Thinking back to when a buddy and I were within a few yards of a tree that got hit by lightning, I remember thinking that though I was flat on the ground – we’d felt our hair start to stand up all over and he recognized what it meant, so we stopped and dropped – it felt like the ground had jumped and slammed into me. Yet sixty yards away no one felt anything at all and they thought we were joking when my buddy said it felt like getting body-slammed on a wrestling mat by a guy three weight classes above him (we had to take them out and show them the shattered tree and then the spot where we’d hit the dirt).
When lightning strikes it does so with massive voltage and amperage, and it moves outward in steps, so there is a potential difference between the point where it hits and the ground further out. This is why a residence should never have more than one ground rod for its mains electricity. There will be a potential difference between the ground rod closest to ground zero and the ground rod further away. That potential difference will create a flow of current with two pathways - one through the highly resistant earth and the other through almost no resistance from one earth rod through the households earthing wire to the other ground rod. Following Ohms Law, the household earthing wire system will be the pathway of most of the lightning’s current and is likely to heat up, causing a fire within the household walls.
But let us not be distracted. We are talking about earthquakes at the time of Jesus’ death and again at the discovery of the empty tomb. The absence of mention of these earthquakes in the other three Gospels appears to create a problem for you, leading to your attempt to minimize the earthquakes and make their detection a bit hit or miss by the Biblical witnesses. I can’t help but imagine a scenario where Matthew is standing around with the women who attended the tomb and saying to them, “The earth moved for me, did it move for you?”
Your strategies appear to be to first of all reduce the verb and noun to something less than an earthquake and to somehow minimize the word “mega” (μέγας in the Greek text). I’m afraid you are on shaky ground (pun intended). The centurion at the cross sees the earthquake, including the rocks being split open. It isn’t just some fuzzy feeling that some people feel and others don’t. In the apocalyptic literature of the time, earthquakes are a sign of divine intervention and the cosmic upheaval of the end times. You have reduced Matthew’s dramatic account to nothing more than the rumbling sound of a stone being rolled away. As such, you have missed the apocalyptic undertones of Matthew’s account, and possibly will misunderstand much of what is in his Gospel.
For more references to angels and earthquakes, take a look at the apocalyptic literature in Revelation.
I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. (Yes, a σεισμὸς μέγας again.) The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?” (Rev 6:12-17 NIV)
and
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.” And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. (Rev 11:15-19 NIV)
You see, no rolling stones necessary. In the apocalyptic literature of the time, earthquakes (amongst other things), are signs that God and his angels are intervening to bring about the End.
Tell me, why is your line of argument so important to you?
Why? How does that create a problem? John concludes with a note that lots more could have been written. Although there is considerable overlap, the Gospels (and biblical records of history generally) are quite selective in what is or isn’t mentioned. The fact that Matthew mentions earthquakes when the others don’t suggests that Matthew saw them as notable, and probably also some difference in sources, besides the variation in target audience.
If we had modern seismological records for the area at the time and had no shaking whatsoever, that would pose a problem. But we don’t. Matthew implies that someone felt the ground shake and it seemed strong to them. We can’t prove it didn’t happen. Our assessment of the historicity reflects our general ideas of the historicity of Matthew’s account.
The burden of proof should always be on each of us; “can’t prove it didn’t happen” is not proof that it did, but rather arguing against the claim that we know it didn’t happen. Of course, there are also degrees of confidence. If we had reliable reports of the sensations of lots of people around Jerusalem from the time and none noticed any shaking, that would raise questions. Even though it’s not impossible that none of those reporting happened to be at the right place and time to notice the shaking Matthew reported, that idea becomes less likely. But we have very little information in this case.
I once painted a house that had a grounding rod at each corner! The contractor who built it shortly after WWII apparently decided that you couldn’t have too much of a good thing (at least twenty houses in the neighborhood were the same).
Wrong again. I’m trying to explain that the world σεισμός does not necessarily mean “earthquake”, it means “shaking”.
Is what I’ve been referencing.
No, my “strategy” is to stick to the text. The meaning of σεισμός doesn’t change just because it’s in only one Gospel. And since that word is explained in the one passage as the result of rolling a stone, it is not an earthquake, which makes the use in the other passage something in need of examination.
That’s an overstatement, and it isn’t me, it’s Matthew, who explained that the shaking was due to the stone being rolled away – it’s there in plain Greek:
The word I put in bold is an explanatory ‘gar’, which can be rendered as “because”. Thus Matthew explains the shaking as the result of the angel rolling the stone away.
John’s usage in a book of weak canonicity does not tell what Matthew means – you cannot use it to overrule Matthew’s own explanation.
Because I refuse to budge from a clear statement in the text. Matthew clearly states the cause of the σεισμός as the angel rolling the stone.
And you can’t get an earthquake from 27:51 where Matthew writes “ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη”, “the earth shook”, unless you want to claim an earthquake in 21:10, where he writes, “ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις”, “the whole city shook”, when Jesus entered Jerusalem – it’s the same verb. That links the use of “τὸν σεισμὸν” in verse 54 to the idea of turmoil, not necessarily an earthquake.
My suspicion is that noting the quake goes along with the centurion noting “Surely this was a son of God (or ‘a god’)”. In both Jewish and pagan Mediterranean lore, the ground shaking was a warning, even a judgment, which makes the centurion’s declaration just a common reaction for a Roman of the day.
Yep. The term doesn’t necessarily indicate a broad area was affected. In the case of the stone being rolled away, I could even go with “trembled” as it carries a bit of the feeling the women could/would have had in approaching the tomb especially when they first caught sight of the stone not covering the entrance. The σεισμός at the Crucifixion there’s something more going on given the note that rocks split, but again that doesn’t mean it was a more than local event (that Roman centurion might even have imagined Neptune or Zeus slamming the stone of Golgotha with an invisible mighty fist).
Brings to mind the final scene of Book of Clarence. Anyway, there is an apocalyptic tone and message in this part of Matthew, and the earthquakes and bones of the saints coming to life are more accurately read as that genre rather than historical.
OK, another attempt to explain. The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they use much the same framework for their narratives and have a lot of material in common. A Synoptic Tool assists with this comparison. Here is one I have put together for this discussion. I draw attention to the pair of apocalyptic descriptions at both the death and resurrection of Jesus.
That doesn’t explain anything, it just moves the focus off what Matthew actually wrote. You can’t explain a matter of the meaning of the original text by referring again to a translation.
Just curious if Jesus is included in those people who are so ignorant, given than he seemed to suggest that earthquakes were part of the various “beginnings of birth pangs” leading up to a final judgment from God?
In general, I would humbly submit that this is a very odd critique… just about EVERY event that is revealed to be a judgment from God in the Bible comes in the form of some kind of natural catastrophe (floods, disease, plague, hail, etc.) The Genesis 6 flood is the most obvious example of something being an explicit judgment from God, and yet even the ancient authors recognized that it came about through the natural processes (in that case, they recognized the flood came because of lots and lots of rain.).
The very same Elijah that you claim supersedes this judgment through natural disaster was the same one whose prayer resulted in both the initiation and cessation of God’s judgment through a (natural) drought, so I doubt the “still small voice” argument will, ahem, hold much water, given his explicit recognition of that drought being God’s direct judgment.
Maybe these modern politicians, just like the prophets and apostles across both the Old and New Testament, recognized that something can be the result of natural phenomena and simultaneously an act of God for the purpose of judgment?
I’d submit that the real problem of the politicians you are observing is that they are neglecting to follow Jesus’ teaching about our inability to unerringly discern what is or is not an intentional judgment from God (do you think those eighteen on whom the tower fell were worse sinners than others… cf Luke 13)… NOT that they, just like practically every author in the Bible, recognizes the simple fact that a God may indeed use a natural disaster to be his chosen act of judgment.
And no, theology hasn’t “moved on” from earthquakes being recognized as judgments or otherwise being signs from God. they are recognized as such by both Jesus as well as all throughout the New Testament. The earthquakes as part of birth pangs of which Jesus warned, the earthquake at Jesus death, the earthquake caused by the angel at the resurrection, the earthquake which opened the prison for the apostles, and the various earthquakes of judgment referenced in Revelation should make it rather obvious that post-Elijah theology hasn’t “moved on” from recognizing such natural phenomena as (at times) simultaneously being judgments or otherwise being signs from God… no?
In actual fact, you are offering a translation of the Koine Greek yourself. If I had to respond at the literary level, I would say you fail to give weight to the aorist participles involved (καταβὰς and προσελθὼν). However, the point at which you open yourself to the greatest criticism is in a failure to recognize apocalyptic literature when you see it.
Step back and look at the translations of the Greek text. These are made by teams which have far greater knowledge of the Greek than yours. You want to hold on to your own translation. You are a bit like a soldier in a platoon who is marching out of step, but denies this, accusing the rest of the platoon of being out of step. I am sorry, but I have been trying to put things more softly, but to no avail.
You seem new to the debate, at least at this stage. You need to provide direct Biblical quotes, as vague allusions just don’t cut it. Let’s start with something Jesus said. Your serve.
The verbs don’t define the nouns, they merely describe part of the action – rolling away the stone is still stated as the cause of the shaking.
They don’t know more than Matthew, who flat out says that the one shaking was due to an angel rolling a stone – that is not an earthquake.
And there’s nothing apocalyptic in the Resurrection account.
As for modern translations, many teams have admitted that their word choices often have as much to do with tradition and popular understanding as anything else – after all, they want their work to be popularly accepted.
No, I want to hold on to what Matthew wrote – it’s the apostle who tells us that the shaking was caused by a moving stone. That’s not an earthquake. And since that is the clearer passage due to the word’s use being defined, the normal procedure is to use it to understand the other usage. Given the broad range of meaning for σεισμός, clues have to be sought in each writer’s use to determine intended meaning.
To believe your claim I would have to accept that Matthew got it wrong, that the angel had nothing to do with the stone moving because an earthquake did it. I prefer to stick with his actual words.
I am trying to meet Daniel where he is; and he has asked a number of questions, one specifically about what Jesus said and where Jesus stood on some matters.
That’s often a hard call since the fact that Jesus quotes something doesn’t actually tell us how He viewed the source other than that it was authoritative. It’s easy enough to try to insist that what looks obvious to us is actually the case that in both philosophy and ancient literature courses there was the principle that the minimum possible meaning should be taken as the maximum possible when making assertions (heck, we encountered that issue in reading Xenophon!). It was sometimes an agonizing lesson.
Well, if I may be so bold… I wouldnt call referencing the famous “birth pangs” statement of Jesus in his Olivet discourse as a “vague allusion”, nor any of the other items i mentioned, they are rather obvious references… but if you are unfamiliar enough with the Biblical texts that you need direct quotes for what i referenced…
“There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.”
When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
“And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.”
suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bonds were unfastened.
The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found. And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe.
Careful about being so condescending. It may come back to bite you.
There are three places I can think of which speak about “birth pangs”. One is in Matthew 24: 8 and another in Mark 13:8. The authors of these two Gospels located these on the Mount of Olives, probably because they are drawing upon the same source. They speak of natural evil as experienced by humans. I may need to look again, but I don’t see either of these being interpreted as God’s judgement on human beings. The third is in John 16:21 and is located at the Last Supper. I think Jesus is saying there that the immediate response to the evil thrust upon them, by those who persecute them, will be anguish, but the final outcome will be joy.
The other references you make are to passages which have already been dealt with in the conversation.
If you want to put forward some argument you need to justify a theology in which all earthquakes are the result of plate tectonics, but only some are the result of God’s judgement (as you appear to maintain), without some commentators being opportunistic. In my experience, those who propose that a natural event is the result of “God’s judgement” almost never think it is God’s judgement on them. Funny that.
i have no issue with disputing the claim of modern commentators or politicians that claim that they can know somehow that some partifular natural disaster is specifically God’s direct judgment. this is based on various faftors, especially on Jesus clarification of anyone making a claim (without God’s direct revelation)…
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
A tower fell on some and Jesus cautioned not to conclude that they were worse sinners (or that this collapse was specifically God’s judgement) because they didnt have access to that knowledge to know if that specific disaster was a specific judgment from God.
Not because God cant somehow execute a judgment through the means if a natural disaster if he so chose, just as he has been reported to have done (or will do) using various natural disasters across both testaments.
I think the text you have based this on, from Luke’s Gospel, is being erroneously interpreted by you. Here it is:
At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them-- do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.” (Luke 13:1-5 NRS)
So what does the warning about repentance refer to? One of the major issues which Luke’s Gospel addresses is the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. This is seen as God’s judgement upon the Judahites, and we find it spelt out clearly in Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 19:
As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.” (Luke 19:41-44 NRS my bold emphasis of the first sentence.)
There is a clear mention in this prophetic denouncement of the sacking of Jerusalem. The Jews chose a military Messiah over against Jesus, the Prince of Peace. The relationship between the sin and the consequences are clear and rational. It is not about something that is a capricious judgement out of the blue.
Or it could be a naked attempt to manipulate the religious beliefs of others in order to score political points.
What percentage of earthquakes do you think are judgments from God?
The earthquake in NY was said to be a judgment (by some). That was a 4.8 on the scale. Last year, there were 1,784 earthquakes of 5.0 or higher magnitude. That’s an average of 4 to 5 earthquakes a day. So is God passing judgment 4 to 5 times a day based on earthquakes, or once, or maybe once a week?
