Lee Harmon's Blog, page 117

John 14:6, Jesus, the Only Way

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
//I was asked recently what this verse means to me, given my liberal Christian stance. If liberal Christians validate other religions on equal footing, then what do we make of Jesus' claims of exclusivity? I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" liberal Christian, but I can answer this question in my own way.
First, Jesus was unique, with a powerful message of compassion punctuated by an astounding sacrifice. I live in awe of Jesus, and Christianity is my heritage. Even as I recognize that every believer in every religion lays equal claim to the mystery of God, Jesus is still the one for me.
But back to John's claim of exclusivity. Were there other Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings 2,000 years ago? Were there other humanitarian teachers of enlightenment, of life in abundance? Or was Jesus the only way? Even if there were others, I'm not sure John (or the author of the fourth Gospel, if it wasn't the apostle John) would have been aware of them. But even if he were, can we really fault John for his loyalty to Jesus, particularly in the arena of religion? Even today, when a person experiences the Spirit, when he feels the presence of God, he tends to proclaim his discovery in exclusive terms. "I've found it! The one right way to live, the way of God's approval!" The first-century Christian claim of exclusivity seems as natural then as it is of today's variety of religions.

Book review: Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John

by Steven J. Friesen 
★★★★★
If you are a serious student of Revelation, this is a book you must read. I don't think there's another book like it ... yet. That Revelation's warnings often relate directly to the Imperial Cult of the late first century has been understood for a long time, but this book tackles the topic head on, in scholarly fashion. Friesen relates what archaeology has discovered about Caesar worship in Asia Minor, Revelation's target audience. Much can be gathered from the study of coins, temple ruins, and writings. The Caesars were often simulated into the worship of traditional Greek deities, and what we understand from archaeology about both the public and mystery rituals is detailed.
One conclusion Friesen draws is that the Imperial Cult was definitely founded upon Caesar Augustus and his accomplishments. Augustus was worshiped as Zeus, the high god of the Greeks. In my mind, at least, there can be little doubt that the first of the seven kings of Revelation is Augustus ... not, as some preterists insist, Julius Caesar. Friesen also concludes that the Flavians, including Vespasian and Titus, were also highly honored in myth. This matches the findings and conclusions in my own book, Revelation: The Way it Happened.
Friesen's book is in two parts: First, the study of the Imperial Cults, and then, how Revelation relates to that study in its direct opposition to Roman imperialism and the abomination of Caesar worship. Of particular interest to readers of Revelation, of course, is Nero Caesar, considered by most to be either the fifth or the sixth king of the seven (depending upon whether you begin counting with Augustus or Julius). Most studied scholars of Revelation agree that, at least on some level, John was surely writing about Nero as the Beast of the Sea. 
(click picture to buy on Amazon)  

John 11:47, The First Trial of Jesus

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
//Much is made of the fact that, unlike the other three Gospels, John's Gospel records no trial before Caiaphas, the high priest, before Jesus moves on to the court of the Romans. But I think such claimants are not reading John carefully.
Space prohibits me from covering this topic in detail, but you may find it an interesting study. Here is the Johannine version of the trial, in verses 11:47-53. Some of the Jews report the raising of Lazarus from the dead to the Pharisees, resulting in a Sanhedrin session, where the high priest, Caiaphas, decides on a course of action to put Jesus to death. As scholar Raymond E. Brown has noted, if we combine this story with chapter 10 of John, where Jesus debates with the Jews, we have a scene virtually identical to the Synoptic trial. There is even concern expressed by the Jews that the Temple would be destroyed.
The significant difference is that, in John, Jesus isn't present at his "trial."

Book review: Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs

by Ralph Ellis 

★★★★
What a fun book! A conspiracy theory in the extreme, but that's okay. Sometimes it's entertaining to simply recognize the parallels--in this case, the strong resemblance between Biblical characters and the Pharaohs of Egypt--and run with them, to see where they take you. This book leads deep into Egyptology, relating the stories of the Bible directly to ancient Egypt, and concluding that Judaism, including its offshoot Christianity, stems from ancient Egyptian ritual. You'll find Abraham, Moses, even Jesus among the Pharaohs.
Ellis' analysis of the exodus as stemming from the eruption of Santorini is one of the book's more interesting passages. This isn't a new idea (see Acts of God, by Graham Philips) but Ellis fleshes it out, explaining the boils on the skin and more. His point is that the Biblical account is historical and fits nicely into the timing of his thesis, relating Moses to the Hyksos people.
Ralph Ellis has produced a suite of similar books, and this is apparently the one that started the ball rolling. Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs has gone through at least two reprintings. There's an awful lot of original information here, and a lot of conclusions drawn on linguistics and minimal evidence, but if Ellis and his topic piques your interest, there's much more available to read.
While this is not a religious book, its intent is to uncover the truth about Christianity. It is, according to Ellis, "The true history of religion revealed." It's dedicated to his children so that they "may know the truth." Ellis obviously wants us to take his conclusions very seriously, and change our view about religion. While I can accept that Egyptian history and myth influenced the stories written in the Hebrew scriptures on some level--this should not be terribly surprising if Israel really escaped from Egypt--I can't quite carry the parallels as far as Ellis does. But I still found the book fascinating and learned a lot.
(click picture to buy on Amazon) 

Revelation 11:19, What Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?

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 great hailstorm.
//In the sixth century B.C., the Babylonian empire, under King Nebuchadnezzar, sacked and plundered Jerusalem, destroying the Temple. Inside the Temple was Israel's most holy relic: The Ark of the Covenant. But what happened to the Ark is unknown, and has been debated for centuries. If the Babylonians took it, they did so secretly, because the detailed lists they prepared of other vessels taken from the Temple contain no mention of the Ark. Some have wondered if it wasn't burned down inside the Temple, purposefully melted to collect its gold.
Other scenarios have been proposed. According to some sources, King Josiah of the Jews learned of the coming invasion by the Babylonians and hid the Ark. One midrashic source (Maimonides, Laws of the Temple, 4:1). claims that Solomon predicted the destruction of the Temple and prepared a cave near the Dead Sea, in which King Josiah eventually hid the Ark. Another (Yoma 53b) says he dug a hole under a storehouse on the Temple Mount and buried it there. If that's where it went, then Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer claims to have found the most plausible spot for its burial. In the precise center of the location where his research places the Holy of Holies within the Temple is a section of bedrock cut out in the dimensions that may match those of the Ark as described in Exodus.
It's also possible the lost Ark isn't lost at all. The church of St. Mary of Zion, in Ethiopia, claims to have the ark in their possession. It's carefully guarded by a monk known as the "Keeper of the Ark." It's location, however, is unverifiable, since only this one monk is allowed in its presence.
Today's verse provides yet another possibility. Apparently, the ark's location was a hot topic even 2,000 years ago. According to Revelation 11:19, all you ark hunters can give up the search. It's already up in heaven.

Book review: Eternal Life: A New Vision

by John Shelby Spong 

★★★★★
For all you Spong fans who were beginning to grow frustrated at his vagueness, this book tackles an important subject head on. What are liberal Christians (at least those in the Spong mold) supposed to make of the Bible's promise of eternal life?
We needn't depend upon the supernatural in order to grasp eternal life, for all life is deeply linked. Spong quotes Einstein's provocative claim to explain: "I feel myself so much a part of everything living that I am not the least concerned with the beginning or ending of the concrete existence of any one person in this eternal flow." Spong wants us to "embrace infinity," to "transcend time." But he hopes for us to discover the eternal in a very practical way. Eternity is within us, it is what it means to be human.
Spong writes, "The power of love flows through all forms of life, but it ceases to be instinctual and comes to self-consciousness only in human beings. That power of love is also part of who God is for me. This means that the more deeply I am able to love, the more God becomes a part of me. This is why no religion can in the last analysis ever really be about proper beliefs and proper practices ... Religion has to be about the enhancement of life through love." You've probably heard this before if you're a Spong fan, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. Love is, after all, the key to finding life eternal.
But what about reward? Spong is quite happy to rid religion of both heaven and hell, having never been a fan of either. "The fact is that if you and I live our lives motivated by our desire to gain paradise or to avoid eternal punishment, then we have not escaped the basic self-centeredness of life that is so natural to survival-oriented, self-conscious creatures." In other words, eternal reward only gets in the way of the true Christian message.
Uplifting and timely, this is a book worth reading twice. I have.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Luke 23:33, The Passover Spit

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him.
//Some time ago, a friend laughed when I compared Christ stretched on the cross to the Passover lamb stretched on the spit. We were discussing the Gospel of John, and John's theology of Christ as the Lamb. In this Gospel, and this Gospel alone, Christ dies before the Passover; he does not eat a Passover meal with his followers. Rather, he dies on the cross at the moment the lambs are slaughtered in the Temple.
I wondered if the apostles, as they shared a Passover meal the next day, would have recognized the image of their master in the lamb on the spit. My friend thought my imagination was running away with me, but my idea was far from original.
It took me a while, but I found the reference I was trying to remember, from second-century apologist Justin Martyr:
The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the Passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on Him … and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. –Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho

Book review: Bakkhai

by Euripides, translated by Reginald Gibbons 
★★★★
For those who don't recognize the title, this ancient Greek theater piece is about the god Dionysus, god of wine. It was first performed in Athens, in 405 BC. And for those who still don't catch the connection to my blog, it's this: Many of the characteristics of Jesus are shared with this frivolous Greek god, and at least one of Jesus' miracles—turning water into wine—also seems closely related. In fact, the late Byzantine play, The Passion of Christ, drew heavily on the Bakkhai.
Greek tragedies are a little hard for us to fully enter into two and a half millennia later, particularly as we struggle to understand on just at what level the Greeks believed in their gods, but the commentary of this book does a great job of making something foreign feel familiar. In the play, you'll see Dionysus' more unpleasant side … his usual ecstasy and abandon turn into vengeance and bloodlust, aimed toward a young king who seeks to discredit him. True to Greek form, the god wins, with no apparent attempt at a climaxing plot; we understand from the beginning that humans are doomed to subjection before the gods. The punishment for disbelief far exceeds the crime, with no hint of pity or apology, as befits the gods' disdain for lesser beings.
I found the forty page introduction superb, and the notes following the play a bit less so, though still helpful in illuminating the setting.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 2:23, Did Nazareth Exist?

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.
//Some scholars continue to insist that there was never any such city as Nazareth in Galilee. Today's verse, rather than bolstering the argument for Nazareth's historic existence, is actually used to argue against it. Scholars doubt that there is any connection between the Nazarenes and the inhabitants of Nazareth; Matthew should have known better. Perhaps Matthew was trying explain the title "Jesus of Nazareth," while knowing no such place exists?
Why is there any skepticism in the first place? Skeptics point to the fact that Joshua chapter 19 lists all the towns of the tribe of Zebulun. Nazareth isn't listed. Josephus gives the names of 45 towns and villages in Galilee. Nazareth isn't on his list. The Talmud names 63 towns and villages. No Nazareth. You can see why some wonder if there really was a "city called Nazareth."
One strong argument for the historic existence of Nazareth, however, is a large 24" by 15" marble tablet containing an edict of Caesar (either Tiberius or Claudius), found in Caesarea. This artifact was uncovered in three fragments, the final third being discovered in 1962. It is known as the Nazareth inscription since it's the first known inscription citing the name Nazareth. It contains a list of 24 priests (see 1 Chronicles 25:7-8 for these priestly orders) with their surnames and the locations of the Galilean towns where they relocated following the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
The Nazareth inscription is actually famous for a different reason; it contains a strong polemic against tomb robbery, and is thought by some to be a countermeasure taken by Caesar himself in regards to the missing body of Jesus! Had news of the empty tomb gotten back to Rome? Why else would Caesar enforce so severe a punishment for a relatively minor crime?
Sounds a bit extreme to me, so I'll let you decide for yourself. Here's the full text of the edict:
1. EDICT OF CAESAR 2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs--whoever has made 3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household 4. members--that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally 5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted 6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who 7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has 8. moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a 9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in 10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat 11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to 12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if 13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under 14. the title of tomb-breaker.

Book review: Evidence for the Historical Jesus

by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson 

★★★★
Great book! I enjoyed reading it, and it's chock full of fascinating facts and interesting arguments. I've got margin notes and highlights all over it. While the authors seem a bit defensive at times, they do provide a lot of meat to chew on. I enjoyed learning about Jesus the Jew, arguments against the two-source theory, arguments against Christianity as a copycat of the mystery religions, and the discussion of Jesus' own Messianic and divine understanding.
I really did enjoy the book. Unfortunately, as far as the book's purpose of providing evidence of the Historical Jesus, I came away underwhelmed. Such "evidence" ends on page 87 with the statement "That Jesus actually lived in history should be obvious by now." It's actually anything but obvious; by this point, the authors have reviewed only rabbinic writings, secular writings like those of Josephus, and the testimony of the early church fathers. They argue that surely no martyr would die for a cause he didn't 100% believe in. None of this convinces me of a historical Jesus beyond, say, about a 50% surety. But unfortunately, from this point forward in the book, the authors shift focus to proving the historic accuracy of the Bible, and in doing so, they overreach and leave some of their arguments crippled. The Gospel story does provide much indirect evidence for the existence of Jesus, but in trying to prove the Bible happened literally, word-for-word, the authors wind up falling back on logic that just doesn't work for me. Because of the authors' stated premise of proving Jesus lived, a critical review must address primarily this goal, so it's going to be rather long and sound more negative than the book deserves. But here goes.
Here's an example of the type of claim that betrays the authors' bias: "A comparison between the false writings and the canonical ones often immediately confirms the obvious superiority and authenticity of the canonical gospels." Well, if that were even remotely true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps the canonical gospels have a more authentic air than the non-canonical ones, but that hardly confirms that any of them are authentic. Here's another typical assumption: "The New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events of teachings of Jesus." Again, if we knew this to be true, the discussion about Jesus' existence wouldn't be necessary. How about this: "The New Testament accounts of Jesus began to be circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts." Oops! The story of Jesus was written outside the territory where Jesus taught, in a language Jesus and his closest followers probably didn't speak, 40-80 years after Jesus died. Perhaps by "New Testament accounts" the authors mean the writings of Paul, but then much of the "did Jesus exist" argument becomes centered around whether or not Paul really did teach a human Jesus. Or perhaps by "within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of [Jesus'] life" they mean primarily John the Apostle. Tradition holds that John outlived the other apostles into the final decade of the first century. John, then, could have read the other gospels, and would have had opportunity to contradict them, right? Well, guess what? John's Gospel does just that; just about every place John refers to a story in the Synoptics, it's to contradict the story. That's hardly an endorsement of the Synoptic gospels.
Sometimes, the arguments presented by the authors seem to hurt their cause more than they help. Because an early date of the Gospels seems important to them, they point out how the book of Acts does not mention the war of 70 AD, and conclude that it must have therefore been written earlier than the year 70. Then, because Acts refers to an earlier writing (presumably the Gospel of Luke), they conclude Luke must have been written earlier yet. But they forget to mention that Luke writes very specifically about the war; thus, a historical-critical approach to the Gospel story must date Luke after 70 AD. Here's another howler quoted from the book: "There is no mention of Jesus' tomb ever being venerated as were those of at least fifty other prophets, later including Hanina ben Dosa. The only good explanation is that Jesus' bones were no longer there." Um, sorry, the only really good explanation is that Jesus was never there in the first place!
My opinion: By taking on the role of apologists, the authors may have relinquished some of their strongest Biblical arguments. They discuss John the Baptist, but by taking an apologetic stance, they can't question why the Gospels would record the embarrassing story of Jesus being baptized by a competitor "for his sins" if it weren't historically true. They mention how Paul refers to James as the brother of Jesus, but because they prefer not to emphasize the friction between Paul and the Jerusalem Christians, they cannot argue that Paul didn't mean "brother" as a title or in a spiritual sense. They ignore the lonely cry of despair of Jesus on the cross, or any of the other human traits of Jesus in the book of Mark, such as his occasional failures. They argue that Matthew was written before Mark, presumably to defend the claims of the early church fathers, but in doing so, they destroy a valuable argument: by tracing the declining Christology of the New Testament as we step backward in time, the way current scholarship chronologically orders the books of the New Testament, we aim straight for a human Jesus.
I really enjoyed it! It just falls flat of its stated purpose by trying to prove too much.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)