Post-Mortem Salvation, Mercy for the Righteous, Elihu

I’m continuing my way through Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.  I have three items:

1.  Richard Bauckham talks about the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which could date anywhere from the first century B.C.E.-the first century C.E., and its origin could be within Second Temple Judaism or even Christianity.  The Apocalypse of Zephaniah has a view that was unusual within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, according to Baukham, and that is that there is an opportunity for the wicked dead in the abyss to repent—-at least prior to the last judgment.  After the last judgment, however, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah concurs with other Jewish and Christian writings that the opportunity for repentance has passed.

2.  On page 181, Bauckham discusses recipients of mercy.  According to IV Ezra, or at least the “unconverted Ezra” in that book, God shows mercy to sinners who lack good works, not to the righteous.  II Baruch and the Enoch traditions, by contrast, hold that God’s mercy is specifically for the righteous, who have plenty of good works and yet are imperfect.  This reminds me of a couple of things.  First, there is Jesus’ statements in the synoptic Gospels that he came to call not the righteous, but sinners.  Second, I thought of how some scholars have characterized the position of the Judaizers whom Paul criticizes: that they already were good on account of their works, but that they still needed forgiveness (presumably through Christ’s sacrifice) to take care of those few areas where they are imperfect.  But Paul had a much dimmer view of humanity’s sinfulness and predicament.

3.  On page 200, Robert Kugler talks about the Testament of Job, and how Testament of Job 43 says that Elihu was possessed by Satan and thus lost his wealth.  This interested me because I have long wondered how to regard Elihu’s contribution to the Book of Job, which contains some of the same points that Job’s other friends have made, and yet may also set the stage for God’s rebuke to Job that Job does not know much.  Elihu is not condemned at the end of the book, in contrast to Job’s other friends, and scholars have said this is because Elihu’s contribution was added later.  Those who do not believe in those kinds of layers, however, have different explanations, such as one saying that Elihu was young and so God didn’t criticize him, thinking that Elihu didn’t know any better.  It’s interesting to see how Elihu is regarded within the History of Interpretation, and I see that the Testament of Job viewed him quite negatively.

I appreciated how the Jewish Encyclopedia characterized Elihu’s speeches (see here): “God is the educator of mankind, who punishes only until the sinner has atoned for his sin and recognizes his wrong-doing. Then God has attained His object, to ‘bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living’ (xxxiii. 17-30). Elihu, therefore, holds a middle ground, maintaining that God neither ‘takes away judgment,’ nor sends suffering merely as a punishment, but acts as the educator and teacher of mankind (xxxiv. 5; xxxv. 1, 14; xxxvi. 10, 22).”

IV Ezra, Fishbane

Source: Michael E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 428-429.

“Classic in this connection is 4 Ezra 14 claiming Mosaic authority, indeed authority beyond that of Moses, for the apocalyptic revelations…It has also been claimed persuasively that the methods of exegesis in the apocryphal literature in general and a fortiori in the apocalypses, show that the possibility of inspiration and the results of independent individual cogitation were accorded more weight than in rabbinic literature, this also leading to a less intimate tie to the biblical text.”

Much of IV Ezra was written in the first century C.E., since it mentions Roman emperors from that time. Although there was a biblical canon–as Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament make clear–there were still Jews who believed that God continued to inspire new writings. I guess that’s not too surprising, since the New Testament made the same claim!

This overlaps with my Fishbane paper. (BTW, I haven’t written any Fishbane posts as of late because I’ve actually been working on the Fishbane paper.) During the post-exilic period, there were people who challenged the laws of the Pentateuch. They claimed new inspiration, and they acted as if their writings superseded what came before. That seems to be what occurred within certain circles in the first century C.E., as we see in writings such as IV Ezra.

At the time of IV Ezra, there was a clear canon that most Jews deemed to be authoritative, and it included the Torah and the prophets. Yet, there were still Jews who claimed new revelation, notwithstanding the canon’s existence and prominence. Consequently, even though there were challenges to the Torah in the post-exilic period, it may very well have been an authoritative and widespread traditum, meaning that Fishbane’s model of a traditio interpreting an authoritative traditum has merit. But Fishbane should still acknowledge that there were Jews who questioned the Torah, believing that God could act in new, fresh ways anytime he chose.

The Temporary Rule of the Messiah

In Revelation 20:2-7, we read about Christ ruling the earth for a thousand years right after his return. Following the millennium, Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire, the dead are judged, and a new heaven and new earth emerge (Revelation 20-22).

A similar idea may be found in I Corinthians 15:23-28: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him.’ When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all” (NRSV).

This passage may mean that Christ has ruled since his resurrection and is currently subordinating all of his enemies, but he will turn the kingdom over to God right after his return to earth. Or it can mean that Christ will come to earth, set up a kingdom, subordinate his enemies during his reign, and finally hand all rule over to God. Either way, we see that the Messiah rules for a time, then he gives his kingdom to someone else.

What’s interesting is that we see a similar idea in first-second century C.E. Jewish apocalyptic literature. In the Second Apocalypse of Baruch 29-30, for example, the Messiah is revealed, the monsters Behemoth and Leviathan are eaten, the land produces fruit, and the hungry are fed. Then, the Messiah returns in glory, and the dead are judged (see here). The Messiah comes, does his job, and leaves, after which history seems to come to an end.

In II Esdras, we see something similar, yet slightly different. We read in 7:27-33:

“Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left. After seven days the world that is not yet awake shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. The earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest there in silence; and the chambers shall give up the souls that have been committed to them. The Most High shall be revealed on the seat of judgment, and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn.”

Here, the Messiah is revealed and rules for four hundred years. Then, he and all other human beings die, and the world returns to a primeval state. After that is the judgment of the dead. So the Messiah doesn’t go to glory in this passage. He dies with everyone else.

That reminds me of II Peter 3:10-13:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.”

We don’t really see a Messianic interval here. In this passage, God pretty much cuts to the chase: Christ comes, the cosmos is destroyed, and a new heavens and a new earth takes its place. But a lot of Christians try to read II Peter 3 and Revelation together, positing that the earth will burn up right after Christ’s millennial rule. And that’s the scenario we find in II Esdras, only Revelation doesn’t present the Messiah dying after the millennium. For the author of Revelation, Christ already died once!

I one time debated an amillennialist, and I was defending the pre-millennial view: that Christ will come back and set up a millennial reign. By contrast, amillennialists maintain that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not a literal thousand year reign in the future. Rather, it’s symbolic, as are many things in apocalyptic literature, and it represents Christ’s present rule, which began with his resurrection.

The amillennialist told me that I didn’t understand the apocalyptic genre. I don’t know. Maybe my understanding actually conforms to that genre. The Second Apocalypse of Baruch and II Esdras present the Messiah overthrowing the evil of their time and establishing a temporary rule. They don’t suggest that the Messiah is ruling in their time. Their time stinks, which is why they’re writing the literature in the first place!

But amillennialism may have a point. If it does, it’s a point that’s unique to Christianity rather than representative of all apocalyptic literature. Christians, after all, believe that the Messiah has come, which could conceivably mean that he’s ruling right now (on some level). The authors of the apocalypses, however, viewed the Messiah solely as a future figure.

Also, even though Revelation presents the Messiah having a temporary reign, it also believes that he will rule forever, for Revelation 22:1 talks about the throne of God and the lamb (Jesus) in the new heavens and the new earth. The millennium is a period of transition, not the sum total of Christ’s reign. That may reveal a difference between Christianity and the Jewish apocalypses: Christianity views the Messiah as much more than a clerk who will take care of a little business and leave once his job is done. Christ’s status in Christianity is much higher than that.