Book review: The Problem with Christ
by Christopher Gorton
★★★★★
Don’t worry, there’s nothing wrong with Jesus. What irks Gorton is the way we misuse the title Christ.
“Christ” is a transliteration, not a translation. That means it is a made-up word replacing the Greek word Christos, meant to sound the same rather than provide meaning. So, we’re left on our own to figure out what it means.
Unfortunately, we’ve guessed wrong, aided by horrible translations. We’ve turned Christ into a last name. It’s not a name at all, but a title; it means Lord, or Messiah, or Anointed. Or, better yet, Gorton argues that the most accurate and meaningful translation of all is the simple word King. He is so serious about this that he requests we drop the title Christ, for those who claim to truly follow Him should no longer use a meaningless term. Better to replace “Jesus Christ” with “King Jesus” in our speech, or at the very least insert the definitive article “the”: Jesus the Christ.
Christopher isn’t suggesting we degrade Jesus by pretending he is just any old king—he is the prophesied king of the age of God’s rule—but it’s still helpful to understand what it means for Jesus to be anointed (for that’s the most literal translation of “Christ”). It means to be proclaimed the son of God, a king over God’s people, just as it did all through the Old Testament. Gorton points out that King David saw himself as the messiah and the son of God; the christos of his era. Moving on to the second half of the Bible, then, Gorton concludes that “in every occurrence of christos in the New Testament, it was the author’s intention that it be understood as the title king, and that christos was never understood as a name!”
I struggled a bit deciding my rating for this book, even though I enjoyed reading it a great deal, and finally settled upon a full five-star review. Yet I have two problems with the book.
First, Gorton is right, and I know no scholars who will argue. His thesis is no startling new revelation; maybe I’m betraying my nerdiness a bit, but I should think that anyone who reads books like this one already knows that Christ means King, and when Christians called Jesus the Christ, they were hailing him as God’s anointed king. So, while Gorton writes as if this is a controversial discovery, he is actually preaching to the choir a bit, though his research is thorough and appreciated.
My second problem is that, even though Gorton is right, I don’t like it. It’s true, the word “king” describes precisely how many viewed Jesus, because that was the dream the Jews held for their Messiah: they wanted a David-like king to set the world right again. While there was much argument over what exactly it meant back in the first century to call Jesus “king,” and what the kingdom was supposed to be like, just take a gander at the book of Revelation if you don’t think any first-century Christians wanted a literal, this-worldly, political figure as their Messiah. Christians in the first century were adamant: they would not bow down to Caesar; they had no king but Jesus. But to me, “King Jesus” sounds too earthly, too literal and restrictive, describing the very type of king that Jesus refused to be. I’ll compromise with Jesus the Christ.
John 20:2-5, The Race to the Tomb
So [Mary Magdelene] came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
//All through John’s Gospel, the “disciple Jesus loved” and Peter seem to be in a bit of a contest. Here, the two of them race to the tomb, and the Beloved Disciple wins the race. But when he gets there ahead of Peter, he refuses to enter the tomb.
Why? Is he just being a scaredy-cat? Does he defer to Peter, the elder?
If the Beloved Disciple is really John the Apostle, as tradition suggests, then there is a more likely answer. Recall that John’s father, Zebedee, was a priest. That puts John in line for priesthood, too. And that means he should respect the rules of the priesthood.
Therefore, when he gets to the tomb, he can’t enter until he knows there is no corpse inside. To do so would make him ritually unclean. But as soon as Peter enters, and verifies that it’s safe, John goes in too.
Luke 11:29, The Sign of the Prophet Jonah
As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. it asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
//Do you know what the sign of Jonah is? Most Bible readers are familiar with this scripture, from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The “sign of Jonah” is that Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale … like Jesus spent three days in the grave, right?
Well, you’re half right. Matthew would agree with you, but Luke would not. Luke’s explanation continues from today’s verse:
For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.—Luke 11:30.
Most bible scholars recognize that Matthew and Luke copied from a shared source (Q) as they wrote their gospels. Both of them include this saying. But Matthew, when he copied this story, had a different explanation for the “sign of Jonah”:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. –Matthew 12:40
This verse is inserted by Matthew in the middle of the discussion of Jonah and Nineveh. It is surely Matthew’s own interpretation, while Luke’s is more original…and more believable as well, if spoken by Jesus himself before he died.
So what is the original sign of Jonah? What does Jerusalem have to do with Nineveh?
As Luke explains, it is that Jonah preached repentance to a wicked city. In Nineveh’s case, the wicked city repented, and was saved. But in Jerusalem’s case, there was no repentance … and Jerusalem was not saved (a generation later, it was completely leveled by the Romans).
That, of course, is why Jesus wept over Jerusalem; he foresaw its future.
Book review: 31 Rays of Hope
by Hollie Marie
★★★★
Hollie’s little devotional gift book is simple, practical, and encouraging.
I seldom review devotionals, preferring edgy, thought-provoking Bible topics. Inspirational writings are not really a good fit for my agnostic bent. Hollie’s encouragement abounds with suggestions like “Replace the word ‘faith’ with the word ‘know’ in your thinking (do not say “I have faith that God will provide” but “I know God will provide”) and “Do not be swayed by non-believers or those of little faith.” These instructions, I don’t really know what to do with.
Yet I am quite aware of my own occasional need of uplifting material, and I am certain Hollie’s booklet will strike a chord with most Christians, providing a month’s worth of gentle reflection. Most daily passages are made up of a Bible verse or two, a few thoughts, a prayer of thanksgiving, and a chapter of reference for further reading. They seem to grow more graceful with each day, generating a sort of quiet godly strength, and culminate in this important reminder:
God is Love.
Micah 6:7, Did God Command Child Sacrifice? Part II of II
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? –Micah 6:7
//Yesterday, I presented a few verses that seem to indicate that at one time, Israel sacrificed children to God. Indeed, child sacrifice seems to have been considered the highest form of sacrifice. In today’s verse, Micah, an 8th-century prophet, wonders if he should sacrifice his children to God.
In time, however, child sacrifice went out of fashion. It began to be considered barbaric, surely abhorred by God. That sort of cruelty belongs only to pagan gods, which Deuteronomy condemns, instructing Israel not to worship God in the manner of other nations, because “they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:31). Jeremiah multiple times condemns child sacrifice, instruction surely intended to raise Israel to a higher standard … for why would he bother condemning that which was not practiced in Israel? Indeed, the books of the Kings explains that the reason God sent the Assyrians to conquer Israel is because Israel was sacrificing children (See the story of King Manasseh).
So, Israel should earn our respect not because they never sacrificed children to their god, but because they recognized before many of their neighboring nations what a horrid thing it was to do … and quickly rose above it.
Exodus 22:29-30, Did God Command Child Sacrifice? Part I of II
“Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.”
//Did God really command that his followers sacrifice children to him? Some scholars think so. Or, I should qualify, some scholars believe the Bible says God told people to sacrifice their children.
Today’s verse seems straight-forward. Give offerings of grain, cattle, sheep, and your firstborn sons. There’s little question that God expected the grain and animals to be sacrificed, so should we not assume the same fate is expected of the children?
Ezekiel says so, and even explains why God commanded child sacrifice:
So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’ –Ezekiel 20:25-26
More tomorrow on this topic.
Book review: I don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek
★★★★★
I enjoyed this one a lot. The authors’ argument for the existence of God can basically be condensed to two parts:
1. Logic dictates that we live in a theistic universe—we are created and watched over by an all-powerful being who lives outside of space and time.
2. The Bible serves as convincing evidence that this being is the God of Christianity.
I hardly agreed with all of the building blocks in the argument, yet I found this to be maybe the best apologetics book I’ve read. The presentation is very organized and steps logically from point to point. It’s clear the authors have had a great deal of experience in debate, and this book has become somewhat of a flagship for amateur apologists. While the title lends itself to easy derision by opponents, it’s a lot better argued than I anticipated.
There is a drawback to building argument upon argument, of course: If perchance you have a weak foundation, the whole shebang comes tumbling down. For example, the authors’ proof for reliable eyewitness testimony depends strongly upon traditional conservative authorship of the Bible; this depends strongly upon early dating of the synoptic gospels; early dating of these gospels depends strongly upon dating the book of acts to the 7th decade (since Luke precedes Acts, and Mark precedes Luke); and early dating of Acts depends upon the assumption that, had it been written later, the author surely would have discussed the death of Paul and the destruction of the Temple. Thus, a great deal rides on an argument from silence.
The arguments are engaging and thought-provoking, though not without flaws, and will in many instances require research and hard analysis to see the flaws. Thus, it was a lot of fun to read and took me quite a while. Some arguments are subjective in nature, and some are (hooray!) objective fact. In particular, I devoured two long lists in the book: one of 84 verifiable historical references in the book of Acts, and one of 59 attestations to the historical authenticity of John.
The result is a five-star review for interesting writing and for making me think, even when I disagree. Consider this the official end of the book review—what follows are a few examples where critical thinking prevents my full agreement with the authors. 
* The book argues for the existence of a God-given Moral Law, written on the hearts of all people. I’ve never grasped how this argument could support Christianity. Consider the extreme disagreement between Christians today over whether or not gays should be allowed to share in a loving relationship. Or the disagreement not long ago over whether slavery was moral. If such a moral law exists, Christianity may be the religion having the hardest time figuring out what it is.
* The book argues that the New Testament was written before 70 A.D. because it makes no point of telling the story of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not quite true; the Gospels do mention how the Christians fled Jerusalem in the war, though they do so from a pre-war perspective. But why do no other Bible books mention so earth-shattering an event? Probably because it WAS so earth-shattering! Remember, these authors were not writing to preserve history; they were writing to share the message of a new beginning with their comrades. What Christian in the first century, having lived through the war, needs a reminder that the old world had passed away, and a new world begun?
* The book repeatedly insists that there is no evidence whatsoever for macroevolution. But it doesn’t matter how often you repeat this mantra, it is a lie. There exists plenty of evidence for macroevolution, and though there are a limited number of transitional fossil records, the number we have is quite consistent with current theories of how species evolved. I’ve written about this many times, so I won’t repeat myself here, except to say I can’t figure out why so many Christian apologists are hung up on evolution.
Luke 13:31, The Gentler Pharisees
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
//In today’s verse, a few Pharisees who seemed sympathetic to Jesus approach him and warn him to escape from Jerusalem while he can.
This sympathy should not surprise us; indeed, we often find Jesus in the homes of Pharisees. Why would Pharisees welcome Jesus into their homes, and why would Jesus ever cross their threshold?
While the gospels tend to lump all Pharisees into one category, condemning them all, in truth the Pharisees could be quite diverse in their practice. Of the two primary schools of thought among Pharisees—followers of Hillel and followers of Shammai—the former group is actually very much like Jesus. Gentle, mild, in contrast to the more severe doctrine of Shammai. The latter group probably would be happy to see Jesus imprisoned; the former group were more likely friendly and appreciative of Jesus, welcoming him into their homes.
A broad brush just doesn’t do justice to the truth about people.
2 Kings 23:22, When Did Passover Begin?
Neither in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah had any such Passover been observed.
//Scholars argue about when certain religious feasts and rituals began among the Hebrews, and the Passover celebration is no exception. The Bible states that the first Passover was just before Israel escaped from Egypt, before there was ever a Hebrew presence in Palestine. But if this is so, the Passover holiday was long forgotten by the time of the kings in Israel.
We do know that the annual timing of the Passover grew out of a common harvest festival, celebrated by the Canaanites before Israel arrived in the land. The Passover celebration then piggybacked with the celebration of Unleavened Bread, culminating finally in the Feast of the Firstfruits after a week-long celebration. The observance of a harvest festival predates the Passover celebration in Israel … Israel merely made it grander, more meaningful.
Today’s verse provides a clue about when the Passover was first observed—or reinstated, after hundreds of years of no celebration—in Israel. It was in the time of King Josiah in the 7th century B.C.
Book review: Billy Graham in Quotes
by Franklin Graham with Donna Lee Toney
★★★★★
This is a collection of quotes, taken from the writings of Billy Graham over sixty years, collected by his son Franklin. What better way is there to get to know this special man, than from the horse’s mouth? Mr. Graham and I share few beliefs, yet I have a great deal of respect for him, and I really enjoyed browsing through this collection of quotes, feeling the simplicity, faith, and urgency of his message.
Following are a few examples which shed light on the type of person Billy Graham was:
On the Bible: “The Bible is the only Book in the world that predicts the future. The Bible is more modern than tomorrow morning’s newspaper.”
On Christianity: “We cannot inherit Christianity … God has no grandchildren.”
On the end times: “We see the storm clouds gathering and events taking place that herald the second coming of Jesus Christ.” “Events are moving rapidly toward some sort of climax.”
On Eternity: “Heaven is real and hell is real, and eternity is but a breath away.”
On Heaven: “My home is in heaven. I’m just passing through this world.”
As I read back over the quotes I highlighted, and select only the half-dozen I find most revealing, I realize that I was most inspired by Billy Graham’s quiet faith in the future. From this, I present one more quote:
“I have read the last page of the bible. It is all going to turn out all right.”
Fantasy Football, Anyone?
Put on the whole uniform of the Team, that ye may be able to stand against the blitz of oncoming linebackers. Don the hip pads of truth, the shoulder pads of righteousness, the cleats of preparation. Don’t forget the facemask of faith and the helmet of salvation. Then clutch the pigskin with much Spirit, for that is what the Play Book of your Coach in Heaven demands.The River of Life
Twice before Lee Harmon has written about Christian topics, once on the gospel of John and once on the book of Revelation. But the question people keep asking him is this: As a liberal Christian, why do you care so much about the Bible? Others wonder whether he is truly a Christian at all.
The Way It Happened
|
|
| Revelation: A love story gone awry. | The Gospel: A love story set aright. |
What really happened 2,000 years ago? How did a persecuted minority of end-time believers known as Christians, with their dreams of Armageddon and a conquering Messiah named Jesus, evolve into the largest religion in the world? Author Lee Harmon explores the period in which the New Testament was written in his books about John's Gospel and Revelation.
(Bloggers: you may be eligible for a free review copy! Just contact us.)
A Top-100 Christian Blog
Named an Exceptional Website for Christian Theologians
Our Top Book Picks
Selected by The Dubious Disciple as Best Religion Books. Don't miss these!
Subscribers:
Twitter Followers
Facebook Fans
16806 Blog Members
354 Circles
603 Goodreads Friends & Fans
The God Show
Lee Harmon interviewed on The God Show about the History Channel's miniseries The Bible and Lee's latest book, John's Gospel: The Way It Happened.
About Lee
Hello! I'm an author, historical Jesus scholar, book reviewer, and liberal Christian, which means I appreciate and attempt to exercise the humanitarian teachings of Jesus without getting hung up on any particular supernatural or religious beliefs.
The Bible is a magnificent book that has inspired and spiritually fed generations for thousands of years, and each new century seems to bring a deeper understanding of life’s purpose. This is true of not only Christianity; through the years, our age-old religions are slowly transforming from superstitious rituals into humanitarian philosophies. In short, we are growing up, and I am thrilled to be riding the wave.
I avidly read all thought-provoking religion titles. New authors: I'd love to read and review your book!
Contact me here.
About Leslie
Hi! While Lee writes the articles and reviews the books, I edit, organize, and maintain the blog. The views expressed here are Lee's but I'm his biggest supporter! :-)
Connect With Me!