Logical

Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. Go sell everything you have, give to the poor. Don't worry about tomorrow. Let the dead bury their dead. In this generation, and some of you standing here will be alive, the end will come. Others followed suit. Paul told his followers not to marry (Why bother?).

The book of Revelation ends with a dramatic promise: I am coming SOON. Amen, Come Lord Jesus.

It seems evident to me that Christianity was an apocalyptic cult. The sense of imminence and urgency is felt everywhere in the NT. Is there anything in the early Christian history that addresses those concerns? Surely Christians noticed in the second and third centuries that it had been too long since Jesus died. You'd expect people to slowly abandon the faith. Instead, it became the official religion of the empire!

Does the staggering success of Christianity prove that the apocalyptic Jesus theory is incorrect? Perhaps we're misunderstanding and misinterpreting the texts (i.e. "generation", "taste death", etc) in our time, so far removed from the original context?

Some may point out that other apocalyptic cults succeeded despite the failure of their initial predictions. But they never went as far as denying the prediction had been made in the first place, did they? (When Christians dismiss the apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus, they are in effect denying that he ever made said failed predictions).

Do we find anything in the early literature by Christians trying to justify the apparent failure? If no such attempts exist, then again, perhaps we're misunderstanding the texts that were so obvious to them back then that they didn't see the need to explain it?

lovesilentdeath

If you want an answer, look for in in the later part of Roman history.

dockeen

There has been a lot of recent discussion of how people who are expecting the
world to end soon, or on a specific day, deal with the failure of such predictions.
(I wonder why)

I have seen the case made quite strongly that people in such situations, rather
than admit "Well, my beliefs must have been wrong", simply plunge ahead with
some refinement of their beliefs, but with their faith in the basic premises
undamaged.

ApostateAbe

There are two passages in the canon that speak to two different apologetic reactions to the passed apocalyptic deadline of Jesus.

The first is John 21:20-23, written 90-100 CE, shortly after it could have been conceivable that a listener of Jesus would have remained alive.

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’

In other words, the author of the gospel of John explains the apocalyptic deadline as just a silly misunderstanding that turned into a myth among the disciples of Jesus.

The second passage is 2 Peter 3:3-9, written in the middle of the 2nd century CE, claimed by a forger to be written by Peter, but is actually speaking about the time it was written.

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

In other words, the eternal God's idea of time is different from our idea of time, so pay no attention to those scoffers.

The apologetic excuses developed with the church fathers. Origen, writing in the 3rd century, wrote this interpretation of "Not Tasting of Death":

31. The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death.

"Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death." Some refer these things to the going up-six days after, or, as Luke says, eight days-of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coining in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that "His face shone," etc., "they saw the kingdom of God coming with power." For even as some spear-bearers stand around a king, so Moses and Elijah appeared to those who had gone up into the mountains, talking with Jesus. But it is worth while considering whether the sitting on the right hand and on the left band of the Saviour in His kingdom refers to them, so that the words, "But for whom it is prepared," were spoken because of them. Now this interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have seen Jesus transfigured, is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as "new-born babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile," to whom Paul says, "I have fed you with milk, not with meat," etc.

In other words, Jesus was talking about the transfiguration, not the apocalypse, when he gave the deadline about not tasting death.

Some writers believed that a "generation" should be defined more liberally. Others, such as Eusebius in the 4th century, were actually preterists--they believed that the apocalyptic prophecies actually were fulfilled, though of course the proposed fulfillments didn't make as much of a splash as expected.

It is not unknown for religions to grow out of failed apocalyptic deadlines. Exactly such a thing happened with the Great Disappointment of William Miller, the forefather of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

DCHindley

With great difficulty.

DCH

davidstarlingm

When Jerusalem fell in 70, I am sure that many Christians felt that the apocalypse was upon them. However, it didn't happen then (obviously). The stress of such significant events would either break or make the fledgling faith. This is probably the point at which Jesus's predictions were interpreted to reference the coming end of the accepted government and social order, rather than the end of the world overall.

Consider verses like 2 Peter 3:11: "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness?" This entire passage is based around the end of the world. But it is easy to imagine the church, after witnessing the fall of Jerusalem, interpreting this passage in two ways instead of just one. "Sure, this is a reference to the end of the world. But it is also applicable to here and now: all these current social orders we put our faith in can easily be dissolved. We must not trust in the things around us, but live lives of godliness and holiness whether Christ is to return sooner or later."

Doubtless some had voiced such opinions even before 70 -- after all, it had been nearly 40 years since Christ's death. Thus, when the social order crumbled but Jesus did not return, such opinions were vindicated and reinforced. In retrospect, practically everything Jesus said about "the end" could be applied to the dissolution of the social order. In this way Christianity gained its second wind and settled in for the long haul.

Then, of course, the Roman Catholic Church emerged a few centuries later and quashed any lingering apocalyptic notions. I'm sure it was a relief for many (especially ex-Jews) to settle back into a system of rules and ordinances. And so Christianity largely abandoned its all-these-things-are-to-be-dissolved roots for a thousand years or so.

Since the Reformation, of course, the application of apocalyptic elements to the context of the fragility of social orders has become a mainstay of progressive Christian thought. This is particularly noticeable in the more missional neocalvinistic movements, like David Platt.

ApostateAbe

davidstarlingm, welcome to the forum.

davidstarlingm

Thanks. Deus Ex and I were butting heads on a blog somewhere and he advised I drop in here. Still not sure how/where I should get started, though. He predicted I would get piled on pretty quick....

dockeen

Wherever interests you.

Welcome. I didn't notive you were new from your post, which is a compliment
to you, and another sign of growing senility and dementia on my part.

Logical

Thanks all for the great information.

Do you guys know how strong the apocalyptic Jesus school of thought among Biblical scholars? Is there a stronger school of thought?