IT IS JUST NOT TRUE!

IT IS JUST NOT TRUE!

In my 2025 formal debate with noted atheist Richard Carrier Dr. Carrier led off arguing that Jesus shared the common view of his day, i.e., that the coming Messiah would come as a conquering warrior. He would crush the Romans, restore and glorify Jerusalem, and sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem. From there, he would rule the world.

In similar fashion, Sam Frost, in a Facebook discussion (circa 2025) acknowledged that the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 reflected the prevailing Jewish expectation of an eschatological ‘end of the age’ (by this he means the end of human history) tied to the temple and Jerusalem. (This paraphrases his comment; the original thread is no longer accessible).

The idea and claim that Jesus and his apostles shared the common Jewish expectation of an imminent end of human history for his generation is common. In fact, it is one of the reasons why it is claimed that when Jesus predicted the coming destruction of the Temple, the apostles immediately asked “Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of you coming and the end of the age” (Matthew 24:3). We are told repeatedly by the majority of commentators that the apostles mistakenly linked the impending destruction of the temple to the end of human history. (See my book, Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused? for a thorough refutation of this claim.

The question is, Did Jesus and his apostles actually share that common Jewish eschatological narrative? Did Jesus teach that he, as Messiah, was going to destroy the Romans in a dramatic end time war, as the Qumran Community believed the Messiah would do? Were Jesus’ apostles radical anti-Roman zealots bent on war and the re-establishment of the Davidic, military, theocratic kingdom? Some early Bible commentators claimed that this was true but that view had been debunked.

You have to understand that one of the reasons that Carrier and other skeptics and atheists take the position that they do is it allows them to then argue that since the end of human history did not come as Jesus said it would, then he cannot be the Son of God!

Frost does not take this position but his claim that the apostles DID share that view has led him to make the incredible claim that there are no actual time indicators of imminence concerning Christ’s coming and kingdom to be found in the NT! While the words rendered at hand, shortly, quickly, when used in non-prophetic texts do indicate imminence, per Frost, when used in prophetic texts those same identical words cannot, in even one instance, indicate that the end was near 2000 years ago! Such an incredibly illogical claim stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. It is the very essence of illogic.

Frost also insists that when the apostles asked about the “end of the age” that they were asking about the end of human history. But as my friend Larry Siegle of Ohio says, It is kinda absurd to think that the apostles were asking for a sign of the parousia and the end of human history! Would you actually need a sign that the end of human history had taken place???

In spite of this aberrant hermeneutic, Frost says this:

“Let me restate this: for Dispensationalists, and New Testament scholars, “near” means what it does in ordinary language: imminence; right on the verge of happening. Jesus fully expected his kingdom to arrive within the years of his ministry. That is the force of “imminence.” For the Preterist/Full Preterist, Jesus meant 70 AD, which was 37 years away from his own time. This is hardly in keeping with what “near” means, and how it was normally used and understood.” https://vigil.blog/

So, Frost admits that New Testament scholars posit that, “‘near’ means what it does in ordinary language: imminence; right on the verge of happening.” But he denies this scholarly consensus claiming that near cannot mean more than a couple of days, or weeks, but by no means can it refer to a period of years! He never gives us any hermeneutical, textual, exegetical support for his claim, however. He simply asserts it. That is not scholarship. That is the worst sort of eisegesis.

The question is, did Jesus and his apostles accept the common Jewish eschatological view? I suggest that it can be said that Jesus and the apostles accepted the general outline of Jewish expectation. That is, they accepted that Elijah was to come, that there was to be an Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, a great apostasy in Israel, all before the coming of the Lord in judgment and the kingdom. However, and this is critical, this is not the same as saying that they shared the same common view of the nature of the end.

The late Richard Hays notes: “The title ‘Son of Man’ was often associated with the nationalistic hopes for a military ruler to drive out the foreign powers that controlled Jerusalem and to restore the sovereignty of Israel.” (Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, (Baylor University Press, 2016), 54).

Andrew Stutz also chronicles the nature of the first century Kingdom expectation of the Jews:

“The hope of that time (first century, DKP) was for a royal, ruling, sovereign Messiah who would lead Israel to a new spiritual, social and political future.” “One feature of first century messianic expectation is the appearance of rebels as end time savior figures, as witnessed in both the New Testament and extra-biblical literature (cf. Acts 5:34f with Antiquities 20:97-99; Acts21:37-38, with Josephus Wars 2:261-263). In fact, ‘one can say that all the libertarian movements of the Second Temple period were messianic, whether at their base or at their roof beams’ (Haggai 1969, 48-49, author’s translation).These uprisings were stifled by the Roman occupying forces. Another characteristic of the imminent messianic expectation is the tense expectation found in the Qumran texts (see Betz and Riesner 1993, 119) and in the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Churgin 1907, 124). This messianic expectation was not unknown to the Roman historians (See Suetonius, Vesp.; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13". (Andreas Stutz, A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, (Peabody, Mass,; Hendrickson, 2019), Craig Evans General Editor), 144f).

Likewises, Andrew Mbuvi, shows that in Jewish thought: “Restoration from exile was to be epitomized by the reestablishment of the temple and cultus.... Peter (1 Peter, DKP) reshapes and reconstitutes both the identity of the temple and that of believers, merging ‘two strains of Jew and Gentile... into a new body.” ( Andrew Mbuvi, Temple, Exile and Identity in 1 Peter (London; T and T Clark International, 2007), 44).

It is disturbing to this writer that some futurist views, particularly the Dispensational (and to an extent in some Postmillennial circles) this same kind of “Jewish expectation”is shared! Dispensationalists insist on a future restoration of the earthly Davidic kingdom, with Messiah slaying his enemies and ruling over a geo-political, militaristic kingdom. In other words, Dispensationalism has the same kind of kingdom expectation that put Jesus on the cross. Because they learned that Jesus was not offering that kind of kingdom, they rejected him and killed him!

Some years ago I had a formal debate with popular futurist Harold Berle in Oregon. In the Q and A he was asked if he was expecting a future, restored, earthly kingdom and he said “yes.” Similarly, in 2012, I had a two day formal debate with Joel McDurmon, then president of American Vision. In the Q and A he said that he was looking forward to an earthly kingdom. (That debate (End Times Dilemma) is available in book form from my websites.

The truth is, however, that it is just not true that Jesus and his apostles accepted the restoration of the literalistic, geo-political, theocratic kingdom! They did NOT share the common Jewish expectation of the day! Several scholars have taken note that it was the literalistic, nationalistic Jewish expectation that actually led to Jesus being rejected and crucified

Commenting on John 6:15, in which the Jews wanted to make Jesus king, G. R. Beasley-Murray offered this:

The Jews, who clearly wanted the restoration of the Davidic Theocracy, upon witnessing the feeding of the multitude with just a few loaves and fishes, were eager to anoint Jesus. However, “When Jesus perceived that they were about to come and make him king, he withdrew himself. G. R. Beasley Murray notes literalistic Messianic expectation of the times and the fervor generated by the feeding of the crowd. But he notes also that “Jesus’ refusal to accede to the multitude’s demands must be reckoned as one of the turning points in his ministry, for from this time Jesus and the crowds parted company.” (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36, John (Nashville: Word Publishers, 1999), 88).

N. T. Wright says,

I therefore propose that the clash between Jesus and his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees, must be seen in terms of alternative political agendas generated by alternative eschatological beliefs and expectations. Jesus was announcing the kingdom in a way which did not reinforce, but rather called into question,★ the agenda of revolutionary zeal which dominated the horizon of, especially, the dominant group within Pharisaism.” (N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis; Fortress Press, 1996), 390).

★ It should be noted that if Jesus was, as Wright suggests and it is accurate, redefining the nature of the kingdom then of necessity that means that Jesus was re-defining the very nature of the resurrection! Biblically, kingdom and resurrection extremely close in meaning! Thus, if / since Jesus was rejecting the idea of a literal, nationalistic, physical kingdom, he was thereby rejecting the idea of a physical resurrection!

G. L. Borchert adds these thoughts concerning the Jewish expectation and Jesus’ response to that:

The next two acts of Jesus, the feeding of the great multitude (6:10–13) and the power over the sea (6:18–21), were awesome indicators of who Jesus really was. The immediate response of the common people signaled a readiness to chase after such power (6:24). Indeed, they were ready to make this power broker their king (6:15) until they began to hear his words; then they discovered that he really did not fit into their preconceived messianic boxes. When that happened, those who had flocked to him were ready to abandon him (6:60, 66). Here the signs served their purpose until they were met by unbending presuppositions.” (Borchert, G. L. (1996). John 1–11 (Vol. 25A, p. 347). Broadman & Holman Publishers- Logos Bible Program on Excursus 10- Heading III, The Festal Cycle).

Nothing could more powerfully refute the claim that Jesus and his apostles shared the common Jewish expectation of the kingdom and the end times than a realization that the Jews wanted to make Jesus their kingdom but Jesus rejected that offer! If Jesus was offering what they wanted and if they wanted what he was offering, then why in the name of reason did they reject him and seek to have him killed? And if he wanted what they were offering, then why did he, in fact reject their offer? It should be patently obvious that neither Jesus or his apostles shared the common Jewish expectation of the kingdom, or the resurrection, or even eschatology!

✟ The Jews wanted an earthly, visible, material kingdom. Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

✟ The Jews wanted Messiah to destroy the Romans in a climactic “Holy War.” Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, then my servants would fight” (John 18:36).

✟ The Jews wanted a conquering warrior king. The idea of a suffering, sacrificial kingdom was an abhorrent idea. But Jesus came to offer himself, to die as a ransom (Mark 10:45).

✟ The Jews wanted earthly, visible, material kingdom, Jesus said “the kingdom does not come with observation” ( Luke 17:20-21).

✟ The Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection and believed, temporarily, that Paul shared their view of the resurrection (Acts 23: 6ff). But just like when they discovered that Jesus was not offering the kind of kingdom that they wanted, they sought to kill him, when the discovered what Paul actually taught about the resurrection, they wanted to kill him (Acts 24:14f)! See my book, Paul on Trial in which I show the direct parallels between Jesus and Paul in regard to the Jewish expectation and why the Jews rejected them. It is a powerful study!

✟ The Jews wanted the land to be fully restored, free of Roman control. They wanted the temple purified, the sacrifices purified, the Levitical priesthood purified, with the cultus restored to its purity. Paul taught that followers of Christ were not to put their focus on the “New Moons, feast days or Sabbaths” and to not put their affection on the land (Colossians 2:16-3:1-3).

✟ The Jews, to reiterate, wanted an earthly kingdom. Paul taught that those in Christ had been transferred out of darkness into the kingdom of God’s son and they were to put their eyes on heaven not on the land (Colossians 1:12-13).

All of this means that the atheists and skeptics are wrong to say that Jesus failed, since their claim is based on a false claim that Jesus shared the common materialistic expectation of the kingdom and the end of the age. He did no such thing.

It falsifies those who claim that the apostles linked the coming destruction of Jerusalem with some imaginary “end of human history” or materialistic restoration of Jerusalem.

The fact that Jesus and his apostles categorically and definitively rejected the Jewish expectation of the day proves futurism false!

IT IS JUST NOT TRUE! And because it is not true, the foundation of skepticsm is destroyed and a great deal of futurism is destroyed!