Ethical Jesus and Apocalyptic Jesus

[Zebedeo]

I am starting this thread in response to the following post by Mr. Wiggles, a poster whom I respect. At the end of his post, he suggests that this question should perhaps be its own thread, and I agree.

Hi Zeb, I have been meaning to ask you this for a long time now but you haven't been around for a while.

I see a difference between some of the liberal Christians here in R/T and you as far as who Jesus was. Perhaps there is no difference since it could be a misunderstanding in my part and that is why I want you to help me understand.

Who was exactly Jesus in your opinion? Some people here seem to believe that there was only an "ethical" Jesus sort of ignoring or even rejecting the "apocalyptic" Jesus. Some here seem to view Jesus as a prophet they want to emulate, sort of like a prophet of brotherhood of man. They see the "kingdom of God" as something you can't touch (or something literal), but rather, a "God's Kingdom" in the heart of men which can be "brought about", perhaps, because of their ethical achievements through the teachings of Jesus.

The other Jesus, the apocalyptic one, is a prophet of the end of the world and this view pays less attention to what Jesus has to say and focuses instead on a few known facts about him, about his actions, and, even more so, about his death.

You seem to believe in the latter. Am I wrong?

Which is the right Jesus in your opinion? The "ethical" Jesus or the "apocalyptic" Jesus? If both are the correct Jesus, even when they seem to contradict, should the apocalyptic Jesus be ignored like many liberal Christians seem to do?

Thanks in advance. Perhaps this should be its own thread.

Thank you for asking, Mr. Wiggles. It is a good question. My own personal view is that Jesus was and is both the "Ethical Jesus" and the "Apocalyptic Jesus." He is both the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah. In my view, it is a tragic mistake to regard Jesus as merely a prophet or philosopher or a "good man." He proclaimed that He is the Son of God, and that He and the Father are "one." He performed many miracles that proved He was no ordinary man.

Certainly, I want to emulate Jesus, to the extent possible. I disagree with Christians who cavalierly dismiss His commands as impossible and who therefore focus entirely on the saving grace of God and make no effort to perform good works. I also disagree with Christians who focus entirely on attempting to emulate Jesus, and who ignore His teachings regarding Heaven and Hell. Jesus' teachings included both exhortations to benevolence and proclamations that the only way to Heaven is through accepting His atoning, sacrificial death as payment for sins.

I accept all the teachings of Jesus. I don't think any of them should be ignored. Certainly it would be wrong to ignore the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story of the rich young ruler, or the Sermon on the Mount. Each of these pose difficult challenges to a Christian (whether ancient or modern), but they may not be disregarded. Nor, in my view, should a Christian disregard Jesus' prophetic teachings regarding His Second Coming.

Jesus said:

But in those days, after that tribulation the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not shed its light; the stars will be falling from the sky, and the celestial powers will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. He will send out the angels and gather His elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of the sky. Mark 13:24-27

This may remind you of the vision of John in the Book of Revelation:

I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth

and the vision of the prophet Joel:

I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. Joel 2:30-31

In my view, dismissing the "Apocalyptic Jesus" is a dreadful error, and it saddens me that many Christians tend to ignore or "wish away" this Jesus. He is the same Jesus that fed the hungry, healed the sick and taught people to practice mercy and kindness and forgiveness. It was this Jesus that taught people to be more concerned with the world to come than with this world we now inhabit. Any true follower of Jesus should thoughtfully consider this fact.

Likewise, I am appalled at those Christians who focus exclusively on the "Apocalyptic Jesus" or who focus exclusively on the atoning sacrifice of His death and resurrection, and who ignore or downplay His teachings regarding how we are to behave in this life. He taught us to love God and to love one another, and if we all followed this simple command, how much richer and more wonderful life on Earth would be!

While some might see contradictions between the "Ethical Jesus" and the Apocalyptic Jesus," I see two sides of the same Savior.

[trotsky]

1. Do you have a 401(k) or savings account, Zeb? n/t

[Zebedeo]

2. I have eight nannies and four kids so far

this kidding season.

[trotsky]

3. Do you have a 401(k) or savings account? n/t

[Zebedeo]

4. I hardly think that

is any of your business. :shrug:

But if you really want to talk about finances, why don't you start by setting forth your balance sheet in your next post. Then I'll know you are serious.

[trotsky]

5. This is relevant to the topic at hand, Zeb.

Namely, following the teachings of Jesus. I'm asking you if you are saving money. I don't care how much, just whether you are or not. Please answer the question so I can know if you are truly following the teachings of Jesus and therefore are a REAL Christian.

[Zebedeo]

6. If you will first give your solemn agreement

to follow the teachings of Jesus, then I would be more than happy to discuss with you the interpretation of Matthew 6:19-20 or any other teachings of Jesus. If, on the other hand, you are merely playing a disingenuous game, then I see no reason to disclose my personal finances to you and thousands of other people on a publicly accessible internet message board.

[trotsky]

7. It's a yes or no question.

I'm not going to agree to follow your imaginary god of death, destruction, and punishment just because you don't want to answer a question.

[earthlover]

8. There certainly is a difference between having a savings account and having "treasure"

[trotsky]

9. The bible makes no distinction.

That is a distinction made by MEN. (Fundies lap this stuff up.)

[earthlover]

13. I don't share your view.

Checking accounts are not mentioned in the Bible, so how can you be sure there is no distinction? The Biblical verse says "treasures". If I had $1.18 in my checking account, would you be so dogmatic as to call it a "treasure"?

[trotsky]

17. Hey, spin all you need to.

I am aware that many of Jesus' teachings make even liberal Christians a little uncomfortable.

Did Jesus have any money whatsoever?

[Sanctified]

28. Jesus most likely did not have any money but he was dependant on followers who did.

Jesus never instructed his followers to abandon money for that would simply be silly and illogical, he was pointing out to them not to value money more than God. Christians believe that God gives us everything including every dollar we make and we are to use the money we make for His glory.

[Meshuga]

29. How do you explain that to the penniless

devout Christian who does not have enough money to feed his family and himself? Is that a God given condition as well? Why is God withholding money from this extremely loyal follower? Why are other people more deserving of this God given money?

[Sanctified]

31. I have been penniless and less than penniless.

Even now I would consider myself and my family just one accident short of being homeless but I recognize that God has given me everything I have. In all honesty I could care less about how much money I have or do not have it's irrelevant when it comes to my happiness or my salvation. God gives to each of us talents some of these talents make a lot of money others do not but is money really what life is about? In my opinion it's better to be poor than rich, wealthy people have it extremely hard in my opinion simply because it's extremely easy for a rich person to worship wealth like a false idol and over indulge in the sins that money allows for.

[Meshuga]

34. But if God gives us every dollar as you claim

Why is he doing this to you? Why is he withholding money from you to the point that you might become homeless? Why would he give more talent to some and no talent to others? What have you done wrong to deserve this? I'm not saying that you should be rich and worship money, but why would God (the money giver) not give money to a family who cannot survive on what they currently have so they can at least be able to eat and have a roof to sleep under?

"In all honesty I could care less about how much money I have or do not have it's irrelevant when it comes to my happiness or my salvation."

Are you saying that suffering here is worth it just because you are promised something in a next life? Why would God put anybody through this? What is the point?

[Sanctified]

35. God is not the only money giver, the Devil gives out money as well.

God does not serve us, we serve him so there is no withholding, if I were to be homeless tomorrow or unable to purchase food I could ask God for assistance and He will supply it. As a Christian I am content with what I have, why should I ask for more than I need, God certainly does not want me to be a good little consumer and make lots of money just so I can buy things that depreciate in value and serve no purpose once I die.

And yes we are suffering here on earth due to the fall of man, but is the suffering really that long the number of years you or I will spend on this earth is nothing compared to eternity.

[trotsky]

32. More spin.

Jesus did instruct some to sell everything they owned. Oh I know, that gives uncomfortable Christians their wiggle room - "he obviously only meant it for people who had a problem with materialism." Similar to you stating it's only a problem if you "value money more than God." But if you are truly to be Christ-like, you shouldn't be saving any money or spending it on yourself.

Christians believe that God gives us everything including every dollar we make and we are to use the money we make for His glory.

Not every Christian believes that. You should be careful about making sweeping statements regarding the many followers of your religion.

[Sanctified]

33. How do you give to the needy if your left hand knows that your right hand has nothing? n/t

[trotsky]

36. Why do you withhold anything from the needy? n/t

[Sanctified]

37. I don't withhold from the needy but if Christians were to have no money then they could never give.

[trotsky]

38. Wouldn't your god provide for you, if you were doing good with your money?

Seems to me you don't trust your god.

[Meshuga]

10. I have been wondering about this because I have seen threads...

with people who seemed to be defending the notion that Christianity was only about the "ethical Jesus" ignoring, and perhaps even rejecting all together, the idea of an "apocalyptic Jesus". There was even one thread asking if it was possible to exist such a thing as a Christian atheist. And people defending that notion.

There are these two sides of Jesus in the gospels and you seem to be one (of what I perceive as a very small minority in DU) who actually embraces both sides.

It would be interesting to have a debate and see what the "ethical Jesus" crowd have to say as far as ignoring the "apocalyptic Jesus". I do agree with you that there are these two facets of Jesus in the gospels but, being a non-Christian, it was hard to challenge a Christian who rejects or ignores the "apocalyptic Jesus" without having the opinion of a Christian who is aware and doesn't turn a blind eye to both sides.

I understand that it is easy to "secularize" the passages dealing with Jesus the ethical teacher and creating a flavor of Christianity based on that. But how can someone try to "secularize" the "apocalyptic" Jesus? And if the answer is to ignore the "apocalyptic" Jesus then why should that part of the gospels be dismissed by the people who focus on the ethical teachings?

Again, it would be interesting if some of the "ethical" teachings crowd jumped in to explain their side. Thanks for explaining your side, Zeb.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. I'm not one who feels drawn to an "apocalyptic" view myself

Which also doesn't mean I only see the "ethical" Jesus, either.

I have a less orthodox understanding of the meaning of the resurrection - I don't believe Jesus died for our sins. I think Jesus' death was a demonstration, a supreme act of love by God when all the other ways to show us the way still had us missing the main point. I am not an exclusivist: I do not believe that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. In fact, I belief we are all, every single one of us who wishes it, saved. No loyalty oath required.

I still grapple with the trinity and the idea of Jesus as God with us - once you move from the symbolic (which is easily enough grasped) to the real, the tangible. But mystery is also part of it - maybe just a part I'll have to live with.

I think there's a side to this that definitely reaches for the divine, that goes beyond the safely digested ethics of behavior. There is that ineffable side of Jesus - the point where God and man are joined, the flesh and blood demonstration of love that not only told us how, but showed us. I think somewhere in all that is the idea that God is immanent - not separate from humanity, not "other", but in us, with us. That's pretty powerful, but again, pretty mysterious.

[Meshuga]

18. With mystery comes belief

and since Jesus is a big part of your belief I understand your position. Jesus is relevant based on your belief.

But I cannot understand how some people can keep Jesus relevant when attempting to "secularize" the gospels. There seems to be something divine about Jesus in your opinion which is understandable. But if Jesus is not divine? If all that matters are teachings derived from some of the selected quotes attributed to him, then why is he the focus? What is more important? The message or Jesus? If he is important and deserve so much focus then why not also give an equal share to people with similar ideas who lived before and after Jesus?

Where I am getting at is this: what is Christianity when people strip the faith away from it?

[JerseygirlCT]

21. It's a great question

and one I think many people struggle with, to be honest.

I suppose if Jesus is not divine, then it's still possible to see his message as part of a bigger message - as a messenger of the divine, if not so himself. I certainly see no way to Christianity as something unique if Jesus isn't seen as God. But I don't place a great deal of emphasis on that uniqueness, myself.

As to what is more important, the message or Jesus, I tend to think Jesus IS the message if you see what I mean. The teachings are certainly an important way to communicate the message, the actions speak in a different, perhaps more transcendent way. Perhaps not - I think that's definitely a YMMV situation for Christians - at least those thinking about it at all!

I tend to see Jesus as a huge demonstration of love - but that in itself is but another step along a path of relationship with God. I think God has spoken to us for a very long time, and in different ways - so sure, there's wisdom and "truth" to be found before and after Jesus - even divine revelation.

Honestly, I'm a Christian because that's the idiom in which I learned to approach God. Had I been born and raised in a Hindu home, I might have a different take on it - but I suspect at bottom, I'd be looking for the same thing.

So, Christianity without faith is a fine philosophy, and a terrific way to order ones life. As you say, many of the teachings we've been given are not unique, and for me that strengthens their worth - there's something universal there. But the faith part is the part where we humans reach for relationship with God. And that's a powerful thing. It may mean the focus is different, even when the teachings are the same.

[Meshuga]

24. I see what you mean by the idiom

And that makes it easy to see where you are coming from and how you use your religion. Just because you are refered to as "Christian" or "religious" there is always the assumptions that you might think your path is the best path or best tool to order a person's life, when you only think it is a good path that works for you when you use it to order your own life and you don't expect to be an universal prescription.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Not saying my universalist tendencies are mainstream

of course. But I just can't see it as a "one and only" thing. I'm content to see it as a "best way for me" thing. I've definitely evolved into many paths thinking.

It seems to me that for some, the idea that Christianity is THE correct and only way to believe is really important. It seems to function as positive reinforcement for them. "Since there's only one right way, and I believe in that way, I must be ok". I don't think that since I approached an age where I could manage those sort of thoughts that that way of looking at it made sense to me.

But of course, I understand that for many Christians, I'm simply tailoring beliefs to suit me, and there's something wrong with that. What they miss is that really, everyone does that.

[Meshuga]

27. If the goal is self-improvement and making ourselves better people

I don't see anything wrong with tailoring beliefs to suit ourselves as long as it works toward that goal. Whatever path people choose to take in order to achieve that goal (with religion or without religion, with belief or without belief, etc.) is a good path. I see as problematic the approaches where people follow a belief system because they fear consequences or an approach that sets expectations that if you are with a deity you are safe, among other approaches.

My "belief" system is different than yours. While you see God as a not "other", I see God the "other" I seek out there in the world in everything we do. But they are just two different approaches toward similar goals. And, obviously, there are other ways not requiring religion and god(s) as the way to order ones life.

It is nice to have this exchange after having a heated face to face exchange with a religious fanatic who would not respect my right to follow my own path trying to equate my religion with his religion, my path with his path, and my goal with his goal in a ridiculous attempt to save my soul.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. It appears to me that your soul is in fine shape, Mr. Wiggles

And for me, the idea that we're all loved and all "saved" is quite freeing. I can look for God and love God not out of fear, but the way we'd want someone to love us - just because.

But yes, I don't much like to be told what I'm supposed to think or believe. And threats of hell aren't terribly effective, IMO, anyway!

[struggle4progress]

16. I disagree with your distinction. The message is not ethics but love:

a person might closely and carefully follow a completely defensible ethical system without having any real love for neighbors, and a person might really love neighbors without having any discernable ethical system at all

Many normal human tendencies limit human ability to love: traditional Church teaching seems to have attempted a systematic description of such tendencies, under headings such as "seven deadly sins"

Since it is easy and natural to be attached to false values, and since this attachment prevents a person from living a fully loving life, the demand that we must abandon the demonic values we idolize seems to be an apocalytic demand: it is a cry that the kingdom of the stone-hearted be overthrown, its garrisons vanquished, its outposts (now so firmly planted in our psyches) laid waste -- by something better

But if I successfully raze the whorehouses in my soul and build gardens and libraries their instead, should I mourn the destruction?

[Meshuga]

19. Perhaps you are right

Since there is not a comprehensive list of ethical teachings to call it an ethical system. But I think that Jesus in the gospels taught a system of values that is not limited to love. I might not agree with all his values but it is a system of values nonetheless.

Christianity from the beginning and throughout history has been concerned with a literal apocalyptic idea. Any changes in the apocalyptic view and change in this concept are recent. If one argue that Jesus did not actually mean to talk about the literal apocalyptic stuff then why try to hold on to that aspect of the bible by giving it another meaning? Christianity is based on the teachings of one individual so one would think his actual teachings should be the focus and one would think that the extra stuff should be dropped.

Unless the religion is not really based on Jesus but based on what people want Jesus to be. But then what is the point? Why put the focus on Jesus and not the teachings? And these teachings were not anything new at the time of Jesus. No one can say that people's ability to love is a consequence of Jesus or that iy was Christian influence.

I would understand the focus on Jesus (as opposed to focus on following his alleged teachings) if belief that there is something divine about Jesus existed. But if there isn't anything divine about him then why bother to pretty him up?

I might be wrong but it seems to me that the focus seem to be on the attempt of giving Jesus credit for coming up with ways of follwing values we find to be good more than following these good values.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. I wonder if apocalyptic language was the language

that needed to be used then. Perhaps we're growing into a different understanding, wherein good and evil, heaven and hell, are understood in a less starkly contrasted way?

Not sure. Just a thought that occurred to me.

[Meshuga]

23. The Pharisaic Jewish sect brought about the concept of resurrection

of the dead and Olam Ha-Ba ("world to come" -- not a otherworldly concept but a peaceful feature to come) to Judaism. Those Jews who followed the twofold law would have the opportunity to rise from the dead in this new "era" where a messiah would bring peace to the world. That was a belief then and an ardent Pharisee would follow the twofold law for his own salvation. Resurrection was the reward for the loyalty to Pharisaism. No one could be resurrected who had been disloyal.

Still, the disciples of Jesus preached the resurrected Christ, the very Jesus who supposedly set himself up as a law unto himself challenging and defying the Pharisees. His disciples were proclaiming that this challenger of Pharisaic authority had risen from the dead. Doing the math, there is reason to believe that for a self-proclaimed God fearing Pharisee like Paul, for example, Jesus had actually risen from the dead and that Jesus had replaced Jewish law through his death and that Jesus would eventually return. To a person like Paul, the law did not lead to salvation, to eternal life, and to resurrection. There are apocalyptic sections to his gospels and there are reasons to conclude that Paul literally believed in these concepts.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. I didn't know that first part. That's very interesting.

Food for thought, truly.

And yes, from what I've learned, I think Paul really believed that not only did Paul believe in the resurrection story, but that he really believed the end of the world was coming - not in some future time, but right now, today or tomorrow at the latest. There's an immediacy to his work - he sounds like a man on a mission with the apocalypse breathing down his neck.

I don't find it easy, given our history, to think that it's still possible to live with that sense of immediacy.

[Withywindle]

39. If I can butt in...

I think every generation has had people who believed the end was nigh and tried to act accordingly.

I know the peak of my Christian faith, when I had it, coincided with the nuclear war terrors of the Reagan years - mind you, I didn't think nuclear war would be a GOOD thing, but I thought I ought to get right with God and make sure everyone I knew did too, just in case. And I was in junior high, so there was the fervor of adolescence involved as well. Almost all teenagers with active imaginations are eschatologists of one kind or another. It's the wild conflaguration of both Eros and Thanatos at once.

It IS still possible to live with that sense of immediacy. There are a lot of people who do. There are our "friends" at the Rapture Ready message board and the hordes of 'Left Behind' readers who crave the constant emotional rush of it, and look forward to seeing all the "sinners" they felt oppressed by slaughtered. (Why isn't 'Schadenfreude' a Deadly Sin? Does WAY more harm than Sloth, IMO). And there are those who are motivated by it to work for peace as hard as they possibly can until they burn out.

[HamdenRice]

11. Those aren't the only choices

There is also the "Historical Jesus," most prominently described by John Crossan, and to some extent the center of liberation theology.

To figure out who the Historical Jesus was, Crossan used a formal literary-historical methodology to estimate which parts of the New Testament were mostly likely to be direct quotations of Jesus, which were written the earliest, and which had the highest number of confirming sources.

When he was finished a vast amount of the New Testament was excluded, and what was left were, paraphrasing him, a number of teaching aphorisms that mostly dealt with feeding the poor, healing the sick and resisting the oppression of empire.

As the liberation theologians view the historical Jesus, he becomes the subject of his own political and philosophical struggle rather than the object of worship.

Not surprisingly, some liberation theologians are what you could describe as "Christian atheists."

[Meshuga]

12. They are not the only choices anymore but in the gospels they are the only choices

I can definitely see what John Crossan means, assuming there was in fact a historical Jesus who said those things. I think it would be hard to prove that anything attributed to Jesus is a direct quote. Some of the things that he supposedly said sounded very strange to his contemporaries so I can imagine how John Crossan went about to explain his theory.

[Silent3]

14. I'll go for Buddy Jesus

[Meshuga]

20. Or Jesus Quintana

[On the Road]

40. I Believe the Real Jesus Might Best be Found

in the book written by his brother. Personally, I think it's the only thing outside the Gospels that comes anywhere near to sounding like Jesus

The Epistle of James has both ethical and apocalyptic overtones with a slightly different cast to that of the Gospels. "Love covers a multitude of sins" is from James, as well as the exhortations not to be a respecter of persons. You might even say that "faith without works is dead" is the pre-eminent ethical saying in the Bible.

James also contains profoundly apocalyptic passages: Chapter 5:1 "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3Your gold and silver are corroded... You have hoarded wealth in the last days.... You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near."


According to the Gospels, Jesus has a combination of ethical and apocalyptic sayings. People are more familiar with the Sermon on the Mount, but the "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13 is just as much a part of his teaching: "(T)hose will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.... At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."

The accounts in the Gospels are more likely to have been adulterated with sentiments from the Pauline wing of the faith, but those emendations may involve both ethical and apocalyptic sayings. They may contains sentiments that Jesus might not even have agreed with even in (or especially in) the Sermon on the Mount.