Among all the books in Scripture, the gospels surely stand out as the focal pieces that most read and treasure. The gospels are purported to contain the ministry and message of the centerhead of Christianity – that is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Surely His words matter more than anything else!

And yet, despite the popularity of the gospels, Christians have never agreed on a unanimous interpretation of His teachings. Like many great works of literature, there is more than one way to interpret text, and that is especially true for the teachings of Jesus. For example, people have speculated for a long time what does the “eye of the needle” refer to in the story of the rich man entering the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25).

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25 NRSVUE)

Because there are so many ways in which one can read meaning into Jesus’s teachings, readers must establish criteria to decide on valid interpretations while ruling out non-valid ones. I talked about in a previous post what these criteria should be, and why other hermeneutic principles are problematic. Chiefly, I think historical context should primarily govern interpretation, since Jesus was preaching to a community so different from ours. While many biblical interpreters preach similar advice, somehow I never see any of them ever mention the single most crucial piece of context that holds the key to how one understands Jesus’s words. That’s the subject of today’s post.

Jesus had an apocalyptic worldview

That’s it.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, preaching to the Middle East an apocalyptic worldview. In such a view, one understands the world as follows:

• The world is subject to a cosmic battle between two opposing forces
• The end of the age was imminent (e.g. some impending day of judgment)
• In the last days, God will intervene to overcome the forces of evil and reward those who sides with Him with a new era of peace and prosperity
• For His opponents, they will be destroyed

I got most of these content from Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, and reading it has helped me tremendously in contextualizing Jesus’s teachings. Apocalypticism isn’t a particularly novel movement in Jesus’s time – there were already plenty of Jewish communities subscribing to similar views (e.g. see the Book of Daniel, now dated to around the 2^nd century BCE). Furthermore, even in Paul’s letters we can see the evangelist subscribing to similar views about the imminence of the end times.

I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31 NRSVUE)

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 NRSVUE)

Jesus was also said to have some strikingly bold apocalyptic claims in the Synoptics (e.g. Mark 13). A lot of these sayings sound an awful lot like apocalyptic imagery. But how do we know if these views were authentic to Jesus?

“But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels and gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:24-27 NRSVUE)

For one, it is very possible that Jesus Himself subscribed to similar views as a Jewish prophet, given that preachers that came before and after him also did the same. Secondly, it is hard to imagine why would gospel writers manufacture Jesus’s apocalypticism, given that they were writing later than Jesus’s time and the end times were nowhere in sight even then. The latter argument, known as the criterion of embarrassment, raises the probability (though can never 100% prove) that these saying were historical, rather than an invention by the gospel writers.

While an apocalyptic view of Jesus has been the mainstream scholarly view in recent times, it has made many fundamentalists and evangelicals pretty uncomfortable. The implication of such a view is that one is forced to admit Jesus was wrong regarding the imminence of the end-times – a cancer to fundamentalists. From my experience, lots of Christians often downplay or ignore Jesus’s apocalyptic teachings to avoid confronting some of His harder sayings (e.g. Mark 13 above). But that is anachronistic reasoning based on our lives in a post-apocalyptic world 2000 years apart from Jesus. If we want to honestly consider the historical and cultural context of Jesus’s ministry, we shouldn’t downplay His teachings because we don’t like the idea of Jesus being wrong for theological reasons.

But why is acknowledging Jesus’s apocalyptic views important?

Making sense of Jesus’s teachings

Anyone familiar with the Synoptics knows that a large number of sayings have been attributed to Jesus (authentic or otherwise). Christians over the centuries have struggled with many of His sayings, especially His more radical teachings. For example, why would Jesus tell the rich man to sell off his possessions?

The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:20-21 NRSVUE)

Traditionally, Christians interpreted Jesus’s words to be targeted solely at the rich young man. The man had no issues keeping the Law, but Jesus recognized in his heart that he was materialistic and could not bear to part with his riches. Thus, Jesus gave Him that command to sell everything to remove the idol of wealth in his heart. In other words, Jesus’s words here were not universally prescriptive, but a wake-up call for us to make God our priority over our wealth.

I disagree. I think Jesus actually meant it when He called the young man to sell off everything, and I think He held that same expectation for all His true followers. This is where the apocalyptic view comes into play.

For one, there is nothing in the text that suggests Jesus was being radical only in the encounter with the rich man. In other chapters, we see Jesus telling His disciples to “take nothing” (Luke 9:3), implying that there was a tradition of thinking Jesus was entirely ascetic. If one rightfully recognized Jesus’s apocalyptic view, it would explain why Jesus had such radical takes. What good are material possessions when the end is coming? Better to forsake all worldly things for the sake of the future Kingdom! Luke 14:33 is even more explicit about this…

So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. (Luke 14:33 NRSVUE)

You could apply the same logic to other extreme sayings Jesus was reported to have said, including hating (Luke 14:26) and leaving family behind (Luke 9:61-62; Matthew 19:29). We often think of Jesus as a “family man” of sorts – one who promotes love and peace while actively seeks the growth and flourishing of families (i.e. children). This line of thinking goes back to Jewish roots, where parents are responsible for guiding the future generation to follow God (Deuteronomy 6). However, in the gospels, other than Jesus blessing little children (Matthew 18:1-5), there is no indication of Jesus being pro-family. In fact, Jesus appears to be anti-family in many sayings, such as in Luke 12.

From now on five 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 her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:52-53 NRSVUE)

Many Christians argue the verse speaks of the level of devotion required to enter the Kingdom of God, including the potential need to defy family to follow Christ. While there is some truth to that interpretation, I think the traditional interpretation misses out on the urgency behind Jesus’s teaching. If the sole goal of His saying was to convey the level of devotion required, I don’t see why Jesus would choose to use family defiance as a hyperbole, considering that He was also in favor of keeping the Law to enter the Kingdom (which includes honoring one’s parents, see Mark 10). Rather, His extreme teachings make more sense if we incorporate His apocalyptic views into the picture. The end of the age was coming very soon, and believers needed to drop everything to follow Him – wealth, family, even their lives (Luke 14, Mark 8, Matthew 16). Only those who are willing to give up all will be rewarded in the new Kingdom. In my view, this was no hyperbole – Jesus really meant it.

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the good news who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. (Mark 10:29-30 NRSVUE)

Another famous teaching of Jesus that, in my view, has been downplayed is His teachings on the Sermon of the Mount to love one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-44) and avoid retaliation (Matthew 5:38-42). The traditional interpretation is a call for one to be charitable towards those who oppose you (which I agree with). But what for?

Without the promise of a future reward/judgement from God that is coming soon, it is hard to explain why believers should exercise such charity through the rest of their lives (would you altruistically be that passive towards your enemies without an incentive on the horizon?). In the next verse, Jesus gives the reason: “so that you may be children of your Father in heaven…” (v45). Those who love their enemies are deemed perfectly righteous and on the Father’s side (v48). In parts of the Synoptics, Jesus speaks of two sides of good versus evil, and one should really strive to get on God’s good side quickly to receive His eternal reward before it is too late. Otherwise, destruction awaits them (see Matthew 25:31-46).

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. (Matthew 25:31-33 NRSVUE)

Conclusion

Readers of the gospels can easily read through Jesus’s sayings and derive great ethic and moral principles to live out their lives. Many Christians have done likewise, but how can we tell whether Jesus was teaching out of an apocalyptic or from a purely ethical mindset? Was Jesus conveying ideas of devotion or urgency when He called believers to give up their families for His sake? Did Jesus simply expect His followers to be grace-giving like the Father, or was He asking them to hold out in light of the impending judgement and vindication of the righteous? Was Jesus hyperbolic about giving up all their possessions? These are difficult questions, even for the most experienced biblical scholars.

Given what we know about other preachers adjacent to Jesus’s time (especially Paul), my view is that the apocalyptic view takes precedence. Without it, one would have to exercise mental gymnastics in all these sayings to soften Jesus’s message, either by claiming it is a hyperbole or a metaphor – which sounds like a stretch. The apocalyptic view assumes the most straightforward meaning behind Jesus’s words, plus it better accounts for other sayings of Jesus calling us to be watchful (Mark 13:32-37), and what C.S Lewis dubs “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible” (see below).

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. (Mark 13:30 NRSVUE)

If so, this raises many difficult questions regarding the applicability of Jesus’s words into our everyday lives. I don’t think many believers truly believe the end is coming THAT soon – otherwise why buy a house, or have kids, or even get married? How can we apply Jesus’s apocalyptic message into a non-apocalyptic world?

As much as we want to be charitable to those that cross us, simply remaining passive and submissive is often a long-term losing strategy, and it rarely wins hearts over (at least, within the workplace; I personally think it just invites others to step all over you). How far should we be giving up our possessions sacrificially (Mark 10:29-30), versus stewarding God’s resources and planning for the future? What should be watchful for, if not the imminent end of the ages? And how should we administer justice, if the end is not on the horizon and evildoers seem to roam free infinitely?

There’s a ton of ethical ambiguities that come about when one tries to apply the teachings of Jesus that was born out of an apocalyptic context. Yet, I see nearly no Christians discussing these issues. Give Dr. Ehrman’s book a read if you haven’t, and if you have any thoughts on these, I’ll love to hear them!