Lee Harmon's Blog, page 79
October 21, 2012
John 4:28-29, The First Evangelist
Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?"
//This woman is sometimes called the "first evangelist" in the New Testament. Do you recognize who she is?
The story comes from John's Gospel. She is, of course, a woman ... hardly what you would expect of a respected news-bringer. A woman's word in the first century counted for little; they were not even allowed to offer testimony in a court of law.
She is also a Samaritan, a people hated by the Jews of Jesus' time. The Samaritans were once Israelites, but they became polluted by intermarriage with other nations (primarily the conquering Assyrians) and thus were considered half-breeds.
She is slow to understand. It seems impossible for her to grasp the idea of living water.
And she is disreputable, having had five husbands, and now living with a man who was not her husband.
Yes, the person selected by Jesus to first carry his message is the anonymous "woman at the well." Who'd a thunk?
//This woman is sometimes called the "first evangelist" in the New Testament. Do you recognize who she is?
The story comes from John's Gospel. She is, of course, a woman ... hardly what you would expect of a respected news-bringer. A woman's word in the first century counted for little; they were not even allowed to offer testimony in a court of law.
She is also a Samaritan, a people hated by the Jews of Jesus' time. The Samaritans were once Israelites, but they became polluted by intermarriage with other nations (primarily the conquering Assyrians) and thus were considered half-breeds.
She is slow to understand. It seems impossible for her to grasp the idea of living water.
And she is disreputable, having had five husbands, and now living with a man who was not her husband.
Yes, the person selected by Jesus to first carry his message is the anonymous "woman at the well." Who'd a thunk?
October 20, 2012
Book review: Why Jesus?
by Ravi Zacharias
★★★
This started out as a five star review! I love Ravi's writing! He's opinionated, intelligent and interesting. He seeds his discussion with fascinating, relevant stories.
Ravi challenges the truthfulness of contemporary religion—mostly, what he calls "New Spirituality"—in the early pages of his book, and promises to steer us away from mass marketed shallowness toward the Truth. Capital T. It's a noble quest.
Says Ravi, "I have followed through on my promise to pursue truth and have devoted my life to the study and understanding of all the major religions and systems of belief in the world." He poses a question: "If the truth is so important [in the courtroom], how much more important is it in the search for the spiritual answers to our deepest hungers?" He quotes Winston Churchill: "The most valuable thing in the world is the truth." He concludes, "Nothing is so destructive as running from the truth."
With this intoxicating buildup, he raises our expectations for great revelation. Yes, Ravi! Bring us the TRUTH! Can I hear an amen?
Instead, Ravi embarks on a 272-page quest to discredit the competition (Ravi has a serious thing about Chopra and Oprah, and their feel-good religions; at least a quarter of the book is dedicated to the "deplorable and manipulative" Deepak Chopra). I kept waiting to learn about Jesus. Why Jesus? The best answer I could find is that Ravi likes Jesus-the-person, the man who befriended sinners and played with children on his lap. Jesus "makes reality beautiful." Well, heck, I think Jesus is cool, too.
Five stars if you love passionate ridicule and prefer attack to defense. One star if you're hoping to uncover a reason to turn to Jesus. Ravi keeps promising, but never delivers ... he actually never even tries, beyond a few of his own feel-good descriptions in the final few pages.
Tell you what—my next review will be another book with an identical title: "Why Jesus?" We'll see if a second attempt makes more progress.
★★★
This started out as a five star review! I love Ravi's writing! He's opinionated, intelligent and interesting. He seeds his discussion with fascinating, relevant stories.
Ravi challenges the truthfulness of contemporary religion—mostly, what he calls "New Spirituality"—in the early pages of his book, and promises to steer us away from mass marketed shallowness toward the Truth. Capital T. It's a noble quest.
Says Ravi, "I have followed through on my promise to pursue truth and have devoted my life to the study and understanding of all the major religions and systems of belief in the world." He poses a question: "If the truth is so important [in the courtroom], how much more important is it in the search for the spiritual answers to our deepest hungers?" He quotes Winston Churchill: "The most valuable thing in the world is the truth." He concludes, "Nothing is so destructive as running from the truth."
With this intoxicating buildup, he raises our expectations for great revelation. Yes, Ravi! Bring us the TRUTH! Can I hear an amen?
Instead, Ravi embarks on a 272-page quest to discredit the competition (Ravi has a serious thing about Chopra and Oprah, and their feel-good religions; at least a quarter of the book is dedicated to the "deplorable and manipulative" Deepak Chopra). I kept waiting to learn about Jesus. Why Jesus? The best answer I could find is that Ravi likes Jesus-the-person, the man who befriended sinners and played with children on his lap. Jesus "makes reality beautiful." Well, heck, I think Jesus is cool, too.
Five stars if you love passionate ridicule and prefer attack to defense. One star if you're hoping to uncover a reason to turn to Jesus. Ravi keeps promising, but never delivers ... he actually never even tries, beyond a few of his own feel-good descriptions in the final few pages.
Tell you what—my next review will be another book with an identical title: "Why Jesus?" We'll see if a second attempt makes more progress.
October 19, 2012
Isaiah 14:3-5, The Origin of Lucifer, part III of III
It shall come to pass in the day the LORD gives you rest from your sorrow, and from your fear and the hard bondage in which you were made to serve, that you will take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: "How the oppressor has ceased, The golden city ceased! The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, The scepter of the rulers;
//In part I of this discussion, I pointed out the origin of the name Lucifer, and how its meaning evolved through various translations.
In part II, I pointed out how we have combined the scriptural writings of authors living hundreds of years apart to apparently solve a puzzle, building the story of Lucifer as another name for Satan, who was cast out of heaven. This understanding prevailed throughout much of the church history, up to the time of the Reformation when we began to examine scripture more critically.
In part III, we'll examine the context of that one verse in Isaiah, the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is found, to see what it originally meant. Chapter 13 of Isaiah begins a long section known as the "oracles against foreign nations." Verse 13:1 reads,
The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
This theme spills over into chapter 14, as Isaiah continues to critique Babylon and her king. We arrive shortly at today's verse, telling of the fall of the tyrant king of Babylon. The tirade continues until we reach verse 14:12,
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
According to Isaiah, Lucifer will not enjoy the decent burial of his fellow kings, because he has "destroyed his land and slain his people." So God will rise up against Babylon.
Lucifer is almost certainly king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
//In part I of this discussion, I pointed out the origin of the name Lucifer, and how its meaning evolved through various translations.
In part II, I pointed out how we have combined the scriptural writings of authors living hundreds of years apart to apparently solve a puzzle, building the story of Lucifer as another name for Satan, who was cast out of heaven. This understanding prevailed throughout much of the church history, up to the time of the Reformation when we began to examine scripture more critically.
In part III, we'll examine the context of that one verse in Isaiah, the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is found, to see what it originally meant. Chapter 13 of Isaiah begins a long section known as the "oracles against foreign nations." Verse 13:1 reads,
The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
This theme spills over into chapter 14, as Isaiah continues to critique Babylon and her king. We arrive shortly at today's verse, telling of the fall of the tyrant king of Babylon. The tirade continues until we reach verse 14:12,
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
According to Isaiah, Lucifer will not enjoy the decent burial of his fellow kings, because he has "destroyed his land and slain his people." So God will rise up against Babylon.
Lucifer is almost certainly king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
October 18, 2012
2 Corinthians 11:14, The Origin of Lucifer, part II of III
[F]or Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
//Continuing our discussion from yesterday about the origins of Lucifer, we reach today's verse written by Paul. What we're about to uncover is a fascinating instance of "scripture interpreting scripture" to arrive at the conclusion that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 (the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used) actually refers to Satan. We'll do this by examining New Testament texts, written many hundreds of years after Isaiah died. Paul starts us off by informing us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, similar to the Morning Star of Isaiah.
Then we have Luke 10:18, where Jesus exclaims that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Recall yesterday's verse: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Could this be coincidence?
Next we come to this story in Revelation about the dragon:
“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”
Again, this sounds a lot like Isaiah, doesn't it? It's easy to conclude Isaiah was talking about Satan when he used the name Lucifer ... though as we discussed yesterday how the name Lucifer didn't exist in scripture until after Christ arrived, and the translation into Latin.
All this begs the question: If we have used scripture to interpret scripture, fitting the pieces together like a puzzle, erroneously interpreting Isaiah's writings to be about Satan, then what did Isaiah 14 mean in the first place? We'll answer that tomorrow.
//Continuing our discussion from yesterday about the origins of Lucifer, we reach today's verse written by Paul. What we're about to uncover is a fascinating instance of "scripture interpreting scripture" to arrive at the conclusion that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 (the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used) actually refers to Satan. We'll do this by examining New Testament texts, written many hundreds of years after Isaiah died. Paul starts us off by informing us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, similar to the Morning Star of Isaiah.
Then we have Luke 10:18, where Jesus exclaims that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Recall yesterday's verse: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Could this be coincidence?
Next we come to this story in Revelation about the dragon:
“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”
Again, this sounds a lot like Isaiah, doesn't it? It's easy to conclude Isaiah was talking about Satan when he used the name Lucifer ... though as we discussed yesterday how the name Lucifer didn't exist in scripture until after Christ arrived, and the translation into Latin.
All this begs the question: If we have used scripture to interpret scripture, fitting the pieces together like a puzzle, erroneously interpreting Isaiah's writings to be about Satan, then what did Isaiah 14 mean in the first place? We'll answer that tomorrow.
October 17, 2012
Isaiah 14:12, The Origin of Lucifer, part I of III
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
//Today's verse is the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used. In fact, it only appears in some translations; primarily the King James version. The word in Hebrew isn't Lucifer at all, or even close. It's "helel," which probably derives from the root "to shine brightly."
When the original Hebrew was translated into Greek for the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, before Christ came on the scene), the word became "heosphoros," meaning Morning star, the name used by many translations today.
Moving on to the next step, the translation to Latin after Christ, the name became Lucifer. The roots of this word are "lux", meaning "light," and "ferre," meaning "to bring." Lucifer means "bearer of light." By the fourth century, Lucifer had become another name for Venus, the Morning Star.
When we arrive at the King James version of the Bible, in the year 1611, the name Lucifer remains, but surprisingly became popularized as another name for Satan! How did we make this jump in logic? Continued tomorrow.
//Today's verse is the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used. In fact, it only appears in some translations; primarily the King James version. The word in Hebrew isn't Lucifer at all, or even close. It's "helel," which probably derives from the root "to shine brightly."
When the original Hebrew was translated into Greek for the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, before Christ came on the scene), the word became "heosphoros," meaning Morning star, the name used by many translations today.
Moving on to the next step, the translation to Latin after Christ, the name became Lucifer. The roots of this word are "lux", meaning "light," and "ferre," meaning "to bring." Lucifer means "bearer of light." By the fourth century, Lucifer had become another name for Venus, the Morning Star.
When we arrive at the King James version of the Bible, in the year 1611, the name Lucifer remains, but surprisingly became popularized as another name for Satan! How did we make this jump in logic? Continued tomorrow.
October 16, 2012
Book review: Embracing Obscurity
by Anonymous
★★★★
This book has an interesting theme. Being Jesus-like means not merely being humble, which is a foundational point of all major religions, but going to the next level: embracing obscurity. The cute gimmick (which the author insists is not a gimmick, but is cute nonetheless) is that the book is written anonymously.
We crave recognition to overcome the natural obscurity of sharing our world with billions. Why? Why does it seem natural, human, to want to rise above the billions, to be someone important? This craving conflicts with our spiritual well-being. Says the author, “I am astounded by Jesus’ complete lack of concern over His reputation.”
By way of warning, a chart is presented showing Christ’s disposition alongside Satan’s. To summarize the entire chart for you: Jesus lives a life of humility followed by honor, while Satan lives a life of pride followed by humiliation. And unless we stop imitating our enemy, we can be absolutely certain that we will also reap the same end: ultimate (perhaps even eternal) humiliation.
As the last paragraph shows, this book is afterlife-oriented, so you can guess that it wasn’t a perfect fit for my brand of Christianity. “Life is not about comfort, but about doing hard things now”—(wait for it, that’s only half of the quote)—“so that we can reap rewards in the life to come.” Yeah, not my brand. Yet there are some very helpful, very uplifting teachings herein. Mr. Anonymous points out that “living for an audience of One is at the heart of embracing obscurity,” and that is a lesson we could all learn…whatever our picture of that One.
This book will be especially appreciated by conservative Christians in need of hope-filled encouragement to continue being Jesus-like.
★★★★
This book has an interesting theme. Being Jesus-like means not merely being humble, which is a foundational point of all major religions, but going to the next level: embracing obscurity. The cute gimmick (which the author insists is not a gimmick, but is cute nonetheless) is that the book is written anonymously.
We crave recognition to overcome the natural obscurity of sharing our world with billions. Why? Why does it seem natural, human, to want to rise above the billions, to be someone important? This craving conflicts with our spiritual well-being. Says the author, “I am astounded by Jesus’ complete lack of concern over His reputation.”
By way of warning, a chart is presented showing Christ’s disposition alongside Satan’s. To summarize the entire chart for you: Jesus lives a life of humility followed by honor, while Satan lives a life of pride followed by humiliation. And unless we stop imitating our enemy, we can be absolutely certain that we will also reap the same end: ultimate (perhaps even eternal) humiliation.
As the last paragraph shows, this book is afterlife-oriented, so you can guess that it wasn’t a perfect fit for my brand of Christianity. “Life is not about comfort, but about doing hard things now”—(wait for it, that’s only half of the quote)—“so that we can reap rewards in the life to come.” Yeah, not my brand. Yet there are some very helpful, very uplifting teachings herein. Mr. Anonymous points out that “living for an audience of One is at the heart of embracing obscurity,” and that is a lesson we could all learn…whatever our picture of that One.
This book will be especially appreciated by conservative Christians in need of hope-filled encouragement to continue being Jesus-like.
October 14, 2012
Isaiah 61:5-6, The Day of Salvation
Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But you shall be named the priests of the LORD.
//I've often pointed out that the Old Testament dream of a coming Messiah was a political, this-worldly ambition, not at all the type of "Christ" that Jesus presented. Jews could hardly be blamed, then or now, for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. He simply didn't fulfill the promise of political redemption.
Consider 2nd Isaiah's vision of the coming Kingdom. The day of salvation, according to this prophet, would lift Israel above the nations, who would become physical laborers, plowing Israeli fields and dressing Israeli vineyards. Israel would instead be a nation of priests ... like the Levites, who held no such responsibilities.
Jesus, however, appears to have disdained that political picture and encouraged his followers to lift their eyes above mundane oppression to a higher kingdom. God held little interest in freeing the Jews from Rome, holding instead much higher ambitions, for even Romans were welcome in the Kingdom!
It is only when we fully jettison the messianic dreams of the Old Testament that we can see and appreciate the radicalness of the New Testament Messiah. On this topic, I'm getting excited about my upcoming publication date for John's Gospel: The Way It Happened.
//I've often pointed out that the Old Testament dream of a coming Messiah was a political, this-worldly ambition, not at all the type of "Christ" that Jesus presented. Jews could hardly be blamed, then or now, for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. He simply didn't fulfill the promise of political redemption.
Consider 2nd Isaiah's vision of the coming Kingdom. The day of salvation, according to this prophet, would lift Israel above the nations, who would become physical laborers, plowing Israeli fields and dressing Israeli vineyards. Israel would instead be a nation of priests ... like the Levites, who held no such responsibilities.
Jesus, however, appears to have disdained that political picture and encouraged his followers to lift their eyes above mundane oppression to a higher kingdom. God held little interest in freeing the Jews from Rome, holding instead much higher ambitions, for even Romans were welcome in the Kingdom!
It is only when we fully jettison the messianic dreams of the Old Testament that we can see and appreciate the radicalness of the New Testament Messiah. On this topic, I'm getting excited about my upcoming publication date for John's Gospel: The Way It Happened.
October 13, 2012
Mark 11:11-12, Premeditated Temple Attack Or Not?
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany ... Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple ...
//Mark tells how when Jesus came to Jerusalem, he entered the temple, looked around, and went away for the night. Then he came back and staged his symbolic "attack" on the temple. The same story in Matthew drops the premeditation, and leads one to believe Jesus was incensed when he saw the temple and immediately cast out the money changers et. al.
Mark's order of events:
[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey[2] He looks around at the temple[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree[5] He attacks the temple
Matthew's order of events (See Matthew chapter 11):
[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey[2] He attacks the temple[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree[5] He comes back to Jerusalem
Why did Matthew rewrite the order? Is indignant anger better than premeditated attack? What do you think really happened?
//Mark tells how when Jesus came to Jerusalem, he entered the temple, looked around, and went away for the night. Then he came back and staged his symbolic "attack" on the temple. The same story in Matthew drops the premeditation, and leads one to believe Jesus was incensed when he saw the temple and immediately cast out the money changers et. al.
Mark's order of events:
[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey[2] He looks around at the temple[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree[5] He attacks the temple
Matthew's order of events (See Matthew chapter 11):
[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey[2] He attacks the temple[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree[5] He comes back to Jerusalem
Why did Matthew rewrite the order? Is indignant anger better than premeditated attack? What do you think really happened?
October 12, 2012
Book review: Unifying Truths of the World's Religions
by C. David Lundberg
★★★★★
100 pages into this book, I must admit that I've been reading it wrong. This is a book to be savored, not studied. For the first time ever, I’m providing a review before I finish a book … because I refuse to read this one like a novel or a textbook. Instead, I'm going to read a little each week, finding words to meditate upon for that week. With that in mind, and with David’s permission, I'll get the word out now about his accomplishment and then let its chapters form the basis of a few blog posts over the next few months. I have no qualms about awarding an early rating of five stars.
David Lundberg has carefully compiled quotes (over 800 of them) from seven of the world's major religions--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism--and organized them together under inspirational topics to emphasize how all of our religions are founded upon the same God-given principles. It's an undertaking that must have been enormous.
Now, I don't actually think David has discovered a supernatural thread running through the world's religions. There is nothing very mystical in these teachings, as if a Higher Power purposefully seeded each religion in the same manner. And to be honest, it does seem like David pushes the boundaries just a little here and there to squeeze all seven religions into every one of his topics, but if you're satisfied with comparing the spirit of the writings instead of demanding a perfect fit, it all comes together. There's something very satisfying about reaching down to our religions' common denominators and finding the same spirit throughout the world. Especially when a recent poll reveals that 69% of American adults believe that religious differences are the biggest roadblock to the attainment of world peace.
True story: my review copy arrived about a month late for some reason. My blog partner would call this timing a "God thing," because I happened to turn the cover just as I was going through a trying experience. Chapter one begins with the principle that "life with God is good," and shows how this teaching permeates all seven religions. Even though the various religions picture God in different ways, this worldwide discovery had a settling effect. So, yeah, I felt an immediate connection.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Christianity is my heritage, and Jesus is my guy. But I couldn't count the number of times I have tried to initiate a forum discussion highlighting the underlying commonalities of various religions, in hopes of uncovering the foundation—the God-experiences and the universal understandings—shared by all. I personally think David's dig-down religion, and his picture of the universal God, is still a bit restrictive (God for David is omni-everything but still very personal and conscious, in a manner which doesn't seem to me to entirely jibe with the concept of "God" in various Eastern religions), but I'll just chalk David’s up to an eighth religion with similar principles. :)
We all have divine potential, David insists, and he discusses 22 responsibilities that we need to attune to, according to our various religions, in order to grow in our Oneness with God. I haven't gotten through all of them yet, but I’m finding his book to be an inspiring and promising bit of research. Highly recommended!
★★★★★
100 pages into this book, I must admit that I've been reading it wrong. This is a book to be savored, not studied. For the first time ever, I’m providing a review before I finish a book … because I refuse to read this one like a novel or a textbook. Instead, I'm going to read a little each week, finding words to meditate upon for that week. With that in mind, and with David’s permission, I'll get the word out now about his accomplishment and then let its chapters form the basis of a few blog posts over the next few months. I have no qualms about awarding an early rating of five stars.
David Lundberg has carefully compiled quotes (over 800 of them) from seven of the world's major religions--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism--and organized them together under inspirational topics to emphasize how all of our religions are founded upon the same God-given principles. It's an undertaking that must have been enormous.
Now, I don't actually think David has discovered a supernatural thread running through the world's religions. There is nothing very mystical in these teachings, as if a Higher Power purposefully seeded each religion in the same manner. And to be honest, it does seem like David pushes the boundaries just a little here and there to squeeze all seven religions into every one of his topics, but if you're satisfied with comparing the spirit of the writings instead of demanding a perfect fit, it all comes together. There's something very satisfying about reaching down to our religions' common denominators and finding the same spirit throughout the world. Especially when a recent poll reveals that 69% of American adults believe that religious differences are the biggest roadblock to the attainment of world peace.
True story: my review copy arrived about a month late for some reason. My blog partner would call this timing a "God thing," because I happened to turn the cover just as I was going through a trying experience. Chapter one begins with the principle that "life with God is good," and shows how this teaching permeates all seven religions. Even though the various religions picture God in different ways, this worldwide discovery had a settling effect. So, yeah, I felt an immediate connection.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Christianity is my heritage, and Jesus is my guy. But I couldn't count the number of times I have tried to initiate a forum discussion highlighting the underlying commonalities of various religions, in hopes of uncovering the foundation—the God-experiences and the universal understandings—shared by all. I personally think David's dig-down religion, and his picture of the universal God, is still a bit restrictive (God for David is omni-everything but still very personal and conscious, in a manner which doesn't seem to me to entirely jibe with the concept of "God" in various Eastern religions), but I'll just chalk David’s up to an eighth religion with similar principles. :)
We all have divine potential, David insists, and he discusses 22 responsibilities that we need to attune to, according to our various religions, in order to grow in our Oneness with God. I haven't gotten through all of them yet, but I’m finding his book to be an inspiring and promising bit of research. Highly recommended!
October 10, 2012
Mark 8:29-30, the Messianic Secret
And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
//While the Messianic Secret is a theme from all three of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is most prominent in the first of the three to be written--Mark's Gospel. Jesus states very plainly that he does not want anybody to know he is the Christ. "Christ" merely means "Messiah," and Jesus doesn't want to be known as the Messiah. That revelation would have to wait until after his death. Matthew, who loves to quote scripture, explains this by referring back to Isaiah's Messianic prophecy: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets."
There are a number of contradictions between the Synoptic story of Jesus and the story presented in John, but many are minor, of little theological significance. Not so, the "messianic secret." In John's Gospel, Jesus plainly presents himself as not only the Messiah, but as God himself, and the Jews have no trouble recognizing his claims. Here are a couple of examples:
John 4:25-26, The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
John 9:35-37, [Jesus] said unto [a man whom Jesus healed], Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
It may be, however, that both traditions share the truth. In John, Jesus is just as clear as in the Synoptics that he doesn't want to be made into a king, or thought of as a warrior who will save his people by might. Jesus may therefore have objected to the traditional image of Christ/Messiah, but embraced John's more gentle, nonmilitary version.
//While the Messianic Secret is a theme from all three of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is most prominent in the first of the three to be written--Mark's Gospel. Jesus states very plainly that he does not want anybody to know he is the Christ. "Christ" merely means "Messiah," and Jesus doesn't want to be known as the Messiah. That revelation would have to wait until after his death. Matthew, who loves to quote scripture, explains this by referring back to Isaiah's Messianic prophecy: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets."
There are a number of contradictions between the Synoptic story of Jesus and the story presented in John, but many are minor, of little theological significance. Not so, the "messianic secret." In John's Gospel, Jesus plainly presents himself as not only the Messiah, but as God himself, and the Jews have no trouble recognizing his claims. Here are a couple of examples:
John 4:25-26, The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
John 9:35-37, [Jesus] said unto [a man whom Jesus healed], Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
It may be, however, that both traditions share the truth. In John, Jesus is just as clear as in the Synoptics that he doesn't want to be made into a king, or thought of as a warrior who will save his people by might. Jesus may therefore have objected to the traditional image of Christ/Messiah, but embraced John's more gentle, nonmilitary version.
