Jesus As an Apocalyptic Prophet: The Meaning of the Theory for Systematic Theology

The presence of the apocalyptic theory in contemporary research on historical Jesus

The theory that Jesus was an eschatological or apocalyptic prophet, foretelling and anticipating the imminent end of the world (or, rather, the present state of the world), is the dominant trend in contemporary research on historical Jesus. In order to acquire a good grasp of the context of the functioning of this theory, it is first worthwhile to briefly present the history of this research. Looking at the figure of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity from a purely historical perspective did not appear until the 18th century, and its context was Enlightenment rationalism. The first thinkers to propose a critical-historical approach to Jesus and the Gospel were not committed Christians but religiously skeptical freethinkers.

The first important figure that should be mentioned was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (Schweitzer: 13–26). His critical views of traditional Christian approaches were so revolutionary and iconoclastic that the author himself did not fully disclose them during his life. Reimarus’ texts on the meaning and story of Jesus were published after his death by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, a famous Enlightenment philosopher and playwright. According to Reimarus, the figure of Jesus should be interpreted in a strictly temporal and political manner. The Nazarene was to strive – at least initially – for a socio-political revolution and the liberation of Israel from Roman occupation (Schweitzer: 19). It is worth adding that in this regard Reimarus’ views have their followers today. Their representative is, for example, the religious scholar Reza Aslan, who interprets the figure of Jesus in the spirit of national liberation (Aslan 2013). How did Reimarus explain what happened after Jesus’ defeat and tragic death? Very simply – the disciples stole the Master’s body and began to talk about his resurrection, while making a spiritual and eschatological reinterpretation of Jesus’ message, which initially had a political meaning (Schweitzer: 21).

The second important figure to be mentioned when it comes to the history of the study of historical Jesus is David Friedrich Strauss (Strauss 1902). He achieved a peculiar maximum of skepticism while introducing a valuable category of myth to the discourse on the beginning of Christianity. Many 19th-century books about Jesus, often in the form of peculiar biographies, sometimes plunged into breakneck rationalism. Descriptions of extraordinary or miraculous events in the Gospels were interpreted in the spirit of seeking rational explanations (e.g., Jesus healed someone because he had hidden medicines; he did not die on the cross but fell into lethargy, from which Joseph of Arimathea awoke him). Strauss distanced himself from both classical supernaturalism and this kind of naive rationalism. He recognized the need to perceive the mythical nature of the Gospel descriptions rather than take them literally. Jesus probably did exist and taught, but the description of his life that the Gospels tell us is structured in the veil of myth. This path was followed by Rudolf Bultmann, who proposes the demythologization of the Gospel – not so much to get to the real figure of historical Jesus (because that is, according to Bultmann, almost impossible), but to make the Christian faith more intelligible for contemporary man (see Bultmann: 35–36). Along with his disciples, followers, and opponents, Bultmann constitutes the so-called second stage of research on historical Jesus. Some researchers followed radical skepticism while others pointed out that it is possible to say something positive about the Jesus of history (see Patterson: 486). However, the mid-20th century was a time of a rather minimalistic attitude when it came to searching for the truth about Jesus as a historical figure.

Returning to the first stage of research on historical Jesus, to the search for 19th-century rationalists, we must finally move on to a book that summarized and criticized the effects of these searches. A book also serves as a starting point for the theory of Jesus as the apocalyptic prophet discussed in this article. A study by Albert Schweitzer, best known in its English translation, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Schweitzer 1910) is a kind of metacritic, as the author was skeptical about skeptical reconstructions of the figure and message of Jesus in the 19th century. It was Schweitzer who first noticed that researchers used to succumb to their own context and attribute to Jesus features and views typical of their era and dominant in intellectual currents. “Thus, each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character,” (Schweitzer: 4).

In the eyes of researchers from the 19th century, Jesus was not only interpreted in a rationalist key, but he was also to be a teacher of a kind of rational religion; almost some eulogist of deism, the universal brotherhood of man, or Kantian ethics. A critical summary of the hitherto search for a historical Jesus is not the only advantage of Schweitzer’s work. At the end of his book, he made his own conclusions about the meaning of Jesus’ figure and His message. According to the German theologian, the only truly coherent and meaningful explanation of Jesus’ speech is one that is eschatological (Schweitzer: 399). Jesus foretold an imminent breakthrough, some kind of intervention from God in the history of Israel and the world, which he referred to as the coming of God’s kingdom. It was not about discovering any timeless truths or social or political matters. In the first place, Jesus had in mind a supernatural reality that was to transform and subordinate a finite, temporal reality. Thus, the Master of Nazareth was part of the Jewish apocalyptic trend, about which we can learn a lot from the texts of the so-called intertestamental literature (e.g., the Book of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon), but also from some texts of the Old Testament prophets.

An apocalyptic prophet, foretelling the imminent end of the present time and the coming of God’s reign, was also John the Baptist. In short, Schweitzer stated in his book that Jesus was someone who foreshadowed the eschatological completion of the world – and one to come soon. For Schweitzer, Christ’s teaching was eschatological or apocalyptic, not purely ethical or socio-political. In putting this thesis forward, Schweitzer paved the way for later researchers of issues related to historical Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, taking a peculiar eschatological turn. This is not to say that Schweitzer was the only person who noticed the eschatological threads in Jesus’ teaching. Strauss, mentioned earlier, wrote about this character of Christ’s message but clearly connected it with its political dimension (Strauss: 294). The key role was that of William Wrede, to whom Schweitzer refers in his work. According to Wrede, the eschatological expectation of Jesus also affected his understanding. This is why, as Wrede argued, Jesus could not call himself the Messiah during his earthly life (Wrede: 228–229).

In the second half of the 20th century, during a period known as the Third Quest, the theory that Jesus was primarily an eschatological or apocalyptic prophet was actually the dominant theory. E.P. Sanders (1985) contributed to a strong insertion of the figure of Jesus in the Second Temple, and especially with apocalyptic tendencies. In his opinion, it is impossible to understand Jesus’ thinking and actions other than by placing them in the eschatological expectations of Israel. It is similar with the apostle Paul, to whom Sanders (1977) also devoted another book, initiating a new approach to research on the thought of Paul (the so-called new perspective).

Another great researcher who proclaims the eschatological-apocalyptic nature of Jesus is Dale Allison (Allison 1998). In his opinion, not only was Jesus a proclaimer of the eschatological transformation of the world, he also undoubtedly expected it to come soon (Allison: 44). Similar views are expressed by Paula Fredriksen (Fredriksen: 42) and Bart Ehrman (Ehrman 1999: 3). For the latter, although they undoubtedly overlap, it is important to distinguish them. It is better to speak directly of the apocalyptic message of Jesus in order to keep a clear distinction between apocalyptic and eschatology. When it comes to the apocalyptic, we speak of God’s action at the end of time on Earth. Eschatology, on the other hand, can be associated with the narrative of life after death. So, when Jesus, or Paul, are called the preachers of eschatology, it may seem that this is a message about what awaits the individual after the death of the body. Meanwhile, Jesus was an apocalyptic, that is, he focused on what God wanted to do by intervening in this world, in history, changing it (Ehrman 1999: 128).

Meier, a well-known exegete, is of a different opinion. While Ehrman is an agnostic, Meier is a Catholic presbyter. In his monumental work, A Marginal Jew (1991, 1994, 2001, 2009, 2016), the author insists on calling Jesus an eschatological prophet. According to Meier, the apocalyptic signifies a certain symbolic universe that we know from literature, such as the Book of Enoch. While Jesus alludes to such symbolism, Meier emphasizes that the crux lies in understanding eschatology not merely as posthumous realities but as the ultimate restoration of Israel and all of reality through it (Meier 2016: 66). In this respect Meier compares Jesus to Elijah, showing the similarity of teaching style and behavior between the two biblical characters (Meier 1994).

Despite the terminological discussions and some detailed differences, both Ehrman and Meier belong to the eschatological or apocalyptic hypothesis. Another important and influential scholar in this trend is N. T. Wright, an exegete and Anglican theologian. He places particular emphasis on the messianic character of Jesus (Wright: 477–81) and the importance of Paschal events as the beginning of a new age (Wright: 612–53). His reflections differ from the mainstream apocalyptic hypothesis, if only because Wright does not believe that Jesus was expecting some imminent end time that did not come. Nevertheless, in a broad sense, Wright can be included in the apocalyptic trend in the search for historical Jesus.

For the sake of balance, it is worth adding that, although this trend is the most popular and dominates the contemporary scientific debate over historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity, it is not the only one. There are other theories that sometimes exclude the eschatological-apocalyptic one and at other times may be compatible with it but emphasize other dimensions of Jesus’ message and activity. Contrary to the apocalyptic theory, there is an apparent tendency to perceive Jesus as a kind of sage or even philosopher. In this approach, the kingdom of God is a matter of a certain spiritual transformation of individuals and society, and the teachings of Jesus are a philosophy, even close to the ancient current of cynicism. This view is represented by researchers associated with the Jesus Seminar, co-founded by John D. Crossan (Crossan 1991). Geza Vermes was the leading representative of another trend which views Jesus primarily as a Jewish charismatic, similar to other pious men living in ancient Israel (Vermes 1981). In turn, according to Gerd Theissen, Jesus was above all a social reformer, encouraging people to a new model of life and a peaceful reversal of the world order (Theissen 1987).

However, the apocalyptic-eschatological question still dominates and does not disappear from the debates about historical Jesus. This is evidenced by the recent call by James Crossley to “The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus”, published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. There we read that research on historical Jesus must take into account comparisons with other similar phenomena, and, as an example, are given millenarian tendencies that are present in many cultures, which, in the author’s opinion, are still not fully perceived in the Gospel exegesis (Crossley: 263).

Basic assumptions of the theory of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet

The first point that must be considered to discuss the content of this theory in more detail is the ideological context of Jesus’ public activity, which is precisely the context of the apocalypticism of Second Temple Judaism. The apocalyptic trend in the thought and spirituality of Judaism during this period seems to be very strong (Fredriksen: 81–86). We know this from the extant apocryphal texts mentioned above, not just from the biblical Book of Daniel and from fragments of other late-written prophetic books of the Old Testament. The written texts are not the only sources of the researchers’ belief that there was a strong apocalyptic current in Judaism at the time of Jesus. This is also confirmed by the views of two otherwise very different Jewish factions: the Pharisees and the Essenes. Thanks to the accounts of Josephus Flavius, we know that they could be associated with the apocalyptic current. Moreover, the Qumran manuscripts, discovered in 1947, are clearly of this nature, although a question arises: To what extent can we call the Qumran community simply apocalyptic (Davies: 39)? What is specific about the eschatological or apocalyptic expectations of Qumran seems to be an exclusive, sectarian aspect of that thought. Unlike the Pharisees, for example, the Essenes expected that salvation from God’s impending intervention would apply only to the members of their sect, who called themselves Sons of Light (Price: 28–29).

All of this means that many 1st-century Jews displayed a certain eschatological tension; they expected some extraordinary breakthrough and a reversal of the fate of Israel and the world. A similar tension also arose at the very beginning in Christianity, as we especially see in Paul’s early writings. Even a cursory reading of 1 Thessalonians suffices to conclude that the apostle of the nations was apocalyptic and, moreover, that he expected the end of time to come while he was still alive. So, when we look at Jesus’ disciples and those who continue his work, we see a strong apocalyptic or eschatological tension. The same is true when we look at the immediate predecessor of Jesus, John the Baptist.

The New Testament portrays John as the prophet of the coming kingdom, announcing judgment but also the coming of the messiah. Modern research confirms that the figure of John must be understood eschatologically, and the best analogy for him is the biblical prophet Elijah, whose return to Earth was expected (Marcus: 59–61). In the opinion of most researchers of issues related to historical Jesus, it must be directly stated that John was Jesus’ teacher (Meier 1994: 116–130). In the teachings of the prophet from Jordan, the theme of the approaching apocalypse was clearly expressed, and it was to come, it seems, very soon: “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matt 3:10 NIV). John encourages everyone to convert for the sake of the coming kingdom of God. Jesus, whom the Gospels do not hide, teaches exactly the same as John (Matt 3:2 = Matt 4:17). Some researchers also try to demonstrate John’s connection to the eschatological-apocalyptic community of Qumran (Marcus: 45).

The whole tradition of biblical Judaism is a further, but also important, context of the apocalyptic message of Jesus. The supernatural breakthrough that the teacher of Nazareth announces is not meant to be some kind of global event that affects everyone in one way and to the same degree. Jesus remains a biblical Jew and a Jewish patriot, and although God’s announced action is to ultimately affect the whole world, a special role for Israel is provided in it (Meier 1994: 309–317, Wright: 200). In other words, the end or completion of time is first and foremost the achievement of its fullness by the people of Israel. It is Israel that is to be at the center of the apocalyptic breakthrough. This is clearly visible in the symbolic gesture of Jesus in the form of choosing his twelve disciples, called the apostles (Ehrman 1999: 186). It goes without saying that the number twelve refers to the number of the legendary sons of the patriarch Jacob, each of whom would give birth to a tribe of Israel. So, when Jesus chooses and sends his twelve disciples, he makes it clear that in his opinion the regathering of the scattered and oppressed people of Israel is taking place.

If anyone has any doubt that the choice of the twelve and their mission ultimately has an apocalyptic-eschatological meaning, it is enough to read the verse of Matt 19:28: “You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The selection of the twelve is related to the coming re-birth of Israel and, at the same time, to its judgment. The renewal and transformation of the world is ultimately to be accomplished for all – many “will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 8:11 NIV). However, Israel is to play a central role, and the transformation of the world is, in the first step, its transformation and renewal. No wonder that the message of the kingdom of God should be preached first to Israel (see Mt 10:5–6).

The central concept and the main theme of Jesus’ teaching is undoubtedly the kingdom of God or, as some exegetes prefer, the kingship of God (Greek: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). According to the discussed theory, this concept has an apocalyptic sense, referring to the reality renewed by God. The reign of God is therefore a transformed reality that will replace the temporal world. It is to come soon, and its imminent arrival is heralded by miraculous signs performed by Jesus and His teachings (Skierkowski: 304). The reign of God cannot be built up because its arrival ultimately depends on God Himself. However, as Jesus urges his listeners, one can prepare for his coming and become open to it.

It is worth noting that the apocalyptic understanding of the kingdom of God clearly differs from the philosophical and rationalist approach followed by 19th-century researchers, but which is also present in the narrative of many evangelizers or clergymen. The kingdom of God is not something that people build or actualize, nor is it merely an individual’s personal conversion. As Meier states: “Despite endless homiletic nonsense spouted from pulpits, humans can do nothing to «hasten» the coming of the kingdom of God, let alone «build» or «form» it. Jesus does not call upon his followers to create or form the kingdom of God. He calls upon them to respond to its inexorable coming and partial presence in his ministry” (Meier 2016: 307).

The kingdom is therefore an intervention of God himself in the destiny of the world and the transformation of reality. This understanding also differs from the popular view among Christians, according to which the kingdom of God means heaven, or life after death. Jesus, by contrast is apocalyptic; he did not pay much attention to the afterlife but announced the coming of God’s reign on earth in this (though totally transformed) world. The kingdom of God, then, would not be some sort of promise of an afterlife, but something to be expected in this life and for which one must be prepared.

The second category, which in Jesus’ teaching is related to the kingship of God and is its correlate, is the appearance of the Son of Man. This notion is controversial and debatable in all ways, making it a hot topic of discussion among exegetes. The fact is that in the synoptic Gospels, also the so-called Q, the category of the Son of Man appears, which Jesus himself uses. Considering that in later New Testament texts this category almost disappears, it seems clear that it was used by historical Jesus. It would be difficult to prove that it was put in the mouth by later Christians who were not inclined to use it at all. Since the concept of the Son of Man was used by Jesus, and often, it must have certainly been relevant to him. The problem is that there are two important dilemmas associated with this concept and its appearance in the Gospels. First, considering that Jesus taught in Aramaic, it should be noted that the term Son of Man in this language primarily meant man (Vermes: 176). So, we are dealing with a general term indicating humanity or a specific person. In this sense, the concept also functions in many texts of the Old Testament. It remains debatable whether and in what fragments of the Gospels such a meaning of the term corresponds to a given pericope in which the phrase “Son of Man” appears.

However, the second meaning of this concept, which cannot be denied, is precisely apocalyptic. The Son of Man, as a certain supernatural figure whose appearance accompanies the end of times, appears in a famous vision and the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel. He also appears in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. At least in some cases, it is undoubtedly in this apocalyptic sense that the concept of the Son of Man also appears in the teachings of Jesus (e.g., Matt 26:64). It is debatable, however, in which cases the Son of Man has this very meaning and in which he refers simply to humanity.

The second dilemma is whether the Son of Man Jesus speaks of is himself or some other figure expected to come. Regardless, it seems highly probable that Jesus expected the coming of the form of the Son of Man (identical or not as him), which would be associated with the emergence of God’s kingdom. “The early teachers and apostles changed the expectation of the Son of man coming with his angels to the return of the Lord, just as in the synoptic tradition they identified the Son of man with Jesus; but the general expectation probably goes back to Jesus,” concludes E. P. Sanders (Sanders 1985: 145).

The continuity between John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul—the announcements of the coming kingship of God and the coming Son of Man—Christ’s tense radical moral commands and requirements, along with his symbolic gestures such as the election of twelve disciples, all make the most sense when one adopts the theory that Jesus foretold the coming apocalypse. He was a herald of the approaching end of the current state of affairs and the coming of a new reality transformed by God and subordinate to Him. Was it, however, a general expectation, without a specified time horizon? There are many indications that the expectation of Jesus related to the upcoming time. In a famous verse of Matt 10:23 we hear that the apostles will not have time to go through all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. In turn, in Mark 9:1, we read the following words of Jesus: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” It would be difficult to justify the origin of such announcements from the later Christian community. It seems most likely that they came from the historical Jesus. Thus, there are many indications that he expected the end of the current epoch and God’s intervention to complement the fate of the world in the near future (Schweizter: 356). This conclusion, with which some researchers representing the theory agree, starting with Albert Schweitzer, raises a few theological questions that cannot be ignored.

A theological meaning of the theory

The perception of Jesus as an eschatological or apocalyptic prophet has an impact on systematic theology. A Christian’s act of faith deals with Christ as the eternal Lord, not as the historical figure of Jesus himself. Paul strongly emphasized this: “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16 NIV). However, a certain continuity must remain and indeed remains between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (Meier 1991: 198–99). Christian theology cannot ignore the decisions of exegetes and historians. Therefore, it is worth sketching a few issues, questions, and theological problems that arise from the adoption of apocalyptic optics in the interpretation of the Gospels.

The first important issue concerns Christology. If Jesus was expecting an imminent cosmic breakthrough in which he was to play a special role, and which would take place very soon, then it must be said that he was in some way wrong (Ehrman 1999: 244). This assumption, in turn, raises questions related to the consciousness and self-awareness of Jesus. To what extent is the belief in a specific scope of his consciousness connected with faith in Christ’s divine filiation? Perhaps the issue of Christ’s humanity should be reworked, remembering that erring is some permanent dimension of being human. This means that the category of Christ’s infallibility must be rethought so as not to present it literally as the absolute truthfulness of his views and beliefs.

Being confused about what God was doing in the world does not mean that Jesus was wrong on a deeper level. It is his oneness with the Father and our trust in him that is the foundation of our faith and following of Christ. Even if Jesus had been found to be wrong about the image of the world it could not have changed it. In one of his books, Hans Küng stated that Jesus was indeed probably expecting a quick end to the present world, but his conviction can be treated as conditioned by the apocalyptic atmosphere of the epoch (Küng: 122). So, just as Jesus probably thought that the sun revolves around the Earth, so also did He think that the apocalypse was about to come. There is something right about this lead, but it can serve as a way of slipping through a difficult topic. After all, Jesus’ expectation of God’s coming kingship is not external to His message; it is at the very heart of it. So, could Jesus have made a mistake in what he taught? Or was he only wrong in the way of expressing God’s truth, forcing it into the apocalyptic structure? In any case, the theory of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet asks: What is the essence of God’s revelation in teaching Christ? What is just a form that may not literally correspond to reality and belong to some historically and culturally conditioned way of thinking?

The question of Jesus’ expectations must be extended and translated into the expectations of the early Church. In fact, it is probable none of the researchers of early Christianity deny that there was a strong eschatological tension in it (Fredriksen: 132). The expectation of the end of times and the advent of some new age was just as fundamental to the early Christians as it probably was to Jesus himself. Instead of waiting for the mysterious Son of Man, there was a wait for the return of Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead but was again about to come down to Earth (Eurell: 62). As we all know, nothing like that – at least in the literal sense – has happened to this day. Does this mean that Christianity began with one big mistake? It is impossible to ignore the question.

The eschatological character of the beginnings of the Church also makes us rethink some institutional solutions that function in this community today. Perhaps many customs, truths, rituals, and principles used by the Church today should be perceived not as something necessary, indispensable, and timeless. Instead, they could be seen as a result of the expectation of Parousia, which continues and weakens with each generation (Overbeck: 230–231). As eschatological tension was weakening, the need to root Christianity in this world and to give it some institutional order grew. Remembering the origins of Christianity as an apocalyptic movement can help us distance ourselves from the temporal forms in which the Christian faith and community are expressed today.

Another level that needs to be referred to is the message of the kingdom of God. The concept of God’s king-ship was crucial to Jesus, as the synoptic Gospels bear witness. However, for Paul and John this concept is less important, giving way to other theological categories. If we want to go back to the roots and deepen our understanding of the Gospel, we must return to the concept of the kingdom of God, and at the same time combat dualistic interpretations of this term, which teem in the Christian tradition. The understanding of the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about as simply Heaven (after death in another world or dimension) cannot be maintained in the light of biblical exegesis (Ehrman 2020: 147–168). Even if Jesus’ message of God’s kingdom contains the hope of eternal life, that is not its essence but only one element. The kingdom of God, announced by the apocalyptic prophet Jesus, is a reality transformed and surrendered to God, not some second, parallel world in which the dead are found. In this context, we must not forget that the Gospel speaks primarily of man’s resurrection and not of a merely spiritual existence after death. Correct thinking about the category of God’s kingship allows us to regain the awareness that, in the biblical perspective, there is ultimately one reality – which will eventually be completely surrendered to God and united with Him. The message of the kingdom is not a message about the afterlife, which denies the value of life on Earth and “leaps” over the problems of this world.

Moving on, first, the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is naturally a renewed and completed Israel. It is Israel that is finally to be ruled by no human king but God himself. Can we ignore the role of Israel in theology when speaking of the kingdom of God? The special role of Israel is something that cannot be put in parentheses when reading not only the Gospels but the entire New Testament, such as Paul’s Letter to the Romans. The transformation of the world, announced by Jesus, was undoubtedly supposed to start from Israel and have it as its center, and only through Israel was it supposed to touch other nations (Sanders 1993: 192). Remembering this dimension of Christ’s teaching prevents us from succumbing to the temptation of Marcionism. It is Jewish culture and history that formed Jesus, whom we call the Son of God. It is impossible to profess the Christian faith without perceiving the special role of biblical Israel in God’s plans for mankind (Lohfink 2015). To speak of the kingdom of God without reference to Israel will always result in missing the historical message of Jesus. No one denies that Christianity has a universal dimension, and no one can deny that it grows out of Judaism.

The second important theological question, apart from the Christological issues mentioned above, concerns understanding God’s action in the world. Jesus’ expectation of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God also prompts us to ask questions about the essence of God’s action in the world, as well as about the relationship between the supernatural and the natural dimension of reality. If Jesus expected God’s intervention to change the fate of the world, was he wrong in the deepest sense? After all, he himself was that intervention. It can therefore be said that God’s action turned out to be more silent, less spectacular and, so to speak, less intervening than perhaps Jesus himself as a human being had expected. From this perspective, one can look at many theological dilemmas, also related to the contemporary development of science (Edwards 2010). There is no doubt that Christianity proclaims God’s action in the life of man and the world. However, how is this action to be understood? Interventional or non-interventional? If we accept that God acts not so much by interfering with the fate of the world externally, but by revealing himself through created reality and through history, then we are apocalyptic in the deepest and most accurate sense of the term. Apocalyptic ultimately means God’s revelation through finite reality. In this way, we can come closer to Jesus again. Even if His expectations on the external level were different from ours, we can share them on the essential level. This means that although we do not have to or even cannot share the belief that the catastrophe is imminent, along with the transformation of reality – if only because we live two thousand years later – we can share the belief that our world is finite and ephemeral and that the ultimate dimension of reality is the reign of God.

The third important theological problem arising from the discussed theory is the question of the identity of the faith of the early and contemporary Christians. The expectations of these two groups and their understanding of God’s presence in the world seem to be very different. This leads to the question of whether it was the first Christians who were wrong or whether later Christians went astray, extinguishing eschatological tension and allowing their faith to settle in the world, befriending the present state of affairs. On a very literal level, the early Christians were mistaken in expecting God’s imminent intervention, which did not come about. On a deeper, existential level, however, they were right, and modern Christians are wrong, although they have two millennia of development of Christian theology and philosophy behind them, and therefore seem to be able to explain more precisely what God’s action in the world may mean. They made a mistake, losing their tension and expectation of full union with God. Without eschatological tension, Christianity becomes a salt that loses its taste. By losing their leaning towards the kingdom, losing their madness of waiting for an impossible fulfillment, they lose everything and betray the Gospel. They are distracted by the apocalyptic prophet whom they simultaneously call their Lord and Savior.

Conclusion

The results of historical research cannot in themselves destroy the Christian faith (like it also cannot build it), which in its essence is an encounter with God and therefore something from a different level of human life and cognition. However, they can – and must – influence the understanding of this faith, its expression and interpretation that is called theology. Therefore, it is not that the results of the search for the figure of historical Jesus are without any influence on theology. It seems that systematic theology must treat them as seriously as possible and take them into account in its development. It was obvious for the authors of great Christological books in the 20th century, e.g., Schillebeeckx (1991) and Küng (1976), who adopted the results of exegetical and historical research as the starting point for their research. Even more so today, a constructive theology, especially Christology, is impossible without reference to the latest historical research results on the origins of Christianity. A noteworthy contemporary attempt to build a Christology in relation to the radical theses of the Jesus Quest is the work of Paul DeHart’s Unspeakable Cults, which, however, is based on a theory different from that presented in this article. He builds his considerations on the hypothesis about Jesus as an itinerant healer and magician. As he puts it, he wants to show the “possibility of Jesus as a «magician» in order to test whether he could have been that and still be the Incarnate Word of God” (DeHart: 41). As can be seen, no radical historical theory has to exclude high Christology. This is true of both the theory of Jesus as a magician-healer and of the theory that describes him as primarily a prophet of the new millennium.

To disregard historical truth would mean that theology does not really care about truth. So, although history and theology have clearly defined boundaries and are not one, it cannot be that theology is not interested in the historical truth about the origins of Christianity. The above considerations of the theory of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet awaiting the imminent arrival of the eschatological kingdom of God show that theology must rethink many aspects of the mystery of the Christian faith. First, we must ask the question of Jesus’ consciousness, given that he might have literally been mistaken in his expectations. Secondly, we must ask about the nature of God’s action in the world, considering that he turns out to be different than the first Christians expected. Finally, it is necessary to consider how the faith of modern Christians relates to the faith of those who gave up everything and followed Jesus two thousand years ago, expecting the cosmic breakthrough about to occur. The awareness that Christianity, in some sense, could have started with a mistake cannot leave those contemporary Christians who wish to reflect more deeply on their faith. The task of systematic theology in our time should be, among other things, to rationally present the possibilities of the Christian faith today, in an era awakened as never before in historical and critical consciousness. If theology is to show the rationality of the Christian faith in the contemporary world, it must remain in dialogue not only with the exact sciences or non-Christian religions, but also with historical research on the origins of Christianity – especially with the dominant thesis that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, expecting the imminent end of history.