Addressing the Claim that Jesus’ Disciples Suffered From “Cognitive Dissonance Theory” (Part 2 in my Critique of Matthew Hartke’s Blog Post)

In my previous post, I outlined blogger Matthew Hartke’s basic argument regarding why he thinks Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) best explains the reason for the rise of Christianity. Again, you can read his post here and my summary of his post here. As for this post, I am going to do two things (all within about 2,000 words!):

• I am going to argue that not only are the proposed parallels between Jesus’ disciples and the more modern apocalyptic movements superficial and thin, but more importantly, that first century Christians did not hold to the same (and deeply flawed) worldview expectation that groups like the Millerites held to, namely some kind of form of modern dispensationalism.
• I am then going to briefly describe what I think the early first century Christian worldview expectation and outlook really was like. And I’ll say up front that although I have always loved the work of N.T. Wright and generally agree with his explanation, there is an aspect of it that I feel is slightly flawed.

Why Jesus’ Disciples Weren’t the Equivalent of First Century Millerites
Let’s first recap the bare bones of the argument that CDT explains both the Millerites and Jesus’ disciples. As for the Millerites, based on their interpretation of the Book of Daniel, they concluded that Jesus would return to earth and set up the Kingdom of God on October 22, 1844. When that didn’t happen, they were despondent until two of their leaders basically said, “Wait! It really did happen…in a spiritual sense, in heaven! That was the ‘part 1’ part of the fulfillment! ‘Part 2,’ when Jesus actually returns to the earth, comes later!” And thus, the Millerite movement basically morphed into Seventh Day Adventism.

As for Jesus’ disciples, the CDT argument goes like this: The disciples were expecting Jesus to establish God’s Kingdom when he went to Jerusalem, but that didn’t happen. Instead, he was crucified, and they were despondent. But then, a few days later, Jesus’ disciples basically said, “Wait! It really did happen…in a spiritual sense! Jesus was raised spiritually and now reigns in heaven! That was ‘part 1’ of the fulfillment! ‘Part 2’ will happen when Jesus actually returns to the earth to establish God’s Kingdom completely!” Hence, the already/not yet!

Okay, so what is wrong with that comparison? Well, a whole lot, if you ask me. The Millerites were expecting Christ’s second coming, and when it didn’t happen, they “spiritualized” the so-called event of October 22, 1844 and said the actual second coming was going to come later. They didn’t really change their fundamental assumptions and outlook—they simply shoved it off further into the future. Jesus’ disciples, on the other hand, weren’t expecting a “second coming” to begin with. They simply assumed Jesus was YHWH’s political Messiah who was going to re-establish the actual kingdom of Israel, which would be God’s kingdom. But when that didn’t happen—when Jesus was instead arrested and crucified—soon after that, they begin to claim that Jesus had physically resurrected from the dead and was currently “reigning,” but in a wholly different way that the traditional Jewish Messianic hopes, and that the consummation of God’s kingdom would look very different from what they had earlier expected.

Unlike the Millerites, Jesus’ disciples had to completely change their fundamental assumptions and outlook. Unlike the Millerites, Jesus’ disciples didn’t “reinterpret prophecies” to try to maintain their earlier assumptions and push their “fulfillment” further into the future. The events that happened around Passover in AD 33 caused them to reject their earlier assumptions and see everything in a different light. If I can put it this way, cognitive dissonance theory says that a group will “reinterpret” and “spiritualize” things in order to maintain their earlier beliefs and assumptions. The Millerites did that; Jesus’ disciples did not do that. They had to ditch their earlier beliefs and assumptions.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the Millerites, as with many other so-called modern “apocalyptic groups” root their “end times theology” in a rather modern dispensationalist point of view. By that, I mean that you can see a whole lot of similarities between the theology of these so-called apocalyptic groups and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series. There might be variations here and there, but the underlying assumptions in the Left Behind series are the same underlying assumptions in these groups. Unfortunately, by calling them “apocalyptic groups,” we’re defining “apocalyptic” in a very “Tim LaHayey” way…and I guarantee you that that was not the outlook Jesus’ disciples or the other first century Christians had.

And when we read this modern, 19^th-20^th century brand of dispensationalism back onto the New Testament and the first century Christians, we are bound to get practically everything wrong. That’s why these modern “apocalyptic groups” get everything wrong; that’s why Tim LaHaye gets everything wrong; that’s why some New Testament scholars (like Bart Ehrman) get a whole lot wrong in their assessment of Jesus and first century Christianity. And that is, I believe, what is wrong at the root of Hartke’s argument.

Now, if you don’t believe the New Testament claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead, and it was that event that caused Jesus’ disciples to rethink everything, you might be tempted to find another explanation for the birth of Christianity—especially if you grew up within Christianity, considered yourself a Christian, but no longer believe. Most ex-Christians or ex-Evangelicals I have come across often claim that it was either Christian hypocrisy or the irrationality of Christian claims that led them to reject the faith—often times a bit of both. Of course, if the later reason is prominent, it is easy to understand the psychological impulse to try to come up with an alternative, rational argument to explain away the fundamental New Testament claims about Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

I have always thought such an impulse was rather odd. After all, when it comes to other major religions, even though I can appreciate a lot of their teachings, some of their claims (like, for example, the Islamic claim that Muhammad met with the angel Gabriel and one night flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse name Barak, walked into the Temple, and was pulled up to heaven with a gold chain to see numerous heavenly visions) I just don’t believe and don’t waste my time trying to explain them away. If someone then asks me, “So how do you explain the emergence of Islam? What do you think Muhammad experienced in the cave?” I’ll simply say, “He clearly was a charismatic leader who also was a good general—that’s how. As for what he experienced in the cave, I don’t know and don’t really care. I don’t believe he spoke with Gabriel or rode on a winged horse.” That’s that.

Now some might question whether or not I should try to psychoanalyze former Christians and ex-Evangelicals when they try to make certain arguments against Christianity or the reliability of the Bible. I don’t want to come across that way, but even if I was trying to do that, and to do that is considered questionable, I have to then have to ask, “What does that then say about attempts to psychoanalyze Jesus’ disciples a good 2,000 years removed from their lives?” That’s why I find it odd when someone tries to essentially do a psychoanalytical profile, not only of people they don’t know, but of people who have been dead for almost 2,000 years. I don’t want to sound flippant, but my reaction to the claim that Jesus’ disciples suffered from cognitive dissonance is basically, “Eh…in the spirit of trying to keep an open mind, the furthest I can go is maybe, but that’s a whole lot of speculation based on some pretty thin parallels. Conclusive and convincing it is not.”

I realize that, here I am about 1,300 words into this post, and I haven’t yet discussed what I believe the first century Christian outlook and worldview regarding things like apocalypticism, the Day of the Lord, the end times, and fulfilled prophecy. Since those are pretty big things, and since I think a lot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, greatly misunderstand these things in their first century context, I’m going to cut short this post and write “Part 3” over the next day or so. I think a proper view as to how Jesus’ earliest followers understood these things will make it pretty obvious that any connection to the Millerites and other modern “apocalyptic groups” to be unwarranted. And, spoiler alert, I’m actually going to criticize NT Wright on one thing (well…sort of!).