Matthew 17:1-3, the Transfiguration
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
//Here on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus meets with two Jewish figures from the Old Testament: Moses and Elijah. Many believed that both Moses and Elijah would return to help usher in the new age, the age of the Messiah, and today’s passage is surely meant by Matthew to provide evidence that Jesus is God’s anointed Messiah. Here stands Jesus, apparently planning the new age with the two great figures of Israel’s past.
But what’s so special about these two men, Moses and Elijah? Answer: They are representatives of Judaism. Moses represented the Law, the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and was even said to have been their author. Elijah represented the Prophets. Moses and Elijah were, in fact, synonymous with the writings they represented. When a Jewish writer says “Moses and Elijah” he means “the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus, himself, used this language when referencing the law, talking about what “Moses said.” Moses and Elijah were like the twin towers, the foundation of Judaism. In Jewish tradition, neither of these men died (forget what the Bible says about a grave for Moses) and were both to return at a later date, as fulfillment of scripture.
And here it is in Matthew, in black and white.
Book review: Brain & Belief
by John J. McGraw
★★★★★
A worthwhile book, comprehensive in its treatment of the evolution of belief in the soul, and why we believe. McGraw possesses degrees in psychology, philosophy and religious studies, and he brings the three together in his writing … and in the wonderfully macabre cover of his book.
The three parts to the book are:
[1] A History of the Soul, in which McGraw leads us from our prehistoric beginnings of belief, through Shamanism, ancient Egypt, Judaism, and the famed philosopher Plato, into the development of Christianity.
[2] Part II, The Soul Matter, digs into the brain and its anatomy, the puzzle of consciousness, the effects of hallucinogens and other drugs, and illnesses such as depression.
[3] Part III, titled “Giving up the Ghost” introduces “the beautiful lie,” and attempts to carefully weigh what is gained and what is lost by perpetuating a belief in the afterlife.
I read this book several years ago, and I’m sure there are a number of other reviews out there to tell you about it, so I’d rather just quote a paragraph from part three that resonated strongly with me:
“The theologians’ heaven—singing, majesty, contemplation of God’s beauty—implies a total transformation of personhood and its context. This existence ceases to be a personal one at all and may be considered an Easter dissolution of self into the Godhead. Once everyone ceases to do personal things and engages in a standard universal, a fawning submission before ineffable beauty, one sacrifices one’s personality. At such a stage friend and lover, brother and son, all disappear. Hunger and admiration, play and sex, all dissolve into the singular experience—the singularly inhuman experience—of God worship. Every depiction of an existence worth living for disappears with the personality. Such an impersonal existence could be immortal but the person would have ceased to exist at death as surely as if he were simply mortal.” (p. 329)
Matthew 25:31, the Son of Man enthroned
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
//One of the most fascinating and mysterious characters in Jewish lore is the Son of Man. That is, the anticipated Messiah, seen primarily (in this messianic role) in the book of Daniel and non-canonical books like 1 Enoch. Although Isaiah 42:8 expressly denies that God will ever share his throne, the book of Daniel, chapter 7, describes a “Son of Man” sharing God’s ruling authority. Daniel saw this in a dream:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel, the Bible says, was very disturbed about this dream. And rightly so: it’s blasphemous to imagine worshipping anyone but God! This image, however, of a “son of man” riding the clouds up from the earth to heaven, and being granted authority to rule by God himself, carries over into the New Testament. See today’s verse in Matthew, and especially the 4th and 5th chapters of Revelation.
What are we to make of this? The Bible states clearly that God alone is sovereign, but then it says God turns over his authority to the Son of Man. The Christian movement pieced the puzzle together this way: The Son of Man becomes the Son of God … indeed, he becomes God himself, God incarnate. Our monotheism survives intact, and our heavenly ruler remains the one we trust.
Matthew 22:44, Turning enemies into a footstool
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
//If you read the Bible, you’ve probably run across this saying multiple times. The phrase appears six times in the New Testament alone. Your enemies will be turned into your footstool.
Do you picture sitting in your easy chair, legs stretched out and resting on the back of a kneeling enemy? That’s not what it refers to. It’s an allusion to an ancient custom of placing one’s foot on the neck of a defeated enemy.
Joshua 10:24-25, And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
More haughty victors would even use their defeated enemies as stools to mount their horses.
Book review: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
by Bart D. Ehrman
★★★★
Not too long ago, I was asked in a religious forum whether I believe Jesus really existed. I said yes, I’m 99% sure. I meant precisely that: I’m a numbers guy, and I estimate the odds that Jesus never existed to be somewhere around one chance in a hundred. After presenting a parallel (a Bible historian who is forced to make sense of his research in light of a nonexistent Jesus would be a bit like a research biologist who shows up to work one day and is told that evolution is a lie) I gave an example of the type of argument that I find most convincing. If Jesus were a made-up figure, wouldn’t the made-up stories be a bit more self-serving? Instead, for example, the Gospels tell about Jesus submitting to baptism for his sins by a competitor, a man we know from historical reports DID exist: John the Baptist. How did this whole embarrassing episode get written into the story, if it weren’t literally true?
The truth is, I didn’t know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.
It’s not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He’s been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he’d have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It’s that Ehrman doesn’t find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.
I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman’s that-don’t-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus’ existence, the book is superb.
Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I’m still right where I was before: 99% sure.
Luke 1:36, Was Jesus really a cousin to John the Baptist?
Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren
//Were Jesus and John, son of Elizabeth, really related? Most scholars doubt it, assuming this relationship to be a literary creation of Luke. Or, equally likely, a story Luke had collected. More evidence points to the idea that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist. I’ve discussed this topic before, so I won’t repeat myself.
But if it isn’t true, why does Luke report them as cousins? It seems to be Luke’s personal conclusion, based on a typology of Old Testament relations. Here’s how it works.
Jesus’ mother’s name is Mary. John’s mother’s name, according to Luke (only), is Elizabeth. The only other Elizabeth (written in Hebrew as Elisheba) in the Bible is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Moses’ sister’s name was Miriam, a form of Mary. So, in the story of Moses, Mary and Elizabeth are sisters-in-law, and their offspring would be first cousins.
Thus, concludes Luke, Jesus and John were also cousins.
Deuteronomy 23:2, No Bastards Allowed
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
//Maybe the most famous bastard of all time is the offspring of Tamar and Judah. Judah, hoping to find a little action, is one day deceived by his daughter-in-law Tamar, who pretends to be a temple prostitute. They do the deed. Then, in Genesis 38:24, About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”
They have a child named Perez. We turn now to the book of Matthew, and the genealogy listed there:
Thus, after only nine generations of begatting (from Perez forward), we come to King David. Didn’t today’s verse promise ten generations of excommunication? Apparently, God relented.
1 Kings 22:43, Did Jehoshaphat remove the high places?
In everything he walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
//There are many contradictions in the Bible—I can quote several—and here’s another apparent one. Doesn’t the parallel verse in Chronicles say just the opposite?
2 Chronicles 17:6, His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.
I’ve seen this topic quoted multiple times as a biblical contradiction. But, in fact, it is not. Anyone who quotes these verses to discredit the Bible is doing some sloppy homework. Three chapters later in Chronicles comes the true parallel passage, including this verse:
2 Chronicles 20:33 The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their fathers.
It appears Jehoshaphat started out on the straight and narrow, but the idolatry of the people crept back over the course of his 25-year reign.
Romans 1:3-4, Jesus Becomes God’s Son
[C]oncerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
//Here’s a question that intrigued early Christians. At what point did Jesus become God’s son?
We all know the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and their claim that God impregnated Mary and conceived a son. Surely that is the moment Jesus became the Son of God?
Another, probably earlier, tradition comes from the book of John. John mentions nothing at all about a virgin birth, and instead tells how Jesus was anointed as the Son of God at his baptism. (Technically, John doesn’t mention the baptism itself, but we may infer the event.) So could this be the day? Many early Christians accepted this “adoptionist” explanation and saw nothing heretical in it.
An even earlier tradition is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. In today’s verse, Paul cites a probable creed that Jesus was born of the flesh (of the lineage of King David) and became the Son of God only after the resurrection! Surprisingly, the book of Acts, which was authored by the same person as the Gospel of Luke and its virgin birth story, appears to side with Paul!
“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ And that He raised Him from the dead …” – Acts 13:32-33
Scholars generally consider this passage in Acts to be a primitive tradition that long predated the day it was copied by Luke. Most likely, the understanding was that Jesus rose from the dead and immediately ascended to heaven, having been adopted by God. So we have several traditions that show a bit of a progression:
Book review: The Pilgrim Church
by E. H. Broadbent
★★★★★
Broadbent writes with the dramatic flair of an apologist, but with the atonal precision of an historian. This is obviously a topic dear to his heart. It’s not an exciting read, but an awful lot of data is presented, and if you’re seriously interested in the topic, you’ll find it captivating. I did, so much so that I was able to forgive Broadbent’s bias (he tends to classify everyone into three divisions: Catholic, heathen and Christian).
Broadbent was born in England in 1861, and this is a reprint of a 1935 book. Broadbent’s thesis is that God has preserved a remnant of faithful underground believers through the ages, who depended solely upon the Spirit and strict Biblical teachings, and who resisted the institutionalization of the Catholic Church. He treks methodically through the centuries from Christ to about the year 1900, highlighting individuals and groups that appear to fit the mold of true Christianity. This means meeting in inauspicious groups (usually private homes), identifying by no name except perhaps that of Christian or Brethen, and denying any reliance upon authoritative structure with the exception of local guiding elders (Christ alone is the “head” of the church). These tiny Christian gatherings objected to taking the name of anyone as their founder. Seeking to mimic only Bible teachings, they refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation, discouraged infant baptism and sprinkling, and most important of all, displayed a willingness to stand true in the face of great persecution. So many thousands of believers died for their convictions that I quit counting. Broadbent is particularly appreciative of Christian martyrs, so much so that he seems to consider it a primary identifying mark of the “Pilgrim Church.” Constantine’s conversion afforded no relief, since persecution only intensified under the Catholic Church. Systematic beheading, burning, and drowning persisted throughout church history.
The rest of my review will give you a run-down of Broadbent’s favored selections. In the first couple centuries of Christian development, Broadbent praises Origin and appears sympathetic to the Montanist movement, perhaps because of their emphasis on direction by the Spirit. He uncovers an anonymous letter sent to Diognetus which provides not a word of doctrine, but mimics the tone of the earliest believers. The letter indicates that Christians “pass their days on earth, but are citizens of heaven,” enduring all things as if foreigners even in their own land.
Broadbent denounces Arianism, but praises Athanaius for “maintaining a valiant witness to the true divinity of the Savior.” Priscillian kept true, but Augustine was a man of good intentions with “strong affections and quick and tender sympathies” who nevertheless departed from principles of Scripture. In particular, Augustine was unable to embrace the Donatists. From the third to the fifth centuries, true Christians kept their distance from four false teachings: Manichaeism (attributing the natural world to an evil creator), Arianism (which taught that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh), Pelagianism (which denies the sinful state of man), and Sacerdotalism (dependency upon the Church for salvation).
Several early movements do display evidence of the Spirit’s leading, though. Broadbent approves of the Paulicians, Bogomils, Waldenses (Vaudois), Albigenses, Lollards, and others. Broadbent explains: “No authority of any man was allowed to set aside the authority of Scripture. Yet, throughout the centuries, and in all countries, they confessed the same truths and had the same practices.” The Waldenses in the Alpine valleys especially earned Broadbent’s praise. Waldensian “apostles” (a travelling ministry) left property, goods, home and family to travel in simplicity, without money, their needs being supplied by the believers among whom they ministered. They always went two and two, an elder with a younger man. The name “Friends of God” was often given to them.
These collections of believers rarely named themselves, but were named by their opponents. One exception is a period in the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries when some were wont to name their elders after men of the Bible, and their gatherings after churches of the Bible (Achaia, Philip, Colosse, etc.) All claimed apostolic tradition, some believed in apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. Yet one must be very careful in rightly divining which groups are Godly, because such groups are invariably slandered, and one must read between the lines of the smears. As with martyrdom, a prime determinant of a Spirit-led church is one which the Catholic church denounces.
Around the time of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Church blossomed. This is not due to Luther’s influence, for though Luther began on the straight and narrow, he didn’t fully return to the Scriptures. Perhaps the growth of the Pilgrim Church can be attributed to a period of little persecution, or perhaps to the printing press and the ready availability of translated Bibles. Even so, they never used written prayers; instead, an elder among them would “begin to pray and continue for a longer or shorter time as it may seem suitable to him.” They memorized the scripture in their mother tongue from much reading. They held seven points of faith, including a Triune God and that this God chose for Himself a spotless church. Among this resurgence was found the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Puritans, and Lollards. Clusters of believers sprang up in place after place, known among themselves as “the Friends,” but derisively called Quakers. Relief from persecution was again short-lived; Anabaptists were tortured or banished from their homelands, and seldom were there less than a thousand Friends in prison at a time.
These groups were not of one mind on all points, such as whether it was appropriate to bear arms, but they were of like character and appreciation for the Bible’s primitive teachings. John Wesley, an influential Christian figure, nearly adopted the righteous teachings of a group named the Moravians. A Methodist group in North Carolina took the name of “Republican Methodists” but soon rightfully abandoned the name, acknowledging no head of the Church but Christ, and no creed or rules, but accepted the Scripture alone for their guidance. Soon after, a similar movement originated among Baptists. The “Christian Connection” formed. These movements, although arising independently and only discovering each other later, held much in common. Even in Russia, a group began to form, forsaking their church for “meetings,” calling each other brethren. They were reproachfully labeled “Stundists.” In Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania numerous congregations sprang up calling themselves Nazarenes, and living quietly below the radar.
As groups proliferated, a new danger surfaced; that of the ease in which any particular spiritual movement could crystallize into a sect. In the 19th century, John Nelson Darby was influential in teaching a humble Spirit-led church, encouraging the independence of each congregation, though he later shifted from that ground and adopted the Catholic position of an organized body of churches. Many churches followed Darby into error, condemning others and excluding all churches outside their own circle subject to central authority, but others endeavored to carry out the principles of Scripture, refusing to cut off one another but recognizing that minute differences—particularly non-scriptural differences—did not necessitate division. Broadbent concludes his research with a plea to recognize the Church as One, members of one Pilgrim Church, acknowledging as our fellow-pilgrims all who tread the Way of Life.
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!