Ecrasez L'infame

According to Schweitzer, Jesus was eschatological, and therefore he was wrong twice: first, he expected the Kingdom (whatever that meant for him) to come early in his ministry; and, secondly, when it didn't, he concluded that he personally had been chosen by God to precipitate the Kingdom. Now, Schweitzer's argument is embarrassing for Christians; the first mistake is the sign of a crank, and the second of a dangerous cultist. Add to that the fact that two thousand years later, the End still hasn't come...

But Schweitzer's argument is widely ignored these days, for no better reason as far as I can tell then that hundreds of scholars would be out of jobs if he were right (Schweitzer, no hypocrite, put himself out of a job after writing The Quest, and went and did something useful in the world). Oddly enough, these days the idea of an eschatological Jesus is more common among believers than scholars (are YOU rapture ready?). It's a funny old world.

Here's an argument I've never seen before that supports an eschatological Jesus.

1) Jesus required his followers to give up all their possessions and their livelihoods, to abandon their families, and to trust to God for their future needs. Moreover, he expected this of everyone, not just a few itinerant monks (as in Buddhism). See, for example and just from Matthew: "God blesses those who depend only on Him" and "... who want to obey Him more than to eat or drink" 5:3 and 5:6; "Give us our food for today" 6:11; "Don't worry about having something to eat or drink... look at the birds in the sky... they don't plant or harvest... or store grain... aren't you worth more [to God] than they... don't worry about tomorrow - it will take care of itself" 6:25-34; the eye of the needle story 19:16-30 (note the disciples at 25, asking my point 2) below); etc etc.

2) But society cannot cope with everyone living hand-to-mouth itinerant lives. If Jesus' followers beg, there must be people they beg off; if they steal (and why not, since they are doing God's work by surviving to spread His message) then someone must have provided the resources they take. Even if they live by foraging, as kind of hunter-gatherers, living perhaps on honey and locusts - even then the natural system would not be able to support everyone living like that.

3) Something has to give - 1) and 2) are in contradiction. Jesus must have been expecting a radical overhaul of the world involving a global end to want, whether by supernatural or political means. It's possible he expected God to suddenly become more bounteous, when food becomes as available as air, and where if we are hungry we simple lean over and pick fruit from the nearest tree. Or it's possible that God will rearrange our bodies so that we'll no longer even need food. Or it's possible many people will die, and the few survivors will live as hunter-gatherers. Or, at the political end of the spectrum, it's possible Jesus thought that if all the wealth of the rich were re-distributed, there would be enough for all to live comfortably (there's an idea that would go down well in the Bible Belt - Jesus as a commie). But whatever the nature of his end-to-want revolution, that he believed there must be one follows from 1) and 2). Therefore, in some sense of the word, Jesus was eschatological; and therefore, as Schweitzer says, he was wrong.

Opinions, refutations, corroboration?

Robert

skepticalbip

I think you are putting entirely too much thought into this. Two questions before any of this should be even casually thought about.

1. Was there actually such a historical character as Jesus?

2. If yes, did he even consider the real world consequences of his supposed teachings or was he just a nut?

ETA:
Astronomers give us a few billion more years before the sun swells and sears the surface of the Earth to destroy all of life.

judge

But, if you are unsure what Jesus meant by the kingdom then how can you conclude it didn't happen?

After all Luke 17:20-21

20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you/in your midst."

judge

I diont think you can make a good case for this. If I "take no thought for tomorrow" does this mean I give everything up?