that didnʼt even exist’.’
The almost total absence of direct archaeological evidence for Joshuaʼs battle is too suggestive to be passed over. And if direct evidence is lacking, so too is indirect corroboration’. (pp.46,47,52)
[Regarding the exodus] ‘after gaining control of Sinai from Egypt in the Six Day War of 1967, Israeli archaeologists could barely wait to explore the area. But despite intensive searches, no trace of the Israelitesʼ presence [to which the bible refers] has ever been found’. (p.56). ‘The absence of any clear evidence for Davidʼs city has called into question the fact of its very existence. The few scattered objects and remains dating from the tenth century which have been recovered from the site appear to suggest, at least to some, that Jerusalem at this time can only have been a minor settlement and not a royal capital’. (p.115).
‘Some scholars have focused attention on the fact that the biblical story of Solomon is entirely uncorroborated by sources outside the Bible. He is presented as a king with widespread international contacts and influence. And yet not a single mention of his name occurs in any contemporary Near Eastern text…this silence is at the very least curious.’ (p.143) ‘If the inscription from Tel Dan accurately reflects events, then the biblical record seems to be a tantalizing mixture of historical fact, confused details, and deliberate distortion’. (p.158).

In his introduction to the book It Ainʼt Necessarily So by Matthew Sturgis, the Beirut hostage John McCarthy who researched a TV series of the same name states that at around 640BC Assyrian power was waning. The new Judaen king, Josiah: saw the opportunity to restore his nationʼs fortunes and began a period of political and religious reforms. What better, or more likely a time for all the national stories to be brought together and edited into a new, rounded whole? Picking up where Hezekiah (his predecessor) had left off, Josiah banned all foreign cults and had their alters destroyed. As the temple in Jerusalem was restored, an ancient scroll, supposedly Mosesʼ book of Deuteronomy, was discovered which endorsed his reforms. So the Bible began to appear - a distillation of a whole range of folk tales, myths and oral traditions imbued with the social and theological;l beliefs of Josiah and his clique. So, defenses of the ferocious god of the OT which fundamentalist Christians feel obliged to mount are defenses of the social and theological beliefs of Josiah and his clique. No wonder they tie themselves up in knots in their ludicrous attempts to equate this god with the god of love which evolved at around the time of Christ and which his teachings crystallized.
They are trapped in the hopeless task of attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.
So what stops them saying: OK, the god of the OT Jews was just exactly the sort of psychopathic deity you'd expect to find being worship by a backwater Bronze Age people?
I think it is because this cruel, vicious, unstable, psychopathic deity is attractive to them, and that being the case, is it surprising that they empathize with those who conducted the iniquities of the Inquisition? To defend them by asserting that we must judge them in the context of a brutal time is to miss the point: The history of Christianity is a history of manners unmodified by the teachings of Christ.
That is whatʼs so shameful.
Christians never hesitate to tell other people how they should behave, but their own behaviour down the centuries provides us with a catalogue of crimes against humanity.

“It Ainʼt Necessarily So” is not available on DVD yet, but here are in-depth summaries of each of the three episodes (I hope that “in-depth summaries” doesnʼt sound too oxymoronic).
Ed

Here, here, and here.

It Ainʼt Necessarily So
Sunday January 19 2003
Summary:
Part one of a 3-part series where British journalist and former Beirut hostage John McGrath looks at the controversial debates over the archaeology of the early history of Israel and Judah and its challenge to The Bible.
Story:
What did the prophet Jeremiah mean when he denounced the “Torah” - which we know as the Five Books of Moses - as “lies from the false pen of scribes”?

It was once almost universally accepted that the Old Testament was a truthful account of the past. Now the early part of the story is generally accepted as mythical - despite the best efforts of numerous television programmes to find Noahʼs Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah and the exact location of the Garden of Eden!

But it now appears that almost the whole thing may be a work of fiction. Archaeologists and biblical scholars are now asserting that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their conquest of the Promised Land of Canaan simply never happened. Some even argue that the Israelites, far from being divinely -inspired radicals who replaced Canaanite idolatry with the worship of a single God, were simply a group who emerged from the Canaanites who continued the old religion until an astonishingly late date. It is being said that there is no evidence at all to show that David and Solomon rules Israel from Jerusalem - or that their great kingdom even existed! Although there clearly was a smaller kingdom of Israel at a later date, there seems to be decisive evidence that the Israelites worshipped a goddess, a consort of their main deity, right up until their destruction in 722 BC.

John McCarthy spent five years as a hostage of Islamic Jihad in Lebanon. He was given a Bible to read, and saw in the story told there the roots of the political problems that had led to his incarceration. In this startling six-part series, he returns to the Middle East to discover whether there is any truth at all in the Old Testament account of early Israel, or whether, as he puts it, “people have been at war for thousands of years because they believe a fairy-tale".

In the course of the series he visits numerous archaeological sites (and takes part in some of the excavations), meets distinguished scholars who were too frightened to publish their finds or reveal even the existence of their research, and finally reaches a conclusion as to how, when and why the Old Testament history was written.

The Walls Come Tumblinʼ Down

John McCarthy introduces himself. Having had the Bible as his reading matter while a hostage in Beirut, and seeing the connection between the story told in the Old Testament and his own predicament, he wants to discover if the history there is really true. At the British Museum he is told that there is no evidence for the ancient Israelites, so he goes to find out. Beginning at the Jordan, he goes to Jericho, where “Joshuaʼs Walls” were supposedly found by John Garstang. He is shown around by American archaeologist, Professor William G. Dever. Dever explains that subsequent excavations by Dame Kathleen Kenyon revealed that Garstang had misdated his finds. To learn how finds are dated, John visits the excavation at Tel Rahov, where Professor Amihai Mazar shows him the stratigraphic structure, and he sees how pottery is collected and examined. Back at Jericho, the current excavator, Hamden Taha, says that he can find no trace of any occupation when Joshua supposedly arrived. But the site is controlled by the Palestine National Authority, and they do not discourage pilgrim tourists by revealing that Joshua cannot have really captured Jericho.

Israeli archaeologist Schlomo Bunimovitz explains that different generations of archaeologists have had different agendas: clerics in the 1930ʼs, and ex-military Israelis in the 1950ʼs and 60ʼs, were interested in validating the Old Testament stories. Now archaeologists are producing a new story, and Professor Zeʼev Hertzog explains that it can no longer be accepted that Israelites came from Egypt and conquered Canaan. John points out that Herzog comes from Tel Aviv, a secular city, and contrasts it with the more religious city of Jerusalem. Herzog says that he is trying to empower todayʼs secular Israelis in their political battles with religious groups, but what he says is then denounced by the leader of the Secular Party (Shinui) as providing anti-zionists with ammunition. Professor Amnon Ben-Tor says that it is unfortunate but unavoidable that this kind of archaeological issue is given a political dimension. John finds that the issue is more disturbing to secular Israelis than religious ones; an Orthodox Rabbi simply asserts that the archaeologists have yet to find the proper evidence. John then visits the excavation at Hazor, where Ben-Tor demonstrates evidence of a destructive fire that appears to correspond to the Biblical description of Joshuaʼs conquest, and argues that the Bible story cannot yet be dismissed. But then Professor Israel Finkelstein points out that at the time in question Canaan was an Egyptian province, a fact of which the Biblical authors seem unaware, and takes John to a substantial Egyptian garrison site near Tel Aviv. Johnʼs conclusion is that it seems that something is clearly wrong with the Old Testament story. A conclusion which seems to be re-enforced when he says that in the next episode he will be investigating doubts that the Israelites were even monotheists.

The programme begins at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where a near-riot is taking place as male Orthodox Jews try to prevent a group of women from holding a service. One of the women observes that if they had tried to dance and sign like Miriam, they would be in prison. John points out that it seems the Bible has been edited to change our understanding of what women were doing: although Miriam is called a Prophet, none of her prophetic statements are included.

Oddly, it seems that the commonest objects found in Israelite archaeological sites are female figurines - evidently idols. Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Magonet explains that a number of Hebrew words are translated as “God”. One such term, the word used in the first sentence of the Book of Genesis, is a plural. Professor William Dever says it is now known that the Israelites worshipped several gods including a goddess, Ashera, and Diana Edelman says that she was a widely worshipped fertility goddess. Dever tells John that when he first discovered an Israelite inscription proving that Ashera was being worshipped he was afraid to publish it, and kept it secret until others found more evidence that the God of the Israelites did have a Goddess as a consort. Visiting the excavation at Tel Rehov, John is shown an Israelite shrine which seems to be a place for worshipping three or four gods and the goddess.

On the track of more evidence of Israelite religion, John is taken by Zvi Lederman to the fortress of Arad, where a full-size Temple has been discovered - the only one ever found from the Kingdom of Judah. Although strikingly devoid of images, it appears to contain evidence of the worship of more than one deity. At the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem he is told that the Bibleʼs description of Solomonʼs Temple also indicates the presence of idols and “graven images”, as used by other religions in the area.

While the Bible does not conceal the idolatrous aspects of Solomonʼs Temple, it does seem to conceal the worship of the Goddess. Diana Edelmen argues that this has been done by inserting small grammatical changes - which so mystified the translators of the Authorized Version that the Goddess Ashera became a grove of trees when she was put into English. The programme then picks up John again at Arad, where he hears how the Temple there was deliberately closed down and put out of use by King Hezekiah at the end of the 8th century BC, as part of a process of centralizing all worship in Jerusalem. This policy was a response to the destruction of the northern kingdom, Israel, by the Assyrians and the total political isolation of Judah. It was accompanied by a major assault on the worship of Ashera, an assault later resumed with more vigour by King Josiah. The Bible itself documents the resistance of women to what was being done.

It Ainʼt Necessarily So
Sunday January 26 2003
Summary:
Part two of a 3-part series where British journalist and former Beirut hostage John McGrath looks at the controversial debates over the archaeology of the early history of Israel and Judah and its challenge to The Bible.

Story:

Programme 2: The Promised Land

Archaeologists now say that the Israelites did not come to Canaan as slaves from Egypt. Where did they come from? In the third part of this startling series John McCarthy looks at the new evidence of Israelite settlement, and the real reason why there are said to be “no human remains”.

According to the Bible 12 cities were destroyed by Joshua, yet there is only archaeological records confirming the destruction of 1 city, Huzor. But the Egyptian records say that Pharaoh Seti destroyed the city. Although the book of Joshua describes the conquest of Canaan, another book of the Bible, the book of Judges, says something different. Joshua attacks and conquers, in Judges they are up in the hill country and canʼt get down to the planes because there are too many military obstacles in the way. Israeli Archaeologists made startling discoveries in the hill country. They evidence theyʼve found of more than 200 sites, is that the area was empty in the late Canaanite period, and it has been filled up with new sites. Movement can be traced from East to West, exactly how the Bible explains the entrance through the Jordan into the Hill country of Canaan. John is taken to the site of one excavated village, from the time of the rise of Israel, where there are the remains of a building considered a new kind of house, the design of which was unknown in the country before these settlements began. Are these the first homes of the Israelites? The other surprise is that pig bones disappear from the archaeological records at this time. At the same time in the lowlands there are a lot of pig bones. It is surprising to see echoes of a Kosher diet in these settlements, which appear when the Bible says the Israelites arrived from Egypt. But people in these settlements came not as slaves from Egypt, but had moved here from other places in Canaan.

There is a contemporary record of a military force entering Canaan from Egypt. But itʼs not a force of Israelites led by Moses and Joshua, itʼs a force of Egyptians led by Pharaoh. Egypt ruled Canaan and Merenptah crushed disobedience in Canaan around 1207BC. The only surviving picture that exists on ancient Israelites shows them being crushed beneath the hooves of Egyptians horses. So there were Israelites, but we know nothing about them. According to an Egyptian Pharaoh in about 1200BCE, there were people living in the hills called Israelites. It was the first time theyʼd been mentioned, and he said he wiped them out. Apart from what is written in the Bible, they are not mentioned again by anyone for the next 350 years.

According to archaeologists there are no human remains. Although unofficially there are many remains, but due to religious fanaticism and threats to their life, no research has been done on these remains. But tests have been done on the Arab and Jewish people of the middle east, and found that they have deep ancestral links and that their genetic affinity is very close. Palestinian Arabs see themselves as being directly descended from Biblical Canaanites. This discovery that they share a genetic heritage with modern Jews, seems to connect with the idea that Israelites and Canaanites were the same people. Some Palestinians say that that makes them the true inheritors of any Israelite claim to the land.
John visits a strange site, with a complicated structure of large un-hewn stones, with an installation full of ashes with bones. When tested all the bones belonged to Kosher animals, which were permitted for sacrifice. In the book of Joshua there is a detailed description of a great ceremony, which the site would seem to confirm. Other scholars are uncomfortable with the identification of Joshuaʼs alter. Not the site, but the story. In 620BC the King wanted to reform worship in Jerusalem, and it looks as though the book of Joshua was produced at this time. The scribes who supported the King and his reform, also said they had found a scroll of Godʼs teaching, which was evidently unknown until they produced it. According to the prophet Jeremiah they were faking history. Moses instructions to build the altar and what to do there, are in this book, which scholars donʼt think was written until 600 years after Joshuaʼs day. But does that mean it never happened?

Amnon Ben-Tor, excavating at Hazor, is convinced that the authors of the Bible used historical records. Thousands of ancient letters and financial records have been found in the near East, and some of them mention a Ruler of Hazor called JAVEEN? The name of the King of Hazor in the book of Joshua. But he cannot have been Joshuaʼs enemy, as he died 500 years earlier. There is also the story of Jerusalem becoming the capital city of David around 1000BC, but archaeologists say there is no trace of that city? Some scholars say that Solomon never existed, that Jerusalem was never the capital of David, and that there is no evidence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as depicted in the Bible. And there is no reference to Davidʼs Jerusalem anywhere outside of the Bible. And the only reference to the Israelites known in Egypt. It is a record of how the Pharaoh Merenptah crushed all opposition in other lands, and it is generally dated around 1200BC, around the time when the Israelites should have been conquering Canaan. But in the Bible the Israelites were not destroyed by Pharaoh, but took over the land and created a great Kingdom ruled by King David of Jerusalem.

But archaeologist have yet to find positive evidence of Israelites in Jerusalem in the 10th Century, or indeed evidence of inhabitants in the City of David during this time.

But does a lack of evidence mean that they did not exist? John goes in search of Goliathʼs people. A few years after Merenptah said he had wiped out the Israelites, his successor, Ramses III, had to deal with a massive invasion of people from the sea. Among them were the Philistines. They ended up settling on the Canaanite coast. An excavation of Ashkelon shows the remains of the Philistines. According to the remains Ashkelon was a thriving city. They also show that the Philistines come out of the world of the Ancient Greeks, which makes sense of some things in the Bible which has seemed baffling. In the story of David and Goliath, David is not wearing armor or a helmet, but Goliath is. The Canaanites and the Israelites did not have helmets, but the Greeks did.

There is much evidence of the Philistine culture, along with bath tubs and cooking utensils, which contrasts with the lack of evidence of a population at Jerusalem. The more detail discovered about the Philistines, the more accurate the old testament seems about them, but the Bible describes the Philistines as always being in the region, when in fact they were new invaders. With these invasions many scholars have suggested that the Israelites were Canaanite refugees farming in the hills because of the upheaval on the coastal planes.

Was the existence of King David mythical? Many scholars thought so, but in 1993 veteran Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran was excavating Tel-Dan, the old city of Dan in the far north of Israel. Here he found a basalt stone with an inscription referring to King David, written about 100 years after Davidʼs time. But with the lack of any other references to him, the question of what kind of King he was remained.
John McCarthy then goes in search of Solomon.

It Ainʼt Necessarily So
Sunday February 2 2003
Summary:
Part three of a 3-part series where British journalist and former Beirut hostage John McGrath looks at the controverisal debates over the archaeology of the early history of Israel and Judah and its challenge to The Bible.

Story:

Programme 3: Solomon

Solomon built the Temple - but did he exist at all? In the third part of this startling series, John visits sites that were supposedly built by Solomon, but which some archaeologists say were built by quite different rulers. Perhaps the tiny community of Samaritans have a more accurate history.

After being unable to find evidence of life in the City of David during King Davidʼs reign, John McCarthy visits King Solomonʼs mines in search of signs of Solomon. Once he arrives though, he is told that they were not in fact, Solomonʼs mines. The age of King Solomon is recorded in the Bible as the one time when an Israelite King ruled the whole land and it was at peace. The mines were supposed to have given King Solomon his fabulous wealth. But there is no evidence of King Solomon in the area, instead there is evidence of Egyptian use during the 12th Century. But in fact the mines do not even appear in the Bible, they are just a 19th Century story. Jonathan Tubb of the British Museum states there is no evidence for King Solomon and his kingdom.

Magido is a city said in the Bible to have been re-built by Solomon. McCarthy visits the site, where structures excavated in the 30ʼs were identified as King Solomonʼs stables. Baruch Halpern informs John that the ruins probably werenʼt Solomonʼs, and that they probably werenʼt stables. One theory is that in fact the site produced opium, and there is evidence of the export of drugs from the area in that time. And the site is dated as 9th Century, around the time of Ahab. Then at Hazor they discover what appears to be a pipe.

According to the Bible King Solomon rebuilt three cities including Hazor and Magido. In the 1950ʼs an Israeli archaeologist found complex gate house in all three, and declared them King Solomonʼs gates. But the gates were built at the time of Ahab, later than Solomon. Archaeologists have yet to find evidence of Solomonʼs temple. Though the site does confirm some of the stories in the Bible relating to Ahab and Jezebel.

Amihai Mazar is searching a few miles from Magido at Tel-Rehov in attempt to find evidence of Israelites living in this area during the 10th Century. Mazar believes that pottery found at this site can be associated with the time of Solomon. But Mazar also believes that Solomon was not as great as the Bible painted him.

There is another theory proposed by the Samaritans, people who claim to be descended from the original inhabitants of Ahabʼs kingdom. The Samaritans believe that Jerusalem was not that important until after the time of Solomon, with this theory gaining academic support.

Until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, the earliest version of the testament was a 1000 years old, but these are a thousand years older than that. Yet stories of Solomon and his temple are much earlier.

The Old Testament description of the ancient Israelites is quite different from the story now being revealed. John McCarthy concludes this series by investigating when and why the Old Testament was written. Was it connected with events that led to the destruction of Jerusalem?

In 722 BC the forces of Assyria moved south and simply removed Israel from the map. They made a note that they deported 27,290 inhabitants. The history of Israel was over. This also meant that for the first time in ancient near eastern history, the whole region is under one political control with a blending of peoples. But the kingdom of Judah did not submit, and Jerusalem was swelling with many refugees arriving. By the end of the 8th Century BC all the nations surrounding Judah vanished, with all their respective gods being cast down while the Assyrians imposed their own. After battles with Judah, all that remained was Jerusalem and their own god.

A bit more on the above book

Last But Not Least

Thereʼs the life and work of the Ancient Near Eastern archeologist, William G. Dever, son of a fundamentalist preacher. After starting his education at a small Christian liberal arts college in Tennessee he went to a Protestant theological seminary that exposed him to critical study of the Bible, a study that at first he resisted. In 1960 it was on to Harvard and a doctorate in Biblical theology. For thirty-five years he worked as an archaeologist, excavating in the Near East, and he is now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona. In his book, What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, he writes, “While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history.” He adds: “After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible ‘historical figures.’” He writes of archaeological investigations of Moses and the Exodus as having been “discarded as a fruitless pursuit.” He is not saying that the Biblical Moses was entirely mythical, though he does admit that “…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.” About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are “clearly additions to the ‘pre-history’ by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the ‘promised land,’ and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical.” Dever writes that “the whole ‘Exodus-Conquest’ cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term ‘myth’: perhaps ‘historical fiction,‘ but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs.”

Deverʼs conclusions about what archaeology tells us about the Bible are not very pleasing to fundamentalists or conservative Evangelicals, and I gather that Dever and his colleagues of high standing likewise dismiss fundamentalists and hard-core conservative Evangelicals who want to consider themselves scholars without accepting that which good scholars must do: engage in extensive critical analysis. Those testifying for Deverʼs book (on the back cover) are: Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Divinity and Old Testament at Harvard University; David Noel Freedman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; Philip M. King, Professor at Boston College and author of Jeremiah; William W. Hallo, Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University; and Bernhard W. Anderson, Professor of Old Testament, Boston University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. Like Dever, these are not a bunch of radical revisionists, but moderates in the field of Christian archeology. Deverʼs latest book is, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

Biblical interpreters like Holding will gain no encouragement after reading it, nor after reading Deverʼs latest work, Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel.

The “Born Again” Dialogue In the Gospel of John

Born Again Nicodemus and Jesus

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A FAR MORE COMPLETE ONE, INCLUDING QUOTATIONS FROM AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR, CLICK HERE TO READ THE NEW UPDATED PIECE.

Christians sometimes attribute coincidences to “God leading them.” Hereʼs a coincidence I experienced. I had just scanned in an article by Dr. A. J. Mattill Jr. on the questionable historicity of the Gospel of John when compared with the three earlier Gospels, and got into my car and popped in a tape from Dr. Ehrmanʼs course (from the Teaching Company) on “The Historical Jesus,” and the first thing he started speaking about was the Gospel of John, chapter 3, in which Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night and is told by Jesus, “Ye must be born again.‘” That particular tape in Ehrmanʼs course was not even about the Gospel of John, but merely presented a diverting scholarly point about what studying the meanings of words in different languages can teach you. So I was not seeking more info on the Fourth Gospelʼs “born again” chapter, rather this new info just popped out at me, simply by virtue of listening to Ehrmanʼs tapes in order. Only moments before I had added some comments to Mattillʼs paper on that exact subject, the “Ye must be born” chapter 3 dialogue in the Fourth Gospel. So, what an amazing coincidence. If I was still a Christian, I might believe such a coincidence was heavenly providence granting me aid to those who ask intelligent questions concerning the historical veracity of Scripture.

Hereʼs Ehrmanʼs point…
In that chapter of John, Nicodemus says he is puzzled by Jesusʼ statement that “Ye must be born again,” because as Nic asks, “How can a man reenter his motherʼs womb?” The entire conversation in that late Gospel is in Greek, and Nicʼs puzzlement can be attributed to the fact that the Greek word translated as “again” is a word with a double meaning in the Greek language, because it can also mean “again” or “a second time” or “from above.” Dr. Ehrman then points out that the Jews in that day and age spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and in Aramaic the word would NOT have had a double meaning and Nicodemus would not have been puzzled, nor had to ask “how can a man reenter his motherʼs womb.” That raises questions as to the authenticity of that late appearing dialogue. Though a blind faith fundamentalist could “argue” or “prevaricate” or “try to push under the carpet” this valid historical question, and substitute for it his rewriting of the historical concensus concerning the language that people spoke at that time and place, and insist that Jesus and the Jerusalem Pharisee were “both speaking Greek” in that particular conversation, and that it was inerrantly accurate, instead of the whole dialogue being a later creation by a Greek-speaking Gospel author.

As for the Aramaic question, even the majority of inerrantist Christian scholars agree Jesus spoke Aramaic and agree it was the language of the Jews in Palestine in that day and age, including the language of Pharisees, Jesus and his flock.

This leads to the further point of why the first three Gospels, which are all written in Greek, contain so many word for word reproductions even of incidental phrases that connect speeches of Jesus. The reply by scholars is that the evidence lay in favor of the Synoptic Gospels NOT being three independent testimonies, but redactions of one another, starting with one original Gospel in Greek and the later two Synoptic authors copying and editing/redacting the original Greek phrases from the earliest Gospel. For instance, Matthew and Luke reproduce over 90% of Mark; yet they disagree MOST from one another in exactly the right expected places—the places where they could not follow Mark, such as nativity tales and post-resurrection tales.

As Iʼve written elsewhere, the whole idea in the Fourth Gospel about Jesus right from the beginning of his ministry being called the Lamb of God, the Messiah, and initiating hidden teachings “at night” about “ye must be born again,” and initiating mystical sacraments (“ye must be born of water and the spirit to inherit eternal life”) all right from the start of his ministry, is ludicrious when compared with the Synoptics, especially the earliest Synoptic from which the later two were derived that has Jesus even keep quiet about being the Messiah.

Historical scholarship beats C. S. Lewisʼs innane comments about Biblical criticism any day. Lewis admitted no universally applied criteria when studying Scripture such as are recognized by historical scholars. He only acknowledged such criteria in a less than universal fashion whenever it suited his particular theological viewpoint, such as the compromise he made between the Bibleʼs earliest creation myths and that he agreed were myths, but then declared every line of Jesus in the New Testament to be “dominical sayings” that he simply assumed were equally historically truthful and certain in all four Gospels.

The Lowdown on God's Showdown

Second Coming of Jesus

by Edward T. Babinski

Many evangelical Christians tremble with excitement at the thought that they are the “last generation” and “Jesus is due to return soon.” Others are less excitable and propose that Jesusʼ “return” might still be far off. Neither view appears to be correct judging by the plain words of the New Testament - words that armies of theologians have spent centuries trying to divide up and “conquer,” or in this case, “explain away.” Letʼs examine some of those words to discover exactly what it is about them that requires mountains of ingenious explanations from Dispensationalists, Preterists, and other varieties of evangelical Christian apologists. Naturally, each has its “explanations,” mountains of them, so unfortunately this paper can only provide a peek at the critical verses themselves, the verses that need “explaining” in order to fit them into this or that apologetic scheme and make the Bible “true” in all things. We shall begin with a peek at verses in the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, and then proceed backward in time to letters from the Apostles, and save for last the words allegedly spoken by Jesus.

The book of Revelation [1], the final book in the New Testament, begins:

The revelation…which God gave to show…the things which must [dei] [2] shortly take place. [1:1]

The author addressed his letter to several churches in Asia Minor, circa 65-95 A.D., and continued:

He [Jesus] is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him…Repent therefore; or else I am coming to you [the church at Pergamum] quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth…[To the church at Thyatira] hold fast until I [Jesus] come…Because you [the church at Philadelphia] have kept the word of my perseverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come [mello] [3] upon the whole world…I am coming quickly…hold fast what you [Philadelphia] have. [1:7; 2:16; 2:25; 3:10-11]

And in the last chapter of Revelation the author repeated:

…God…sent His angel to show…the things which must shortly take place…I am coming quickly…do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near…I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done…Yes, I am coming quickly…Come Lord Jesus. [22:6,7,10,12,20]

Compare the Old Testament book of Daniel, whose author was commanded to “seal up the book until the end of time”:

…Conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time……These words are concealed and sealed up until the end of time. [12:4,9]

Daniel was composed from the alleged point of view of a Jew living in ancient Persia who had visions of “the end of time,” or, “the end of the age,” when all men would “rise again” and be judged [12:2,13]. “Seal up the book,” he was commanded, until the day of final judgment. But the author of Revelation was told, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book,” adding that what is revealed therein “must shortly take place.” The intent of the author of Revelation in alluding to the “non-sealing” of his book is obvious. The author of Revelation believed that he was living at the “end of time” which Daniel predicted, and that Jesus “must shortly” “come” and judge the world “quickly.” (The fact that the book of Daniel first came to light - or shall we say was “unsealed” - relatively soon before Jesusʼ own day, is further evidence that people expected the world to be judged then.) Let us move on to the New Testament letters of the Apostles, beginning with a particularly obvious failed prediction in the letter of James:

Come now, you rich [those living at the time this letter was written], weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you…It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure…Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand……Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. [5:1,3,7-9]

The author of James sought to address the impatience of some at the delay of Jesusʼ return. He reassured them that the “the coming of the Lord is at hand,” “the Judge is standing right at the door.” And consider these passages from the letter to the Hebrews:

…In these last days……He [Jesus] would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. [4]…As you [the first century Christians being addressed] see the day drawing near……For yet a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay. [1:2; 9:26; 10:25,37]

Notice the statement, above, that “…He [Jesus] would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” “At the consummation” can also be translated, “at the end of the age.” And Jesus, according to the gospel of Matthew, informed his listeners exactly what “the end of the age” referred to:

…The harvest is the end of the age…at the end of the age…the Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. [Matthew 13:40-41 - based on the description of “the end of the age” found in Daniel 12]

Did the apostle Paul make equally blatant predictions of Jesusʼ imminent return? Let us look at what he wrote to the believers at Corinth:

…The rulers of this age…are passing away [“will not last much longer” - Todayʼs English Version]…Do not go on passing judgment before the time [i.e., “before the time” of final judgment which he predicted was near at hand], but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of menʼs hearts…"…The time has been shortened so that from now on both those who have wives should be as though they had none [i.e., Paul preached that the time was so “short” that married Christian couples “from now on” ought to abstain from having sex! [5] ]; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it [i.e., there was no time for marriage or buying or selling - only in a state of holy celibacy could the Elect remain pure while awaiting the soon return of Christ]; for the form of this world is passing away [“This world, as it is now, will not last much longer” - Todayʼs English Version]……These things were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come…Proclaim the Lordʼs death until he comes [i.e., Paul did not say, “Proclaim the Lordʼs death until the day you die,” but rather, “until he comes,” which means that he considered Christʼs coming to be nearer than the time when the believers he was writing to would all be dead]. We [Paul and the first century believers being addressed] shall not all sleep……At the last trumpet…the dead will be raised…and we shall be changed. Maranatha [=“Come Lord”] [1 Cor 2:6; 4:5; 7:29-31; 10:11; 11:26; 15:51-52; 16:22]

Or consider what Paul wrote to the believers at Thessalonica:

…How you turned to God from idols…to wait for His Son from heaven [Compare 1 Cor 1:7, “…awaiting eagerly the revelation (revealing) of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and, Heb 9:28, “Christ…shall appear a second time…to those who eagerly await Him.” These instructions to “eagerly wait” for Christʼs return reveal how imminent the second coming of Jesus was believed to be.]…For who is our…crown…Is it not even you [the first century Christians being addressed], in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming?…May establish your hearts…before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we [Paul and the first century Christians being addressed] who are alive and remain [notice how Paul included himself as one who will still be alive] until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep…the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air……May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Thes 1:9,10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-17; 5:23]

Keep in mind to whom Paul wrote the above letters, and also that Paul claimed that he was repeating a “word” that he had received directly from “the Lord.” What marvelous truth was revealed to Paul in this astonishing revelation? Namely, that “we” [the first century Christians who “remained alive” at the time this letter was written, including Paul, its author] “shall be caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air!” For Paul there was no doubt that Jesus would arrive before he and the believers he addressed would all be dead. “We,” including himself, “shall not all sleep” [1 Cor 15:51]. Yet all of those to whom Paul once wrote, including Paul, now “sleep” - the “word of the Lord” notwithstanding. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul remained just as certain that Jesus would return shortly:

…It is just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution…these will pay the penalty…when He comes…[2 Thes 1:6-10]

That is to say, Jesus would be revealed from heaven “with his mighty angles in flaming fire” soon enough to “relieve” the afflictions of the Thessalonians, and Paul, and other first century Christians! Compare Paulʼs expectation of supernatural judgment and “relief” with this prediction found in the letter of Jude:

…Certain persons have crept in unnoticed [i.e., in Judeʼs day], those who were long beforehand marked out for condemnation…about these [i.e., ungodly persons living in Judeʼs day]…Enoch…prophesied saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment…” [4,14-15]

Judeʼs message, like Paulʼs, and like the author of Revelationʼs was that Jesus would soon arrive, punish those who were afflicting the churches throughout the “world,” and provide “relief” for steadfast believers. Or take these passages from Paulʼs letter to the believers at Philippi:

…He who began a good work in you [the first century Christians being addressed] will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus [i.e., rather than saying, “until the day you die,” which he assumed was not going to happen to all of them, since, as Paul pointed out in 1 Cor, “we shall not all sleep!”]……In order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ [Compare 1 Tim 6:14, “Keep the commandment…until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”]……We eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ……Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. [Philip 1:6,10; 3:20; 4:5]

What about Paulʼs famous letter to the Christians at Rome?

…The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is soon [mello] to be revealed to us……The whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now……We…groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.…Knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed! The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand……The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. [Rom 8:18,22-23; 13:11-12; 16:20]

The above verses demonstrate that no one has ever preached more explicitly that Jesus would return (even “must” return - Rev 1:1) in their lifetimes, than those “inspired” New Testament letter writers who addressed the churches throughout the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. Oddly enough, the fundamental meaning of the verses, pointed out above, is denied by “fundamentalist” Christians. They say that the authors of the letters to those first century churches could not have preached the erroneous message that Jesusʼ return was truly imminent. That would make the New Testament chock-full of “false prophets!” One attempt to divert attention from the false predictions we have examined is to say that despite the plain language they used, the apostles could not have predicted Jesusʼ return was so near, because even the apostles knew that certain things had to happen before before Jesus returned, and surely the New Testament authors recognized that those things had not yet occurred in their lifetimes, or in the first century. Therefore, they could not have truly believed nor predicted that Jesusʼ return was imminent.” To which I would respond, “Au contraire! Those things, according to the New Testament authors, had already occurred in their lifetimes. The Bible tells us so.” What “things” had to occur before Christ could return?

1) The Gospel had to be preached to the “whole world.” But Paul, and the author of Revelation, agreed that the gospel had already been preached to “the whole world,” i.e., the Roman Empire, from Spain to Jerusalem. [6] Therefore nothing prevented Jesus from returning “shortly”:

Their voice [of first century Christian preachers] has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world……The revelation of the mystery…now is manifested and…According to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations. [Rom 10:18; 16:25-26]

…The gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing……The gospel…which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. [Col 1:5-6,23]

2) The Anti-Christ must first be revealed. But Paul and the author of the Johannine letters taught:

The mystery of lawlessness is already at work…Pray…that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly…[2 Thes 2:7; 3:1]

The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining…The world is passing away [“This world, as it is now, will not last much longer” - Todayʼs English Version], and also its lusts…It is the last hour [circa 100 A.D.]; and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. [1 John 2:17,18] [7]

How contemporary Christian evangelists and evangelical scholars can interpret the “last hour” as “2000 years hence” is beyond me. Maybe we should all chip in and mail such evangelists new watches. Speaking of feeble attempts to explain Jesusʼ delay, one often cited is found in 2nd Peter. That such an attempt was made at all in a late-dated letter that someone chose to compose in the name of an apostle, demonstrates to what lengths the church felt it had to resort in order to save face. But before examining the excuse for Jesusʼ delay in 2nd Peter it is important to point out the unequivocal words predicting the nearness of the end found in the previous letter, 1st Peter:

…The glory that is soon [mello] to be revealed…[5:1]

He [Jesus] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times [or last days, or end of times]…[1:20]

The end of all things is at hand. [4:7]

Then in 2nd Peter 3:8 a feeble attempt is made to explain Jesusʼ delay by stating:

With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Such a late attempt to make excuses for Jesusʼ delay is an obvious failure. It makes a mockery of all the clear predictions made by earlier authors in the New Testament. Indeed, it is like saying that when God “inspired” the biblical authors to say they were living in the “last hour,” or in the “last days,” or when He inspired the author of Hebrews to write that it was only a “very little while” before the “Son of Man” would “come,” God really meant “hours” and “days” and “very little whiles” that were “thousands” of years long. In other words, it implies that God was unable to put words into the minds of his earlier prophets that meant what He fundamentally intended them to mean, and had to cover His tracks at a later date (i.e., in a late-dated letter) by redefining a host of words. The excuse offered by the author of 2nd Peter even contradicted the predictions in 1st Peter that “the glory is soon to be revealed,” and the “end of all things is at hand.” Moreover, even the author of 2nd Peter did not suspect that the end was very far off, certainly he did not imagine it to be as far as 2000 years in the future, for he also wrote:

God is not slack concerning his promise, the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night: what manner of persons ought you [the second century Christians he was addressing] to be…looking for, and hastening the coming of God…we are looking for new heavens, and a new earth. [2 Pet 3:9-13]

And he added:

…In the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” [2 Pet 3:3-4]

Note that this applied to “mockers” who were disturbing the faithful at the time 2nd Peter was written, circa 130 A.D.! “For when they [note the use of the present tense] maintain this, it escapes their notice…” [2 Pet 3:5]. Obviously these “mockers” were asking, “Where is the promise of his coming,” because the earliest Christians like Paul and James and the authors of the Johannine letters, and the author of Hebrews, and the author of Revelation all predicted the very soon return of Jesus in final judgment of the whole world. By the time 2nd Peter was written, these “fathers” had all “fallen asleep,” including, one might add, Peter himself, the alleged author of this very late letter. So somebody in the church took it upon themselves to write (or should I say, felt inspired by God to make up excuses) a pseudonymous letter attributed to Peter and supposedly written before his death, as a last ditch effort to counter such “mockery.” But it is this letter and the false predictions found in the New Testament which mock themselves. The author of the letter of Jude (a letter composed even later than the pseudonymous 2nd Peter) reproduced the above passage from 2 Peter to illustrate that the end could not be far off, since “mockers” were plaguing the church in his day with this very same question!

Certain persons have [present tense, i.e., in Judeʼs day] crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for condemnation…these men revile the things they do not understand…about these Enoch prophesied saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment.”

…But you, beloved, remember the words spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last times there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” [Jude 4, 10, 14-15, 17-18]

Thus, the authors of both Jude and 2nd Peter agreed that they were addressing mockers then plaguing the church. The “last times” for the authors of 2 Peter and Jude were their own - in the second century A.D.

Now letʼs skip back in time to hear what John the Baptist had to say about how near the end was. Before Jesus began a ministry of his own, John the Baptist expected the end to arrive very soon. [8] He preached:

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [Matt 3:2]

Now the ax is laid to the root of the trees: Therefore every tree that does not bring forth fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. [Matt 3:10]

Who warned you [Pharisees] to flee from the wrath which is about to come [mello]? [Matt 3:7]

Jesus picked up where John the Baptist left off. Jesusʼ disciples were instructed by their master to make a lightning-fast preaching tour, taking no money, extra tunics, nor staff, and to preach, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” [Matt 10:7]. Echoing the Baptistʼs fiery illustrations, Jesus added:

I have come to cast fire on the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! [Lk 12:49]

Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. [Lk 12:51-53; see Matt 10:34-36 for parallel verses]

Notice that Jesus, according to the above verses, is speaking of inaugurating the same “tribulation” that he predicted would immediately precede judgment day! Jesus is of course, the “missing link” connecting the Baptistʼs “last generation” predictions with Paulʼs. In fact, in the same section of Matthew that speaks of Jesus instructing “the twelve” on their lightning-fast mission to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” there also appears a verse predicting the “Son of Man” was going to “come” soon:

When they persecute you [the first century disciples whom Jesus was sending out] in one town, flee to the next, for truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of Man comes. [Mat 10:23] [9]

Other verses in Matthew are equally explicit as to the nearness of the “coming” of the “Son of Man”:

For the Son of Man is about to come [mello] in the glory of his Father with His angels; and will recompense every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. [Mat 16:27-28]

The Markan version of this saying reads:

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he was saying to them, Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. [Mk 8:38-9:1] [10]

The noted translator and editor of apocalyptic literature, professor James H. Charlesworth, elucidated:

To “come in power” is an expression that has special importance for the apocalyptists, like the authors of Daniel, the Apocalypse of John, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. It denotes a total alteration of time and the earth, and an end to normal history. [11]

Not only did Jesus, according to the gospel accounts, predict that the Son of Man would “come in power” before “some standing” there had “tasted death;” but he also predicted that the “Son of Man would come” to “gather his elect from the four winds” before “this generation,” meaning Jesusʼ own, had “passed away,” which coincides perfectly with his former statement. What were the circumstances of this prediction? According to Matthew, chapter 24 [see also Mark 13 and Luke 21] Jesus predicted that the magnificent Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. Whereupon his disciples asked him:

…When will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? [Mat 24:3] [12]

Jesus then laid out a number of events and signs, like false Christs arising, wars, earthquakes, famines [Luke added “pestilences” and “terrors and great signs from heaven”]; his followers would be persecuted and brought before kings and governors; the gospel would be preached to the whole world; a “desolating sacrilege” would be set up “in the holy place” [Instead of mentioning that “sacrilege,” Luke substituted: “you will see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand”]; followed by a time of great tribulation when people in Judea should flee to the mountains; a time of tribulation so great that if it were not ended “no human being would be saved” [Luke alone adds, “great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people (the Jews),” they will fall by the sword, and be lead away as captives to “all the nations,” and “Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”] [13]; then Jesus warned of “false Christs and false prophets” [plural, as opposed to a singular “anti-Christ”]; and pointed out how unmistakable the coming of the Son of Man would be [“as the lightning shines from the east to the west, lighting up the sky from one side to the other” Mat & Lk]. [14] Jesus added that “immediately” [Mat 24:29] after this time of tribulation the sun and moon would darken; stars would fall from heaven; “they will see the Son of Man coming;” and his angels would “gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven” [Luke adds, “when these things begin to take place (including Jerusalemʼs fall in 70 A.D.), look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near”]. Jesus then spoke of the fig tree (the budding of its leaves tells you summer is near), “when you see these things happening [Matthew says, ‘all these things…’], recognize that He is near” [Luke substitutes, “recognize that the kingdom of God is near”]; Matthew & Mark add, “…at the door.” Followed by the prediction:

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mat 24:34 = Mk 13:30]

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. [Lk 21:32]

Iʼll let David F. Strauss (1808-1874), the German philosopher and historian of religion, sum up the case thus far:

Thus in these discourses Jesus announces that shortly after that calamity, which (especially according to the representation in Lukeʼs gospel) we must identify with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and within the term of his own generation, he would visibly make his second advent in the clouds, and terminate the existing dispensation. Now as it will soon be eighteen centuries since the destruction of Jerusalem, and an equally long period since the generation contemporary with Jesus disappeared from the earth, while his visible return and the end of the world which he associated with it, have not taken place: the announcement of Jesus appears so far to have been erroneous…Such inferences from the discourse before us would inflict a fatal wound on Christianity; hence it is natural that exegetists should endeavor by all means to obviate them. [15]

Christian apologists have tried to sub-divide the context of this prediction, making, “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” refer only to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and not also to “the coming of the Son of Man.” They ignore the fact that Jesusʼ “this generation” prediction is preceded in all three gospels by Jesusʼ discussion of the “coming of the Son of Man” and intimately linked with it, contextually. Such apologists also ignore that Jesus said, “all these things,” and divert attention to Jesusʼ other saying (which appears a few verses after Jesusʼ long disproved prediction), that “no man knows the day or the hour.” However, they forget that “days and hours” imply nearness in time. “Days and hours” lie within a “generation.” As Strauss pointed out over a century ago:

[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a “generation”), and the determination of the precise date and time (the “day and the hour”) at which it will occur; the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give. [16]

Furthermore, having admitted that he did not know the precise “day or the hour,” Jesus continued to address his listeners as though that “day or hour” could not be further than a mere “generation” away:

Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] do not know which day your Lord is coming…at an hour when you do not think he will [Mat 24:36,42,44]

Definitely not a “day” or “hour” that was “two millenniums” from then! Compare Luke 21:36:

But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you [his first century listeners] may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.

Obviously, Jesus included the “coming of the Son of Man” among “all these things that are about to take place.”

As professor James D. Tabor explains:

In the [end-times chapters of the gospels], Mk 13, Mat 24, and Lk 21, Jesus connects the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple to the more general “signs of the end of the age”: false prophets, war and disruptions, earthquakes, famines, pestilence, persecution, and a world-wide proclamation of his message…The scheme is very tightly connected, and Jesus declares at the end that “this generation shall not pass away until all these thing are fulfilled” [Mk 13:30]. [17]

A.J. Mattill Jr. adds, concerning an important verse in Matthewʼs end-time chapter:

The eutheos of Matthew 24:29 should be translated “immediately” as elsewhere [in the New Testament] and means that at once after the tribulation connected with the destruction of Jerusalem there were to occur cosmic disasters and the coming of the Son of Man to write the finis to the world drama. [18]

To Dr. Mattillʼs argument may be added these observations of Dr. Strauss:

Not only does Mark in 13:24 [a parallel to Matthew 24:29], by the words, “in those days, after that tribulation,” place the [“coming of the Son of Man”] in uninterrupted chronological succession with [the tribulation connected with the destruction of Jerusalem]; but also, shortly after the [coming of the Son of Man] is discussed in each of the narratives, we find the assurance that all this will be witnessed by the existing generation. [19]

Another attempt to save face by Christian apologists is to reinterpret “this generation” as “that generation,” i.e., to say that Jesus was addressing a much later generation, not his own. But, this explanation is also unacceptable. Jesus used the phrase “this generation” many times, unmistakably in reference to his contemporaries. It does not refer to people born two thousand years hence:

It shall be required of this generation…[Lk 11:51]

The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation…[Mat 12:41 = Lk 11:32]

This is an evil generation…[Lk 11:29]

This adulterous and sinful generation…[Mk 8:38]

That upon you [the Pharisees] may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth. Truly, I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. [Mat 23:35-36]

The final verse listed above is nearly identical to “Truly, I say to you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place,” so there is no doubt which “generation” Jesus was addressing. As Christian theologian, Dewey M. Beegle, has reminded Hal Lindsey fans:

If Jesus was referring to a distant future, the least he could have done was to say “that generation” and thus give his hearers a clue that the events he was discussing would occur in some future generation, not theirs. But “this” is close to “that,” and so [Hal Lindsey fans] just add a little filler. Cover things from this end and do not worry too much about how the disciples and early Christians understood things. [20]

Even the evangelical Christian scholar, F. F. Bruce, admitted:

The phrase “this generation” is found too often on Jesusʼ lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, ‘that generation’ would have been a more natural way of referring to it than ‘this generation.’ [21]

So, if words have any fundamental meaning at all, then the authors of the Gospels told their readers that Jesus predicted the world to end within a “generation” of his preaching. Besides which, people predicting “the end of the world” always complain loudly about the evils of their own generation, exactly as Jesus did in the many instances cited above!

Conclusion

Paul Johnson is a well known defender of orthodox Christianity whose works include A History of the Jews, A History of Christianity, The Intellectuals (which focused on a small number of “left wing intellectuals” well known for their sexual escapades - leaving out any with boring sex lives, and of course leaving out any discussion of the sex lives of prominent “right wing intellectuals” like himself, a self-admitted adulterer [22] ). Mr. Johnson is also the author of a little booklet in which he touted his faith in the historicity of the Gospels (a booklet popular with evangelical Christians). Yet even Johnson admitted:

The whole of Jesusʼ work implied that the apocalypse was imminent; some of his sayings were quite explicit on the point…The prima facie view of the Jesus mission was that it was an immediate prelude to a Last Judgment. Hence the urgency of the pentecostal task, an urgency which Paul shared throughout his life [“…brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly…” 2 Thes 3:1], so that his final hope was to carry the good news, while there was still time, to Spain - for him, “the ends of the earth.” [23]

C. S. Lewis, the evangelical Christian apologist, agreed that Jesus made a mistake in predicting that his generation would live to see the coming of the Son of Man in final judgment:

The answer of the theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. This, no doubt, is true, though it cannot be imagined. Nor indeed can the unconsciousness of Christ in sleep be imagined, not the twilight of reason in his infancy; still less his merely organic life in his motherʼs womb. [24]

Christian theologian, Dewey M. Beegle, reached the same conclusion as Johnson and Lewis:

Most conservatives reject the plain meaning of the passage, “This generation shall not pass away until all these things take place,” because it means admitting that Jesus was mistaken about the time. The issue is intensified because Jesus added, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” [Mat 24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 21:33]. All attempts to reinterpret “generation” are armchair approaches to solve our difficulty in understanding the passage. As [previously] noted, the clear-cut testimony of the rest of the New Testament is that the disciples, Paul, and the early church understood Jesus literally. If Jesus really referred to events more than 2000 years in the future, then he was playing word games with his disciples. When we look at the problem honestly there are two basic options: either Jesus was leading his disciples to think something different from what he had in mind, or he was mistaken. The latter is far more preferable because it was done in innocence and shows his true humanity. [25]

Of course if we admit Jesus to have been in error on a very important factual and doctrinal claim like the near end of the world, then we must at least potentially think twice about his other teachings. Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was a famous deist who published at the age of seventy-three the first volume of a critique of Christianity that took note of many of the same passages we have examined above. We may estimate the impact of Volume One from the 150 replies that sought to counter it, including those from Bishops Butler and Berkeley. Tindalʼs conclusion concerning this particular matter merits repeating:

If Jesus and his apostles, for whatever motives, were mistaken in a matter of this consequence, how could I be certain that any one of them may not be mistaken in any other matter? If they were not inspired in what they said in their writings concerning the then coming of Christ; how could they be inspired in those arguments they built on a foundation far from being so? [26]

How indeed? Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), a preacherʼs son who grew to become Americaʼs greatest freethinker, focused on a few of “those arguments they built on a foundation far from being so” when he wrote:

That generation [of Jesusʼ day] was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat…Filled with the thought of coming change, he [Jesus] insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster…He endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. We know now - if we know anything that Jesus was mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near, he said, “Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.” It was in view of the destruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of his rainment. [The parable even has an appropriately apocalyptic ending: “The grass of the field that is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace!” Mat 6:30] Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge. [27]

New Testament theologian, Robert M. Price, agrees with Ingersoll that Jesusʼ plea for “moral perfectionism” directly resulted from his mistaken belief that Godʼs judgment day was imminent:

Jesusʼ eschatology accounts for the radical perfectionism of the application of his values, e.g., “Love your enemies…bless those who curse you…if struck on one cheek, turn the other…lay not up for yourself treasure on earth [do not save money!]…Whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either [leaving you naked, since those two items summed up the clothing worn by ancient Near Easterners]…give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back [!], etc.” I canʼt buy Lutherʼs way out, i.e., that Jesus was showing us how we canʼt obey these values, in order to prepare us for the gospel of justification by faith! Sorry, Luther! The text repeatedly says, “Do this to reach the kingdom, do this or be punished.” I am thinking foremost of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is depicted as saying:

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets…Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheepʼs clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire [apocalyptic speech]. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house [apocalyptic speech]; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]

Most perfectionists are neurotics: was Jesus? Not if he predicated perfectionism as the only way to live due to the nearness of Godʼs judgment day! Then it would seem feasible! [28]

So, exactly what is the lowdown on Godʼs showdown? Is it that Jesus, the “false prophet,” may not have been “neurotic” after all? No. The lowdown on Godʼs showdown is that it never took place as predicted. And how likely is it to occur in our era, when the most “inspired” believers, living and writing in Jesusʼ era, including Jesus himself, were certain that it was going to occur in theirs? Believers in an inerrant Bible should wonder why the Bibleʼs errorʼs concerning this matter are so plainly visible. But then, as Arthur Koestler once pointed out, “Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse.” Indeed, how can Christianity compete for world-wide approval against the host of faiths and non-faiths that now litter the earth, when its own holy book informs whomever reads it that the race to demonstrate the superior truth of Christianity ended 2000 years ago by Jesusʼ own admission?

This ridiculous idea survived century after century. If the world did not end under the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, it had to end under Theodosius; if the end had not come under Theodosius, it had to occur under Attila the Hun. And up to the twelfth century this idea enriched the monasteries. A great many of the charters and donations to the monasteries began thus: “Christ reigning, the end of the world approaching, I, for the remedy of my soul, etc.” —Voltaire, “An Important Study by Lord Bolingbroke, or, the Fall of Fanaticism”

End Notes

  1. The New American Standard Bible will be the translation used throughout this article with the addition of A.J. Mattill Jr.ʼs translation of the Greek verb, mello [see note #3].

  2. Dei means “must,” not “may.” Dr. A.J. Mattill Jr., retired professor of New Testament at Winebrenner Theological Seminary, pointed out in his book, Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, NC: Western Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 152f, that dei was favored by apocalyptic writers. It stressed Godʼs commitment to the plans He had revealed to them. Alas, such plans did not materialize “shortly” thereafter, as the author of Revelation predicted they “must.”

  3. A.J. Mattill Jr. in The Art of Reading the Bible (Gordo, AL: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1988), p. 12, stated:

    I made an exhaustive study of the Greek verb mello and found what is seldom recognized, and even seldomer proclaimed by preachers and professors, namely, that mello in the New Testament is used again and again to indicate the speedy coming of the end of the world: “Before long” God “will judge the world” (Acts 17:31); “before long there will be a resurrection” (Acts 24:15); “the age which is about to come” (Mat 12:32; Eph 1:21; Heb 6:5) to give a few examples. Needless to say, this imminent expectation failed to materialize.

    The “exhaustive study” made by Dr. Mattil can be found in his book (mentioned in note #2), chapter 4, “‘Before long’ (Acts 17:31): The Imminent Expectation in Acts,” pp. 41-54; and in his article, “Naherwartung, Fernerwartung, and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: Weymouth Reconsidered,” published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, July 1972, pp. 276-293. In personal correspondence, Dr. Mattill has also pointed out, “Itʼs interesting to note that in the Jehovahʼs Witness interlinear Greek NT they translate mello in the interlinear as ‘about to,’ but then in the English text to the right ignore their own translation…that would appear to be their way of escaping the imminent hope as expressed by mello.” No doubt other Bible translators employ the same mental gymnastics as the Jehovahʼs Witnesses.”

  4. Notice the logic behind the author of Hebrews argument. Since continuous sinning, year after year [“since the foundation of the world”], required blood sacrifices “often,” then God must have foreseen to it that Jesusʼ perfect sacrifice occurred at a time when Jesus would not need to suffer again, i.e., at a time when sinners would soon be judged, and thus sinning had ended, and no more sacrifices would be required. That time could only be at the “consummation [of the world]” or “end of the age.” Thus he hoped to persuade his readers of Godʼs wonderful plan in having Jesus sacrifice himself “in these last days,” and that it was only a “very little while” before “he who is coming will come.”

  5. Saint Augustine recognized and emphasized Paulʼs point. It was unmistakable. As Augustine put it:

    In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage…chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship…they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, “What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?” Would that all would… Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened.

    For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, “I would that all were as myself [celibate];” or in that passage, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having [celibate]: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 29-31) - Saint Augustine (c. 354-430), On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10

  6. Back then the Roman Empire was recognized as the “whole world,” i.e., Lk 2:1, “Caeser took a census of the whole world,” and Acts 11:28, “…a great famine all over the world…took place in the reign of Claudius.” Naturally, this conception influenced the belief in how “soon” the Son of Man would return, since Jesus predicted: “…this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.” [Mat 24:14]. If the “whole world” according to the New Testament itself, referred to the Roman Empire, the “end” must have been expected very soon indeed! I wonder why God inspired the authors of the New Testament with such an archaic notion of the “whole world?” Even second century Christian fathers made the same identification of the Roman Empire with the “whole world.” Irenaeus (125-202 A.D.), one of the earliest Fathers of the Church, wrote in his book, Revolution and Overthrow of False Knowledge (or Against Heresies), circa 180 A.D.:

    Now the Church, spread throughout all the world even to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples her belief…[1.10.1]

    …the Church has carefully preserved it [its kerygma and faith], as though dwelling in a single house, even though she has been spread over the entire world. [1.10.2]

    Anyone who wishes to see the truth can observe the apostleʼs traditions made manifest in every church throughout the whole world. [3.3.1-2]

    Augustine was another Church Father who was aware of Paulʼs belief that the Gospel “had” already been preached to the “whole world.” Paul wrote in Romans, “Their line has gone out through all the world, and their words to the ends of the earth.” Augustine dwelt with great force on the fact that St. Paul based one of his most powerful arguments upon this declaration regarding the earliest preachers of the gospel (Rom. 10:18), and that, as those preachers did not go to the opposite side of the earth to preach the gospel, no people must exist there; hence those who believe such things, “give the lie direct to King David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost.” Thus the great bishop of Hippo taught the whole world for over a thousand years that, as there was no preaching of the gospel on the opposite side of the earth, there could be no human beings there. [A. D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. 1] If I may be forgiven for injecting levity thereʼs a quotation by Mark Twain that also strikes me as relevant: “The Biblical prophets wrote book after book and epistle after epistle, yet never once hinted at the existence of a great continent on our side of the water; yet they must have known it was there, I should think.” As for the argument that the apostles must have known that people existed beyond the boundaries of the “world” of the Roman Empire, yes, certainly, as “heathens” living outside of civilization (and for whom provision was made in Paulʼs letter to the Romans, chapters 1-2), so Rome remained the “whole world” to Paul who prayed that “the word” might spread “rapidly,” from Jerusalem to Spain, before the day of final judgment.

  7. Notice how Johnʼs certainty that “it is the last hour” was strengthened by his awareness that not just one, by “many” antichrists “have arisen!” Thatʼs exactly what Jesus predicted [see Mat 24:4,23-25; Mk 13:5-6,21-23 & Lk 21:8], i.e., “many false Christs shall arise” right before the Son of Man comes!

  8. John the Baptist may of course, have picked up his message - that the end of the world was imminent - from the sect at Qumran, the book of Enoch, or even the book of Daniel, which had been “unsealed” prior to his day, and whose “unsealing,” according to that bookʼs author, presaged the worldʼs final judgment.

  9. The belief in the nearness of Christʼs coming is not in itself a reason to rush about the world preaching. That is only the result of the further belief that before the end, the world must first hear the Gospel. There is evidence that this second belief may have been a point of contention amongst Jesusʼ earliest followers. For instance, in the Gospels there are four discourses on the end-times preaching question: the three “little apocalypses” in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21), and the added “teeny-apocalypse” in Matthew 10, viz., the “sending of the 12.” Matthew 10:17-23 depicts the same things happening as in Matt. 24:9-14, with one clear exception. In the first discourse, it is reported that Jesus told his disciples to avoid the Gentile and Samaritan cities, adding, “You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.” While in the second discourse, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world…and then the end shall come…So shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” This may reflect two views of the early church, some supporting the view only to go to the cities of Israel, others, to preach to the whole world. As we know, the “whole world” view prevailed. But the question remains whether it was Jesusʼ original view. Itʼs also noteworthy that regardless of the resurrected Jesusʼ command (in Matt. & Mark) to “Go make disciples of all nations, or all creation,” the apostles, according to Luke, did not rush off, but stayed in Jerusalem for years (Acts), which raises doubts as to them receiving such a command from Jesus. For example, when Jesus “sent the 12” on their preaching mission (the “teeny-apocalypse”) they immediately went, no delay. How much more obligingly would they have followed the word of a resurrected Jesus if he had actually spoken them? Another clue in the Gospels regarding a possible controversy about whether or not to evangelize the “world” can be found in the “circumcision debates” between the earliest disciples. The first arise in Acts 11, which is presented as the first time the apostles and brethren became convinced “that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.” Afterwards, “Peter came up to Jerusalem, [and] those who were circumcised took issue with him.” After Peter related his experiences and visions, they agreed: “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” Why neither Peter nor the others thought to simply quote the words of the resurrected Jesus (in the Gospel of Matthew) on this matter, and why Peter needed a special vision to confirm it, adds credence to the argument that the earliest Christians had not recorded Jesus as saying that the gospel “will, or must, be preached to all nations,” and that they must “go make disciples of all the nations and all creation.”

  10. The verses in Mark [8:39-9:1] are continuous. Chapter and verse divisions were late additions to the Bible. This prophecy was not fulfilled by the “transfiguration,” which does follow it in both Matthew and Markʼs gospels. Were the apostles so much nearer to “tasting death” when six days later, “some standing there” viewed the transfiguration? Such a “fulfillment” makes the prophecy appear puerile, trivial. Most likely, the prediction and the transfiguration appear in close order because the former informs gospel readers when the Son of Man will come to judge the earth (i.e., while some of the apostles were still alive), and the latter depicts who that soon-coming Son of Man will or should be (i.e., Jesus). Neither was the prophecy fulfilled by Pentecost, or the fall of Jerusalem (in 70 A.D.). At Pentecost, a mere year or two away, more than “some” of Jesusʼ hearers would still be alive, and Pentecost involved the coming of the Holy Spirit rather than the Son of Man with angels to judge mankind. Neither did the Son of Man “come” invisibly at the fall of Jerusalem to judge that city. Instead, Jesus described the “coming of the Son of Man” in a highly visible fashion: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels…He will separate the sheep from the goats…one person will be taken, one left…as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” [Mat 24:27,37-41; 25:31] Likewise, the Gospel of Luke also described the coming of the Son of Man in a fashion visible to the whole earth:

    And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled [not a long time, see other footnote in this paper on “the times of the Gentiles”]. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Menʼs hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draws near. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now near at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. [Luke 21:24-32]

    Thus there is no “fulfillment” of the prophesied “coming of the Son of Man” to be found in the transfiguration, Pentecost, or the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus predicted the Son of Man would come in a visible, earth shaking manner to judge mankind before “some” of his own apostles had “tasted death.” Jesus, of course, never abandoned the idea that the Son of Man was coming soon. As late as his trial, he is portrayed declaring boldly to his accusers, “You shall see the Son of Man, coming on the right hand of power!”

  11. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1988), p. 19.

  12. Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 simply have the disciples asking Jesus about “the sign” when “all these things will be,” or, “when they are about to take place.” There is no “and” in their questions, connecting what some Christian apologists say may be two separate questions. This is important to remember, since many Christian apologists attempt to split the discipleʼs question [in Mat 24:3] in half, thereby dividing Jesusʼ predictions in these end-times chapters into: 1) predictions related to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D., and 2) signs that can be used to predict when the Son of Man will come in power to judge the earth two thousand years later. Needless to say, such a dissection of Jesusʼ apocalyptic discourses (based only on Matthewʼs version of the disciplesʼ question) does not take into consideration the beliefs and understanding of the audience to whom the discourse was originally addressed. As David F. Strauss pointed out in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, “The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations”:

    The…attempt to discover in the discourse before us the immense interval which, looking from our position in the present day, is fixed between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of all things, having failed; we are taught in a practical fashion that that interval lies only in our own conception, which we are not justified in introducing into the text. And when we consider that we owe our idea of that interval only to the experience of many centuries, which have elapsed since the destruction of Jerusalem: it cannot be difficult for us to imagine how the author of this discourse, who had not had this experience, might entertain the belief that shortly after the fall of the Jewish sanctuary, the world itself, of which, in the Jewish idea, that sanctuary was the center, would also come to an end, and the [Son of Man] appear in judgment.

  13. Luke 21:24. Does “the times of the Gentiles” refer to a lengthy period of time, perhaps thousands of years in the future? Dr. Mattill thinks not:

    Luke was evidently mindful of the Gentile king of Dan 7:25 who would “wear out the saints of the Most High;…and they shall be given into his hand until the time and times and half a time” [see also Dan 8:13 & 12:7]…Nor would Luke have overlooked Ezek 30:3, “The day of Yahweh is near; it shall be…a time of the nations.”…Luke may well have known something like the widely circulated prophecy that is now preserved in Rev 11:2, where John is commanded to measure the temple but not the temple court, “for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.” [None of these examples presumes a lengthy period lasting thousands of years, but rather, a few years, less than ten at most.]

    The word “times” (kairoi) also has richer overtones than mere chronological time (chronos). It can also mean “opportunity,” “eschatological opportunity,” “the time of crisis,” the “last times.” Hence the phrase, “the times of the Gentiles” would seem to refer to more than their allotted time to occupy Jerusalem. It would include the “eschatological opportunities” that the Gentiles have to accept the Gospel…Paul wrote: “Now is the acceptable time (kairos); behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2)…Kairos denotes the “season when God visits people with the offer of salvation.”…Luke uses kairos in just such a way in his gospel, which stated that Israel did not know the “time” (kairos) of its visitation (Lk 19:44), that is, “the time when God came to save you” (Todayʼs English Version) [So, Luke depicted both the “time (kairos) of Israel” and “times (kairoi) of the Gentiles!”]

    [Also note that Luke displays in Acts his knowledge of Paulʼs mission to the Gentiles, and must have been familiar with Paulʼs idea that the stubbornness of the people of Israel is not permanent but will last only until the complete number of Gentiles come to God]:

    “…their voice [of Christian evangelists] has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the [predominantly Gentile] world.” But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? At the first Moses says, “I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation, by a [Gentile] nation without understanding will I anger you.” [Rom 10:18-19]

    …by their [the Jewsʼ] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their [the Jewsʼ] fulfillment be? [Rom 11:11-12]

    …a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. [Rom 11:25]

    Now look at the verse in Luke again, keeping Paulʼs verses (above) in mind:

    Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. [Lk 21:24]

    [“The times of the Gentiles” refers to the Gentilesʼ opportunity to hear the gospel, and it would be “fulfilled” once a certain number of Gentiles, known only to God, had been saved. Neither did Paul or Luke seem to assume that this “time” would exceed a “generation.”] The Gentile mission was well on the way toward completion with Paulʼs arrival in Rome: “…the Good News…has been proclaimed in the whole creation under Heaven…” [Col 1:23 (Weymouth)]. Were Paul to preach longer in Rome, where “all meet from every quarter [of the earth]” (Irenaeus), or in Spain [Rom 15:24; 1 Clem 5:7], or elsewhere [Pastoral Epistles], and were others to continue their labors [Acts 11:20; 1 Clem 42:3-4], they would need all the encouragement and support possible from the churches to give all men everywhere opportunity to repent [Acts 17:30]. As his part in this evangelistic effort Luke wrote to insure that the world mission would be completed during the “times of the Gentiles” [Lk 21:24] to prepare the way for the “consolation of Israel” [Lk 2:25] and the “restoration of all things” [Acts 3:21]. [Keep in mind that for Luke and Paul, the Roman Empire constituted “the whole world”]…we conclude with an impressive group of critics that “Luke does not give a date, but his gospel agrees with Matthew and Mark that Jesus said, ‘the present generation will live to see it all!’ [Lk 21:32]” - A.J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things, pp. 134-135,233.

  14. Evangelical apologists sometimes try to divert attention away from the verses that plainly predict the soon “coming of the Son of Man” by emphasizing the following section in Luke that states, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed”:

    The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed: nor will they say “Look here it is!” or “There it is!” For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst [or, sometimes translated, “the kingdom of God is within you”]. And he said to the disciples, The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it…[Lk 17:20-22]

    Does this divert sufficient attention away from what Jesus said about the “Son of Man coming” before “some standing there” had “tasted death,” or within a “generation?” No. That “the kingdom of God is in your midst” does not refute that soon “the Son of Man will be revealed” [Lk 17:30], you just have to read a little further in the same chapter to see that. Neither does the above passage indicate that the disciples would not live to see the Son of Man return. Nothing about their “death” is mentioned or even hinted at. It just says they will “long to see one of the days of the Son of Man,” and, “not seeing it,” or, not being able to see it, as they had yearned to, others will say to them, “Look here, Look there,” trying to entice Christians to run after false prophets. Therefore it is a warning to “keep the faith” and wait for the unmistakable revealing of the true Son of Man. The section in Luke continues:

    …And they will say to you “Look here! Look there!” Do not run after them. [Many false prophets will arise and mislead many. Mat 24:11 And if anyone says, “Behold, here is the Christ, or there,” do not believe him, for false Christs will arise. Mark 13:21] For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day…as it happened in the days of Noah…the flood came and destroyed them all…as happened in the days of Lot…it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed…one will be taken, and the other will be left. [Lk 17:23-35]

    So, the passage in Luke is not a prediction that Jesus made to his disciples, telling them that they will not live to see the coming of the Son of Man, but rather, it is a warning to those who doubt they will, and go running off after “false Christʼs!” “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day…” etc. And yes, the “kingdom of God” can refer to either an immediate reality or a future promise. It depends on whether or not the words “come,” “near” or “at hand” are contextually related to the words, “kingdom of God.” For instance, speaking of the future promise, there is the Lordʼs prayer, “Thy kingdom come…” Or, “I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes” [Lk 22:18]. Or, “When you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place” [Lk 21:31-32]. Or, “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” Naturally, the same goes for the “Son of Man,” which is simply a name or title for Jesus. But combine that name with the word, “coming,” and the only thing it can refer to is a future promise - a failed promise, since the Son of Man did not “come” within the time he and his inspired disciples predicted he would.

  15. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, “The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations.”

  16. Ibid.

  17. James D. Tabor, “The Future,” What the Bible Really Says, eds. Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989), p. 48. And notice how Jesusʼ end-times discourses described events that could easily apply to his own era:

    False prophets and false Christs?

    What about Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, and Bar Kochba, leader of a messianic revolt (132-135 A.D.)? See Richard Horsley and John Hansonʼs Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (New York: Harpur & Row, Pub., Inc., 1985), and, Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green and Ernest S. Frerich, eds., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: 1988). And of course, the New Testamentʼs own obvious statements such as Paulʼs that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work,” and 1 Johnʼs, that “many antichrists have arisen,” i.e., in their generation.

    Rumors of War and Wars?

    “War,” along with some of the other “signs” described, was a standard apocalyptic stage prop. And, there was a first revolt of Palestinian Jews against their Roman occupiers in A.D. 66-70 that preceded Romeʼs war against Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

    Earthquakes?

    They occur continually all over the world. But most occur, as expected, along the coasts of continents that border the Pacific Ocean - the “ring of fire” - and are due to huge tectonic plates underlying each continent, pressing and buckling against each other. This no doubt has little to do with prophecy. According to geological studies conducted since the first highly sensitive seismographic instruments were installed on the earthʼs surface around the beginning of this century, the sizes and intervals of quakes world-wide do not display any discernable pattern of increase or decrease. Even the folks at the Institute for Creation Research have agreed with that fact, as evidenced in their Impact pamphlet #198, “Earthquakes in These Last Days.”

    Famines?

    According to Luke, “…a great famine all over the world…took place in the reign of Claudius” [Acts 11:28], i.e., in Lukeʼs own generation.

    Persecution of Christians?

    This occurred in Paulʼs generation too. He persecuted Christians. Stephen was stoned to death. Paul was also brought before magistrates and kings to give an account of his faith.

    The World Wide Proclamation of Jesusʼ Message?

    According to Paul and Luke the Roman Empire was the “whole world.” Paul also wrote several times that the gospel “had” been preached to the “whole world,” i.e., in his day.

    So the “birth pangs” that Jesus (or the Gospel authors) claimed must occur first, before the end arrived, were already occurring, or had already occurred, in the days of the first Christians! Neither did any of the New Testament authors have any difficulty envisioning their own generation as the last, or predicting that the Son of Man would (or must) come soon.

  18. A.J. Mattill Jr., “A Zoo-Full of Monsters,” The Journal of Faith and Thought (Montclair, N.J.: First Baptist Church of Montclair), Vol. 4, no. 1 (Spring 1986), p. 16.

  19. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, “The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations.”

  20. Dewey M. Beegle, Prophecy and Prediction (Ann Arbor, MI: Pryor Pettengill, 1978), pp. 212-213.

  21. F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), p. 227. Some Christian apologists point out that the word translated “generation” is derived from a Greek word whose root means “race.” So, Jesus may have been saying that “this race” shall not pass away until all these things take place. But there is no point in Jesus addressing either the human race or the Jewish race since in neither case is there any hint in the Bible that either “race” may cease to exist before the end of the world. What point would there be in such a vague prediction? It would be like saying, “At some time in the indefinite future all these things will take place.” It should also be noted that when the full word, not merely its root, is focused upon, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrichʼs Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament cites not a single instance where the word means, “race.” And in the language that Jesus and his apostles were raised upon, Hebrew and Aramaic, there is not the least possibility of confusion between “generation” and “race.” Lastly, as A.J. Mattill Jr. has ascertained:

    Of the 38 appearances of the word in the New Testament all have the temporal meaning, primarily that of “contemporaries.” Our check of every instance in the New Testament verifies Olshausenʼs contention that the word is not used once in the New Testament in the sense of “race.” [A.J. Mattill Jr., Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, NC: Western Carolina Press, 1979), p. 100]

  22. British historian and conservative moralist Paul Johnson, whose recent essay on marriage to honor his 40th wedding anniversary so annoyed his mistress of 11 years that she ratted him out to British newspapers, admitted in a subsequent interview in Londonʼs Observer in May, “Iʼve been having an affair, but I still believe in family values.” — News of the Weird

  23. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1979), p. 38.

  24. C.S. Lewis, “The Worldʼs Last Night” in The Worldʼs Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960).

  25. Beegle, pp. 131-132.

  26. Matthew Tindall, Christianity as Old as Creation, A Republication of the Religion of Nature, 1730. (Called “the deistʼs Bible”) Reprinted by Garland Pub., Inc., N.Y.

  27. Robert Ingersoll, quoted in Ingersoll Attacks the Bible, ed., A.J. Mattill, Jr. (Gordo, AL: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1987), pp. 34-35.

  28. Robert M. Price, personal correspondence. Dr. Price has a Ph.D. in New Testament theology and another in New Testament history, and is the editor of The Journal of Higher Criticism, and the author of Beyond Born Again and Deconstructing Jesus.