Lee Harmon's Blog, page 105
January 10, 2012
Matthew 7:24-27, Jesus, the Rabbi
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
//Scholars have often pointed out that the sayings of Jesus often mimic those of the rabbis. I've even heard the Jewish opinion that "anything good in the gospels is nothing new; anything new is nothing good." If you thought Jesus' manner of speaking in parables was unique for his times, that's just not true; Jewish literature preserves more than four thousand rabbinic parables. Today's verses may be a derivation of one such rabbinic saying:
A person in whom there are good deeds and who has studied the Torah extensively, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] stones and then afterwards [of] mud bricks. Even if a large quantity of water were to collect beside the stones, it would not destroy them. But a person in whom there are not good deeds, though he has studied Torah, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] mud bricks and then afterwards [of] stones. Even if only a little water collects, it immediately undermines them.
//Scholars have often pointed out that the sayings of Jesus often mimic those of the rabbis. I've even heard the Jewish opinion that "anything good in the gospels is nothing new; anything new is nothing good." If you thought Jesus' manner of speaking in parables was unique for his times, that's just not true; Jewish literature preserves more than four thousand rabbinic parables. Today's verses may be a derivation of one such rabbinic saying:
A person in whom there are good deeds and who has studied the Torah extensively, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] stones and then afterwards [of] mud bricks. Even if a large quantity of water were to collect beside the stones, it would not destroy them. But a person in whom there are not good deeds, though he has studied Torah, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] mud bricks and then afterwards [of] stones. Even if only a little water collects, it immediately undermines them.
January 9, 2012
Jeremiah 23:5, Jesus, the Branch
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
//A branch? (Hebrew: nazar). Who wants to be governed by a branch?
Jeremiah means, of course, a descendant of David, and this was indeed a strong expectation of the coming Messiah. He must have the blood of the great warrior-king David surging through him.
Fast-forward to the book of Matthew, and this curious verse about Jesus (Mat. 2:23): And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Where did Matthew get this curious idea, that the prophets promised a Nazarene? What is a Nazarene, anyway?
It certainly isn't someone from Nazareth, or at least it didn't used to be. Rather, the word probably stems from the Hebrew word nazar, or branch, and may have been Matthew's own creation. Because, as we all know, Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, not his true hometown of Nazareth. Matthew's play on words ingeniously excuses Jesus' Galilean origins in Nazareth.
//A branch? (Hebrew: nazar). Who wants to be governed by a branch?
Jeremiah means, of course, a descendant of David, and this was indeed a strong expectation of the coming Messiah. He must have the blood of the great warrior-king David surging through him.
Fast-forward to the book of Matthew, and this curious verse about Jesus (Mat. 2:23): And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Where did Matthew get this curious idea, that the prophets promised a Nazarene? What is a Nazarene, anyway?
It certainly isn't someone from Nazareth, or at least it didn't used to be. Rather, the word probably stems from the Hebrew word nazar, or branch, and may have been Matthew's own creation. Because, as we all know, Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, not his true hometown of Nazareth. Matthew's play on words ingeniously excuses Jesus' Galilean origins in Nazareth.
January 8, 2012
Book Review: Hebrews: From Flawed to Flawless Fulfilled!
by T. Everett Denton
★★★★
A good exposition! But before delving into the book's emphasis, maybe I should lay out its axiomatic suppositions. Denton writes from the perspective that Hebrews was authored by the apostle Paul, sometime in the early 60's. He presents a minimal argument for Paul as the writer (an exhaustive argument would be outside the scope of the book), and this forces the authorship of Hebrews to pre-war days.
Without known authorship, the dating of Hebrews is difficult, made doubly so because much of its focus is in comparing Christ to the Jewish priesthood. Hebrews sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood still exists (thus, its writing must be dated before 70 A.D.), and sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood has been disbanded (therefore written after the war, when the Temple was leveled). Compare verse 7:23 with 8:4 for an example. I think Denton's stance is that Hebrews was originally written from a pre-war perspective, but later redactors, after the war, changed the reading to reflect a post-war perspective … and missed a few passages. If I've misunderstood, I apologize!
Denton's argument may be reasonable, but I do want to point out that it's daring; most Bible scholars date the book of Hebrews to the mid-80s, believing that it reflects a period of persecution, probably under Domitian, and a post-war let-down, when some of the Jewish Christians dreamed of returning to Judaism after Christ failed to reappear. This, if correct, means it cannot be written by Paul.
Pauline authorship, however, allows Denton to evaluate many of Hebrew's passages under the light of Paul's letters. For example, he can compare the New Covenant with the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:24-26). It also turns the many references to the fall of the priesthood into prophecies, not explanations. Paul, as we know, had an uncanny sense of impending doom, and was proven right.
Denton's eschatology also differs from the traditional futuristic view. The Heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:12) is not some city in the sky, it's a spiritual kingdom, the New Testament kingdom.
Now that you understand the premise of Denton's writing, I have to say it's very good. You'll appreciate Denton's research regardless of your own beliefs. Hebrews' hangup about Melchizedek finally makes sense. Hebrews' theme of Christ bringing a superior kingdom, in every way, stands out. More than a verse-by-verse exposition, this is essentially a word-by-word exposition! The writing isn't as smooth as I would have liked—it reads a little like a collection of notes—but it's easy to follow. The research is deep and meaningful, and you'll be keeping it handy as a reference long after you're done reading.
★★★★
A good exposition! But before delving into the book's emphasis, maybe I should lay out its axiomatic suppositions. Denton writes from the perspective that Hebrews was authored by the apostle Paul, sometime in the early 60's. He presents a minimal argument for Paul as the writer (an exhaustive argument would be outside the scope of the book), and this forces the authorship of Hebrews to pre-war days.
Without known authorship, the dating of Hebrews is difficult, made doubly so because much of its focus is in comparing Christ to the Jewish priesthood. Hebrews sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood still exists (thus, its writing must be dated before 70 A.D.), and sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood has been disbanded (therefore written after the war, when the Temple was leveled). Compare verse 7:23 with 8:4 for an example. I think Denton's stance is that Hebrews was originally written from a pre-war perspective, but later redactors, after the war, changed the reading to reflect a post-war perspective … and missed a few passages. If I've misunderstood, I apologize!
Denton's argument may be reasonable, but I do want to point out that it's daring; most Bible scholars date the book of Hebrews to the mid-80s, believing that it reflects a period of persecution, probably under Domitian, and a post-war let-down, when some of the Jewish Christians dreamed of returning to Judaism after Christ failed to reappear. This, if correct, means it cannot be written by Paul.
Pauline authorship, however, allows Denton to evaluate many of Hebrew's passages under the light of Paul's letters. For example, he can compare the New Covenant with the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:24-26). It also turns the many references to the fall of the priesthood into prophecies, not explanations. Paul, as we know, had an uncanny sense of impending doom, and was proven right.
Denton's eschatology also differs from the traditional futuristic view. The Heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:12) is not some city in the sky, it's a spiritual kingdom, the New Testament kingdom.
Now that you understand the premise of Denton's writing, I have to say it's very good. You'll appreciate Denton's research regardless of your own beliefs. Hebrews' hangup about Melchizedek finally makes sense. Hebrews' theme of Christ bringing a superior kingdom, in every way, stands out. More than a verse-by-verse exposition, this is essentially a word-by-word exposition! The writing isn't as smooth as I would have liked—it reads a little like a collection of notes—but it's easy to follow. The research is deep and meaningful, and you'll be keeping it handy as a reference long after you're done reading.
January 7, 2012
1 Chronicles 21:5, That's a big army!
Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.
//Here's David's army that day: 1,100,000 from Israel and 470,000 from Judah.
Wikipedia lists the number of current, active-duty soldiers in the United States armed forces at 1.4 million. In other words, David, a little tribal king in 1,000 B.C., has a larger army than the United States of America does today!
A bit later, Abijah stands on a little rolling hill and addresses two opposing armies: one with 400,000 fighting men, the other with twice that many. That's 1,200,000 listeners, and no sound system. Abijah must have had quite a big voice!
Are you impressed? Don't be. Revelation says that in the great war of Armageddon, an army of 200,000,000 will be defeated. That's 142 times the size of the U.S. forces!
There's no way in the world Bible writers meant their numbers to be read literally. They are highly exaggerated and meant to make a point.
//Here's David's army that day: 1,100,000 from Israel and 470,000 from Judah.
Wikipedia lists the number of current, active-duty soldiers in the United States armed forces at 1.4 million. In other words, David, a little tribal king in 1,000 B.C., has a larger army than the United States of America does today!
A bit later, Abijah stands on a little rolling hill and addresses two opposing armies: one with 400,000 fighting men, the other with twice that many. That's 1,200,000 listeners, and no sound system. Abijah must have had quite a big voice!
Are you impressed? Don't be. Revelation says that in the great war of Armageddon, an army of 200,000,000 will be defeated. That's 142 times the size of the U.S. forces!
There's no way in the world Bible writers meant their numbers to be read literally. They are highly exaggerated and meant to make a point.
January 6, 2012
Job 14:12, Are you awake down there?
So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
//Here's something Christians continue to wonder about two thousand years after Christianity's beginnings. Are dead people conscious down (up) there, or will they remain unconscious until resurrected? Multiple verses tell of the dead "sleeping with their fathers," connoting unconsciousness. And here's one to chew on:
Ecclesiastes 9:5, For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.
One day, King Saul finds a witch to help him commune with Samuel, who has died. When she "brings up" Samuel, he is pretty cranky about being disturbed.
But what about the parable of Lazarus and Divas? After they die, Lazarus rests in the bosom of Abraham, while Divas looks on from hell.
What about 1 Peter 3:19, where Jesus descends to hell, to preach to the disobedient? Does Jesus have to wake them up first, before preaching?
I take consolation in this: If I go to the bad place, I might be allowed to sleep through it all.
//Here's something Christians continue to wonder about two thousand years after Christianity's beginnings. Are dead people conscious down (up) there, or will they remain unconscious until resurrected? Multiple verses tell of the dead "sleeping with their fathers," connoting unconsciousness. And here's one to chew on:
Ecclesiastes 9:5, For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.
One day, King Saul finds a witch to help him commune with Samuel, who has died. When she "brings up" Samuel, he is pretty cranky about being disturbed.
But what about the parable of Lazarus and Divas? After they die, Lazarus rests in the bosom of Abraham, while Divas looks on from hell.
What about 1 Peter 3:19, where Jesus descends to hell, to preach to the disobedient? Does Jesus have to wake them up first, before preaching?
I take consolation in this: If I go to the bad place, I might be allowed to sleep through it all.
January 5, 2012
Book review: Atheist Universe
by David Mills
★★★★★
This is a well-written, concise, interesting overview of the argument against Christian fundamentalism … particularly Creationism.
How did the universe come into being? We don't know. But new discoveries in quantum theory, as well as research done by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, have demonstrated that matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of "empty" space.
Intelligent Design? Mills states that "ID's greatest triumph … has been in convincing the general public that there is a controversy raging among scientists over Intelligent Design. There is no scientific controversy whatever."
So how did life begin? Well, we know God isn't necessary. There is no need for spontaneous creation of complex cells; the first cells contained no nucleus at all, consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. From there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and Mills carefully refutes argument after argument posed by creationists.
Life after death? Forget having science on your side, here. For example, if the law of the conservation of mass/energy necessitates consciousness after death (because mass/energy can be neither destroyed nor created) then the same law requires consciousness before conception.
There just isn't any real debate among scientists in these matters. A study in 1998 revealed that, of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent believed in a personal God, and even fewer in Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The point I took away from the book is this: Religious beliefs must remain beliefs; no more or less. The Bible's creationist claims are not and cannot be supported by science.
★★★★★
This is a well-written, concise, interesting overview of the argument against Christian fundamentalism … particularly Creationism.
How did the universe come into being? We don't know. But new discoveries in quantum theory, as well as research done by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, have demonstrated that matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of "empty" space.
Intelligent Design? Mills states that "ID's greatest triumph … has been in convincing the general public that there is a controversy raging among scientists over Intelligent Design. There is no scientific controversy whatever."
So how did life begin? Well, we know God isn't necessary. There is no need for spontaneous creation of complex cells; the first cells contained no nucleus at all, consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. From there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and Mills carefully refutes argument after argument posed by creationists.
Life after death? Forget having science on your side, here. For example, if the law of the conservation of mass/energy necessitates consciousness after death (because mass/energy can be neither destroyed nor created) then the same law requires consciousness before conception.
There just isn't any real debate among scientists in these matters. A study in 1998 revealed that, of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent believed in a personal God, and even fewer in Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The point I took away from the book is this: Religious beliefs must remain beliefs; no more or less. The Bible's creationist claims are not and cannot be supported by science.
January 4, 2012
1 Kings 19:2, Jezebel's Vow
So Jezebel sent this message to Elijah: "May the gods strike me and even kill me if by this time tomorrow I have not killed you just as you killed them."
//In this verse, the wicked queen Jezebel promises to slay Elijah, in the same manner as Elijah killed all the prophets of Baal in the prior chapter. Jezebel never accomplished her vow. Or did she?
In the New Testament, John the Baptist is compared to Elijah multiple times, and is even spoken of as Elijah redivivus. So how did the New Testament Elijah lose his life?
By the instruction of another queen named Herodias, who demanded the head of John the Baptist on a charger.
Is Herodias, then, the second coming of Jezebel, finally fulfilling her vow?
//In this verse, the wicked queen Jezebel promises to slay Elijah, in the same manner as Elijah killed all the prophets of Baal in the prior chapter. Jezebel never accomplished her vow. Or did she?
In the New Testament, John the Baptist is compared to Elijah multiple times, and is even spoken of as Elijah redivivus. So how did the New Testament Elijah lose his life?
By the instruction of another queen named Herodias, who demanded the head of John the Baptist on a charger.
Is Herodias, then, the second coming of Jezebel, finally fulfilling her vow?
January 3, 2012
Jeremiah 22:30, Jahoiakim, the Missing Man
This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."
//Here's a frustrating fellow. Jahoiakim was a Judean king in the lineage of David, son of Josiah, father of Jeconiah. 1 Chronicles 3 lists his genealogy.
But Matthew, when he traces the genealogy of Jesus back to king David, leaves Jahoiakim out in the cold. Skips right over him. Matthew 1:11, And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Why did Jahoiakim get written out of the New Testament by Matthew? A clue comes from today's verse. The man whose descendants will never sit on the throne of David is this very fellow, Jahoiakim. This promise is repeated in Jeremiah 36:30.
Matthew, knowing that his genealogy contained a major problem ... it prevented Jesus from ever "sitting on the throne of David" ... does the best he can. He ignores Jahoiakim in the list, perhaps hoping we'll forget about him. Because, as Luke explains in verse 1:32, the Lord God shall give unto [Jesus] the throne of his father David.
Of course, Matthew himself never said Jesus would sit on the throne of David, and Luke, while making that claim, comes up with a different genealogy that doesn't route through Jahoiakim. Wow, this guy must have really been a pain to work around.[image error]
//Here's a frustrating fellow. Jahoiakim was a Judean king in the lineage of David, son of Josiah, father of Jeconiah. 1 Chronicles 3 lists his genealogy.
But Matthew, when he traces the genealogy of Jesus back to king David, leaves Jahoiakim out in the cold. Skips right over him. Matthew 1:11, And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Why did Jahoiakim get written out of the New Testament by Matthew? A clue comes from today's verse. The man whose descendants will never sit on the throne of David is this very fellow, Jahoiakim. This promise is repeated in Jeremiah 36:30.
Matthew, knowing that his genealogy contained a major problem ... it prevented Jesus from ever "sitting on the throne of David" ... does the best he can. He ignores Jahoiakim in the list, perhaps hoping we'll forget about him. Because, as Luke explains in verse 1:32, the Lord God shall give unto [Jesus] the throne of his father David.
Of course, Matthew himself never said Jesus would sit on the throne of David, and Luke, while making that claim, comes up with a different genealogy that doesn't route through Jahoiakim. Wow, this guy must have really been a pain to work around.[image error]
January 2, 2012
Book review: 365 Read-Aloud Bedtime Bible Stories
by Daniel Partner
★★★★
I have been on the lookout for a good introductory book for adults to the stories in the Bible, and someone told me this children's book would actually be a good one. They were right, I read through every story and enjoyed it! It's a one-year collection of short Bible stories; you get 211 from the Old Testament, and 154 from the New (mostly Acts and the Gospels).
Do be aware that its target audience really is young children. You won't find any of the Bible's "adult themes" herein. Rahab isn't a harlot; she's just a nice lady. Mary isn't a virgin. I guess that would be a little too complicated to explain.
365 days wasn't quite enough for Partner to get through the Bible, probably because of an overemphasis on the teachings of Jesus, so you won't find a full coverage of the Bible. For example, if there was anything at all about Ezekiel, one of the Bible's more important prophets, I missed it. I was a little surprised at this, since Ezekiel's dreams and publicity stunts would make for memorable children's lessons.
You will, however, find a great deal of attention given to the kings of Israel and Judah, to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, to the deportation into captivity, to the release from captivity and rebuilding of the Holy Land. Excellent; I'm in favor of this emphasis. Few Christians grow up knowing anything at all about Judaism's past, its defeats, sufferings, and desperate hopes for redemption. This is, after all, the atmosphere which birthed Christianity, for Christ means "Messiah," the long-awaited redeemer.
Great book, cute pictures, and even I could understand the simple writing. :)
★★★★
I have been on the lookout for a good introductory book for adults to the stories in the Bible, and someone told me this children's book would actually be a good one. They were right, I read through every story and enjoyed it! It's a one-year collection of short Bible stories; you get 211 from the Old Testament, and 154 from the New (mostly Acts and the Gospels).
Do be aware that its target audience really is young children. You won't find any of the Bible's "adult themes" herein. Rahab isn't a harlot; she's just a nice lady. Mary isn't a virgin. I guess that would be a little too complicated to explain.
365 days wasn't quite enough for Partner to get through the Bible, probably because of an overemphasis on the teachings of Jesus, so you won't find a full coverage of the Bible. For example, if there was anything at all about Ezekiel, one of the Bible's more important prophets, I missed it. I was a little surprised at this, since Ezekiel's dreams and publicity stunts would make for memorable children's lessons.
You will, however, find a great deal of attention given to the kings of Israel and Judah, to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, to the deportation into captivity, to the release from captivity and rebuilding of the Holy Land. Excellent; I'm in favor of this emphasis. Few Christians grow up knowing anything at all about Judaism's past, its defeats, sufferings, and desperate hopes for redemption. This is, after all, the atmosphere which birthed Christianity, for Christ means "Messiah," the long-awaited redeemer.
Great book, cute pictures, and even I could understand the simple writing. :)
January 1, 2012
Hebrews 2:13, Another year, another resolution
And again, I will put my trust in him.
//As we kick off another new year, let me wish you all good tidings! In whatever form you worship, or wherever you find awe in this wonderful creation, may your happiness and purpose continue!
2011 was the first full year of cyber publishing for The Dubious Disciple. There remains just two of us operating the site, and we've had a blast. 2011 was a busy year, with blog posts hitting the web on 363 out of 365 days. I've made a number of new friends and had a number of great discussions on various forums where The DD feeds. I want to thank all of the authors and publishers who have shared review copies of their work.
We will be slowing down a little in 2012, but not by much! We plan to continue posting about five days a week, though we're undecided about which days. Any advice is welcome!
Shalom.
//As we kick off another new year, let me wish you all good tidings! In whatever form you worship, or wherever you find awe in this wonderful creation, may your happiness and purpose continue!
2011 was the first full year of cyber publishing for The Dubious Disciple. There remains just two of us operating the site, and we've had a blast. 2011 was a busy year, with blog posts hitting the web on 363 out of 365 days. I've made a number of new friends and had a number of great discussions on various forums where The DD feeds. I want to thank all of the authors and publishers who have shared review copies of their work.
We will be slowing down a little in 2012, but not by much! We plan to continue posting about five days a week, though we're undecided about which days. Any advice is welcome!
Shalom.
