Lee Harmon's Blog, page 88
July 15, 2012
Job 1:1, Job's Holiness
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.
//I’ve never been a real big fan of the book of Job, but someday I hope to get in and really study it. I confess, the premise is fascinating. A bit of atmosphere will help explain why Job is considered such a great piece of literature. Bear with me, here.
Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom … "Behold, I will make you small among the nations; You shall be greatly despised. … I will bring you down," says the LORD. "Will I not in that day," says the LORD, "Even destroy the wise men from Edom, And understanding from the mountains of Esau?” –excerpts from Obadiah.
Yes, Edom, the land of Esau, was hated. Guess where Uz, Job’s homeland, was located?
So the subtle introduction to Job contains a kicker, for in God’s own words, “there is none like [Job] on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil.” Job is the greatest man on earth, but he is not a Jew. He is a Gentile. The holiest and richest man on earth is a hated Edomite.
Yeah, sometime I need to get in and really study this book. Maybe today … check my blog tomorrow for more.
//I’ve never been a real big fan of the book of Job, but someday I hope to get in and really study it. I confess, the premise is fascinating. A bit of atmosphere will help explain why Job is considered such a great piece of literature. Bear with me, here.
Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom … "Behold, I will make you small among the nations; You shall be greatly despised. … I will bring you down," says the LORD. "Will I not in that day," says the LORD, "Even destroy the wise men from Edom, And understanding from the mountains of Esau?” –excerpts from Obadiah.
Yes, Edom, the land of Esau, was hated. Guess where Uz, Job’s homeland, was located?
So the subtle introduction to Job contains a kicker, for in God’s own words, “there is none like [Job] on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil.” Job is the greatest man on earth, but he is not a Jew. He is a Gentile. The holiest and richest man on earth is a hated Edomite.
Yeah, sometime I need to get in and really study this book. Maybe today … check my blog tomorrow for more.
July 14, 2012
Book review: 21st Century Science & Health
by Cheryl Petersen
★★★★
Allow me a few clarifications before I begin this review. Then forgive me for a much longer review than I usually prepare.
[1] This book is about Christian Science (the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist), not Scientology. Don’t confuse the two! The former was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879, while Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953. Sorry, People magazine readers, this will not be a discussion about the divorce of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (Cruise is a celebrated member of Scientology).
[2] Cheryl Petersen undertakes the ambitious and somewhat frightening task of updating Mary Baker Eddy’s book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, rewriting it in contemporary language. Science and Health is, after all, the “voice of Truth to this age,” containing the full statement of Christian Science and the Science of healing through Mind. I asked Cheryl about her authority to rewrite a religion’s founding document, and she replied with some humility in an email that I will hopefully be able to share in a later post.
[3] My review is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of Christian Science, or of any controversies surrounding its healing practices. I do not have an opinion on Christian Science health care or any other contemporary issue relating to the religion, for I have not studied any statistics or the present-day practice. This is a review of only Petersen’s book.
So what is Christian Science? You may have heard only that it emphasizes healing, and this is not off the mark at all. Indeed, physical healing is inextricably intertwined within the core of the belief system. Indeed, Christian Science “teachings are confirmed by healing. When, on the strength of these instructions, you are able to banish a severe illness, the cure shows that you understand this teaching and therefore you receive the blessing of Truth.”
And how do Christian Scientists heal? Well, not by slight-of-hand or by human mind over matter. Certainly not by surgery, drugs, or hypnotism. Healing is a matter of convincing the patient—providing a proper scientific argument, if you will—of the reality of Mind and its superiority over the illusion of matter. The cause of all so-called disease is mental. One disease is no more real than another. Mary Baker Eddie states that she never knew a patient who did not recover when the belief in the disease was gone. Quiet the patient’s fears, and show the patient that the conquest over sickness, as well as over sin, depends on mentally destroying all belief in temporal pleasure or pain. If you succeed in wholly removing the fear, your patient is healed.
It may be possible to garner hints about Christian Science beliefs by noting the words that Petersen chooses to capitalize, implying divinity: Science, Life, Soul, Mind, Truth, Love, God, Infinity, Principle. But in each case, the words must be examined carefully in how they are used. The term “Science,” properly understood, refers only to the laws of God and to Spirit’s government of the universe, including all people. Divine Science isn’t connected to what is called the hard or soft sciences (e.g. chemistry, biology, physics, and psychology). Divine Science rises above physical theories, excludes matter, resolves things into thoughts, and replaces the objects of physical sense with spiritual ideas. “Soul” is not an individual entity trapped within your body. It is part of a greater whole. “Life” is, well, where do I begin?
I cannot tell whether Mary Baker Eddy was 100 years ahead of her time or 1700 years behind. In many ways, Christian Science borders on both Gnosticism and New Age, though MBE had heard of neither and would denounce both. She marched to her own drummer, and quite successfully I might add. I think I understand correctly that she imagines humanity on a journey to enlightenment. Today, we eat right and exercise to retain our health, and she considers it foolishness to do otherwise. But we are learning about the living Spirit. Tomorrow, in that perfect day of understanding, we shall neither eat to live nor live to eat. Death will be conquered, eternal life begun, for we will no longer retain the mindset that we must die.
It should be also emphasized that Christian Science builds atop the foundation laid by the Bible. Mary Baker Eddy claims the Bible as her only authority, though her understanding differs from most Christians. Jesus, for example, is not God, but a human being who presented Christ, the true idea of God by healing the sick and the sinner and overcoming the power of death. Says MBE, “I will not lose faith in Christianity, nor will Christianity lose its hold on me.” Indeed, Christ’s resurrection lays the foundation for Divine Healing, for it is the ultimate proof. Jesus did not die, for Spirit is eternal, he merely overcame the illusion of matter. Hidden in the narrow tomb, Jesus remained alive, demonstrating the power of Spirit to overrule mortal materialist perceptions. Here we arrive at that troublesome question again: What is Life? The short answer: “Life is Spirit, never in nor of matter.” Another hint: “You will know Life when you stop knowing time.” Eeek, I better go open my Eastern Meditations book.
MBE reasons that she has proven the ultimate Truth in Divine Science because of her success in healing. The premises of Christian Science, including the unreality of matter and the reality and singularity of the Divine Mind, must be accepted then by deductive reasoning. “We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle.”
As to Petersen’s efforts, her book is well-written and captivating, managing to both highlight the origins of a religious movement and strike a chord with my own life and beliefs. I did feel a little frustrated at its redundancy. I think 150 pages could be pulled from the center without losing any substance. This repetition (as intentional as it may be) is what drops my rating from five stars to four. I also do not believe anyone can fully grasp the nature of this religion from a book; it’s unlikely that an outsider trying to understand will be fully sated.
In closing, I confess I’m no expert on Christian Science though I’ve tried to convey the basics as described herein, so I invite practitioners to correct me where I have misrepresented your teachings! Thank you for sharing, Cheryl!
★★★★
Allow me a few clarifications before I begin this review. Then forgive me for a much longer review than I usually prepare.
[1] This book is about Christian Science (the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist), not Scientology. Don’t confuse the two! The former was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879, while Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953. Sorry, People magazine readers, this will not be a discussion about the divorce of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (Cruise is a celebrated member of Scientology).
[2] Cheryl Petersen undertakes the ambitious and somewhat frightening task of updating Mary Baker Eddy’s book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, rewriting it in contemporary language. Science and Health is, after all, the “voice of Truth to this age,” containing the full statement of Christian Science and the Science of healing through Mind. I asked Cheryl about her authority to rewrite a religion’s founding document, and she replied with some humility in an email that I will hopefully be able to share in a later post.
[3] My review is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of Christian Science, or of any controversies surrounding its healing practices. I do not have an opinion on Christian Science health care or any other contemporary issue relating to the religion, for I have not studied any statistics or the present-day practice. This is a review of only Petersen’s book.
So what is Christian Science? You may have heard only that it emphasizes healing, and this is not off the mark at all. Indeed, physical healing is inextricably intertwined within the core of the belief system. Indeed, Christian Science “teachings are confirmed by healing. When, on the strength of these instructions, you are able to banish a severe illness, the cure shows that you understand this teaching and therefore you receive the blessing of Truth.”
And how do Christian Scientists heal? Well, not by slight-of-hand or by human mind over matter. Certainly not by surgery, drugs, or hypnotism. Healing is a matter of convincing the patient—providing a proper scientific argument, if you will—of the reality of Mind and its superiority over the illusion of matter. The cause of all so-called disease is mental. One disease is no more real than another. Mary Baker Eddie states that she never knew a patient who did not recover when the belief in the disease was gone. Quiet the patient’s fears, and show the patient that the conquest over sickness, as well as over sin, depends on mentally destroying all belief in temporal pleasure or pain. If you succeed in wholly removing the fear, your patient is healed.
It may be possible to garner hints about Christian Science beliefs by noting the words that Petersen chooses to capitalize, implying divinity: Science, Life, Soul, Mind, Truth, Love, God, Infinity, Principle. But in each case, the words must be examined carefully in how they are used. The term “Science,” properly understood, refers only to the laws of God and to Spirit’s government of the universe, including all people. Divine Science isn’t connected to what is called the hard or soft sciences (e.g. chemistry, biology, physics, and psychology). Divine Science rises above physical theories, excludes matter, resolves things into thoughts, and replaces the objects of physical sense with spiritual ideas. “Soul” is not an individual entity trapped within your body. It is part of a greater whole. “Life” is, well, where do I begin?
I cannot tell whether Mary Baker Eddy was 100 years ahead of her time or 1700 years behind. In many ways, Christian Science borders on both Gnosticism and New Age, though MBE had heard of neither and would denounce both. She marched to her own drummer, and quite successfully I might add. I think I understand correctly that she imagines humanity on a journey to enlightenment. Today, we eat right and exercise to retain our health, and she considers it foolishness to do otherwise. But we are learning about the living Spirit. Tomorrow, in that perfect day of understanding, we shall neither eat to live nor live to eat. Death will be conquered, eternal life begun, for we will no longer retain the mindset that we must die.
It should be also emphasized that Christian Science builds atop the foundation laid by the Bible. Mary Baker Eddy claims the Bible as her only authority, though her understanding differs from most Christians. Jesus, for example, is not God, but a human being who presented Christ, the true idea of God by healing the sick and the sinner and overcoming the power of death. Says MBE, “I will not lose faith in Christianity, nor will Christianity lose its hold on me.” Indeed, Christ’s resurrection lays the foundation for Divine Healing, for it is the ultimate proof. Jesus did not die, for Spirit is eternal, he merely overcame the illusion of matter. Hidden in the narrow tomb, Jesus remained alive, demonstrating the power of Spirit to overrule mortal materialist perceptions. Here we arrive at that troublesome question again: What is Life? The short answer: “Life is Spirit, never in nor of matter.” Another hint: “You will know Life when you stop knowing time.” Eeek, I better go open my Eastern Meditations book.
MBE reasons that she has proven the ultimate Truth in Divine Science because of her success in healing. The premises of Christian Science, including the unreality of matter and the reality and singularity of the Divine Mind, must be accepted then by deductive reasoning. “We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle.”
As to Petersen’s efforts, her book is well-written and captivating, managing to both highlight the origins of a religious movement and strike a chord with my own life and beliefs. I did feel a little frustrated at its redundancy. I think 150 pages could be pulled from the center without losing any substance. This repetition (as intentional as it may be) is what drops my rating from five stars to four. I also do not believe anyone can fully grasp the nature of this religion from a book; it’s unlikely that an outsider trying to understand will be fully sated.
In closing, I confess I’m no expert on Christian Science though I’ve tried to convey the basics as described herein, so I invite practitioners to correct me where I have misrepresented your teachings! Thank you for sharing, Cheryl!
July 12, 2012
Nahum 3:19, Two Views of Nineveh
Everyone who hears the news about you claps his hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?
//Sometime when you’re bored, pick up your Bible and read the books of Jonah and Nahum side-by-side. Both of these books concern the fate of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. One is a humanitarian plea to recognize God’s love even for a hated enemy, and the other is a gleeful telling of that enemy’s destruction.
In Jonah, the people of Nineveh believe in God, engage in acts of penance, and repent. God decides to spare the city, proving their repentance to be genuine, and serves as an example for us to love our enemies and recognize the universal nature of God’s own love.
Nahum, however, openly taunts Nineveh, celebrating God’s avenging wrath against them. Nineveh’s destruction is sung in psalm:
“I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I will lift your skirts over your face.I will show the nations your nakedness And the kingdoms your shame.I will pelt you with filth, I will treat you with contempt And will make you a spectacle.All who see you will flee from you and say, ‘Nineveh is in ruins—who will mourn for her?’”
Could any two books of the Bible be any more different? Is there any question about differing human motives and emotions in the Bible? This is the sort of stuff that makes the Bible alive to me … its very human fingerprints.
//Sometime when you’re bored, pick up your Bible and read the books of Jonah and Nahum side-by-side. Both of these books concern the fate of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. One is a humanitarian plea to recognize God’s love even for a hated enemy, and the other is a gleeful telling of that enemy’s destruction.
In Jonah, the people of Nineveh believe in God, engage in acts of penance, and repent. God decides to spare the city, proving their repentance to be genuine, and serves as an example for us to love our enemies and recognize the universal nature of God’s own love.
Nahum, however, openly taunts Nineveh, celebrating God’s avenging wrath against them. Nineveh’s destruction is sung in psalm:
“I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I will lift your skirts over your face.I will show the nations your nakedness And the kingdoms your shame.I will pelt you with filth, I will treat you with contempt And will make you a spectacle.All who see you will flee from you and say, ‘Nineveh is in ruins—who will mourn for her?’”
Could any two books of the Bible be any more different? Is there any question about differing human motives and emotions in the Bible? This is the sort of stuff that makes the Bible alive to me … its very human fingerprints.
July 11, 2012
Revelation 1:10, The Lord's Day
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.
//You may be surprised to know that this verse in Revelation is the only reference in the scripture to The Lord's Day. Most of us read the words without thinking any more about it, and conclude that John writes about seeing his vision on a Sunday.
But the earliest Jewish Christians continued to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (Saturday). In time, they also began to hold their own gatherings on Sunday, with both Saturday and Sunday holy for a time--not an either/or proposition--but eventually Sunday replaced Saturday as the day of worship. We don't know exactly when Christians began to recognize Sunday as the Lord's Day. Maybe not until nearly 130 CE and then only in the cities of Rome and Alexandria, leaving us unsure how to interpret today's verse.
Adding to the confusion is John's awkward Greek, which sometimes makes translation difficult. Some scholars contest the traditional understanding of this verse, and assert that when John wrote "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit," he meant "I was caught up in a vision to the coming Day of the Lord."
Nevertheless, it appears likely that this verse played a part in the eventual development of a special day belonging to Jesus. Scholars of Revelation recognize the intense competition in Asia Minor (where Revelation was directed) between Christianity and Roman Emperor worship; just as certain rulers claimed particular days as their own, so too did the Lord Jesus deserve his own day, right? My understanding of the verse is traditional. I think John encouraged setting aside a special day to commemorate Jesus.
//You may be surprised to know that this verse in Revelation is the only reference in the scripture to The Lord's Day. Most of us read the words without thinking any more about it, and conclude that John writes about seeing his vision on a Sunday.
But the earliest Jewish Christians continued to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (Saturday). In time, they also began to hold their own gatherings on Sunday, with both Saturday and Sunday holy for a time--not an either/or proposition--but eventually Sunday replaced Saturday as the day of worship. We don't know exactly when Christians began to recognize Sunday as the Lord's Day. Maybe not until nearly 130 CE and then only in the cities of Rome and Alexandria, leaving us unsure how to interpret today's verse.
Adding to the confusion is John's awkward Greek, which sometimes makes translation difficult. Some scholars contest the traditional understanding of this verse, and assert that when John wrote "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit," he meant "I was caught up in a vision to the coming Day of the Lord."
Nevertheless, it appears likely that this verse played a part in the eventual development of a special day belonging to Jesus. Scholars of Revelation recognize the intense competition in Asia Minor (where Revelation was directed) between Christianity and Roman Emperor worship; just as certain rulers claimed particular days as their own, so too did the Lord Jesus deserve his own day, right? My understanding of the verse is traditional. I think John encouraged setting aside a special day to commemorate Jesus.
July 10, 2012
Book review: Wisdom and Wonder
by Abraham Kuyper
★★★★★
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) penned this book in 1905, and it later became part of a three-volume set on the topic of Common Grace. This is the first translation into English from the original Dutch.
Kuyper reads the Bible literally, in particular the Garden of Eden and mankind's fall, and ponders some provoking issues about what the Fall meant for the development of science and art. His writing, while dated and in many places relevant only to the most conservative Christian, is intelligent and opinionated, and the translation is elegant. It's a pleasure to read.
Kuyper sees Adam's fall from grace as a major setback in both science and art, and the beginning of human attempts to recapture the beauty of both. Never can we approach what we once shared in paradise, nor can we begin to imagine the beauty of the world to come, but God has been gracious in awarding us at least a little glimpse of the beauty of his creation, through the avenues of science and art.
Both can be misused, of course. It requires a proper Christian outlook to remain on track, lest we fall into the dangers of Darwinian thinking or (shudder) nude modeling. Certainly the charm of this book is its antiquated quaintness, while simultaneously uncovering Kuyper as a profound theologian. The translation is superb, a perfect tone for the discussion.
Whether you are a conservative seeking comfort in old time religion or a historian of post-enlightenment Christianity, this book is a gem.
★★★★★
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) penned this book in 1905, and it later became part of a three-volume set on the topic of Common Grace. This is the first translation into English from the original Dutch.
Kuyper reads the Bible literally, in particular the Garden of Eden and mankind's fall, and ponders some provoking issues about what the Fall meant for the development of science and art. His writing, while dated and in many places relevant only to the most conservative Christian, is intelligent and opinionated, and the translation is elegant. It's a pleasure to read.
Kuyper sees Adam's fall from grace as a major setback in both science and art, and the beginning of human attempts to recapture the beauty of both. Never can we approach what we once shared in paradise, nor can we begin to imagine the beauty of the world to come, but God has been gracious in awarding us at least a little glimpse of the beauty of his creation, through the avenues of science and art.
Both can be misused, of course. It requires a proper Christian outlook to remain on track, lest we fall into the dangers of Darwinian thinking or (shudder) nude modeling. Certainly the charm of this book is its antiquated quaintness, while simultaneously uncovering Kuyper as a profound theologian. The translation is superb, a perfect tone for the discussion.
Whether you are a conservative seeking comfort in old time religion or a historian of post-enlightenment Christianity, this book is a gem.
July 9, 2012
Mark 14:72, How many times did the rooster crow?
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
//That’s Mark’s version. Jesus says it’ll crow twice, and it does crow twice.
Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke both directly copied many of Mark’s stories, and the evidence seems to be piling up that John, also, had read Mark’s Gospel. Curiously, however, all three of these later Gospels contradict Mark. The cock crows just once in their versions.
So, how many times did the rooster crow? Probably, none. Roosters were not allowed in the city, according to Jewish ritual law. More likely, the Gospels refer to the trumpet call marking the changing of the guard at 3 a.m. This trumpet blast, heard city-wide, was called the cock-crow. All three later Gospel writers correct Mark’s embarrassing misunderstanding, knowing the trumpet blast couldn’t have been heard twice.
//That’s Mark’s version. Jesus says it’ll crow twice, and it does crow twice.
Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke both directly copied many of Mark’s stories, and the evidence seems to be piling up that John, also, had read Mark’s Gospel. Curiously, however, all three of these later Gospels contradict Mark. The cock crows just once in their versions.
So, how many times did the rooster crow? Probably, none. Roosters were not allowed in the city, according to Jewish ritual law. More likely, the Gospels refer to the trumpet call marking the changing of the guard at 3 a.m. This trumpet blast, heard city-wide, was called the cock-crow. All three later Gospel writers correct Mark’s embarrassing misunderstanding, knowing the trumpet blast couldn’t have been heard twice.
July 8, 2012
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 baffled 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 states his understanding 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. So we have three traditions that show a bit of a progression:
[1] The earliest: Jesus became God's son when resurrected (probably adopted by God and taken home immediately to heaven).
[2] A bit later: Jesus became God's son when anointed by the Spirit at his baptism.
[3] Later still: Jesus is the literal offspring of God and a human woman, and becomes God's son at that point.
//Here's a question that baffled 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 states his understanding 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. So we have three traditions that show a bit of a progression:
[1] The earliest: Jesus became God's son when resurrected (probably adopted by God and taken home immediately to heaven).
[2] A bit later: Jesus became God's son when anointed by the Spirit at his baptism.
[3] Later still: Jesus is the literal offspring of God and a human woman, and becomes God's son at that point.
July 7, 2012
Book review: This Is My Body
by Keith A. Giles
★★★★
For ye are the temple of the living God.
What was the temple that Jesus came to establish? It was you and I—the living temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did what David and Solomon and all the rest could never do. He built an acceptable temple for God that was cleansed with His own blood and purified by the Lamb of God.
And God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” -2 Cr. 6:16
This concept forms the basis of Giles’ book, This Is My Body. His emphasis on Christ, particularly the Christ dwelling within, renders today’s clergy (as a class separate from the laity) as a misdirected spinoff from first-century teachings. The early church knew nothing of the clergy class of leader we see today; in the New Testament, every Christian is a minister, everyone a priest. In arguing his case, Giles holds true to the traditionally understood authorship and dating of the New Testament.
Consider the controversy over the Pastoral letters: Timothy I, II, and Titus. Scholars recognize how the teachings of the Pastorals contradict the teachings of other Pauline letters and of the Gospels, addressing the hierarchical needs of the growing church (e.g.: the need for a clergy!), and assume that they are written later; possibly in the early second century. That would mean they are not written by Paul. Giles, however, takes the opposite approach; he takes Pauline authorship for granted, and argues instead that we are wrongly interpreting the meaning of the Pastoral letters. His book contradicts both conservative and liberal thinking, and while Giles would never put it quite this way, he probably comes closer to the message of Jesus than the New Testament writers themselves.
Says Giles, “I believe it’s time the Church went out of business. Close down the bank account, lay off the pastoral staff, cancel the utilities, sell the building, auction off the sound system and the digital projector and turn out the lights.” Time to become the church instead of attending one.
(This book may be purchased at http://wearethetemple.blogspot.com/)
★★★★
For ye are the temple of the living God.
What was the temple that Jesus came to establish? It was you and I—the living temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did what David and Solomon and all the rest could never do. He built an acceptable temple for God that was cleansed with His own blood and purified by the Lamb of God.
And God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” -2 Cr. 6:16
This concept forms the basis of Giles’ book, This Is My Body. His emphasis on Christ, particularly the Christ dwelling within, renders today’s clergy (as a class separate from the laity) as a misdirected spinoff from first-century teachings. The early church knew nothing of the clergy class of leader we see today; in the New Testament, every Christian is a minister, everyone a priest. In arguing his case, Giles holds true to the traditionally understood authorship and dating of the New Testament.
Consider the controversy over the Pastoral letters: Timothy I, II, and Titus. Scholars recognize how the teachings of the Pastorals contradict the teachings of other Pauline letters and of the Gospels, addressing the hierarchical needs of the growing church (e.g.: the need for a clergy!), and assume that they are written later; possibly in the early second century. That would mean they are not written by Paul. Giles, however, takes the opposite approach; he takes Pauline authorship for granted, and argues instead that we are wrongly interpreting the meaning of the Pastoral letters. His book contradicts both conservative and liberal thinking, and while Giles would never put it quite this way, he probably comes closer to the message of Jesus than the New Testament writers themselves.
Says Giles, “I believe it’s time the Church went out of business. Close down the bank account, lay off the pastoral staff, cancel the utilities, sell the building, auction off the sound system and the digital projector and turn out the lights.” Time to become the church instead of attending one.
(This book may be purchased at http://wearethetemple.blogspot.com/)
July 6, 2012
Revelation 2:5, The Church at Ephesus
Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.
//This warning was written to the Church at Ephesus, in what is today West Turkey. Repent, or I will remove your lampstand.
By the early second century, Ephesus had garnered a reputation as a great example of Christian faith. It held a position of pre-eminence for centuries, a shining light, a glorious lampstand. One of the great fifth-century church councils even met there (431 CE).
But today, there exists not a single Christian church in Ephesus. The city is a broken-down shadow of what it once was. What happened?
//This warning was written to the Church at Ephesus, in what is today West Turkey. Repent, or I will remove your lampstand.
By the early second century, Ephesus had garnered a reputation as a great example of Christian faith. It held a position of pre-eminence for centuries, a shining light, a glorious lampstand. One of the great fifth-century church councils even met there (431 CE).
But today, there exists not a single Christian church in Ephesus. The city is a broken-down shadow of what it once was. What happened?
July 5, 2012
Ezekiel 43:7, Ezekiel's Temple Dream
He said: "Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever….”
//In today’s verse, God speaks to Ezekiel and tells him that a new Temple must be built as his holy house. God dictates to Ezekiel several chapters of precise building instructions, describing a magnificent picture of a second Temple.
Ezekiel was not the only one to dream of a second Temple. Here is Isaiah’s promise, written much earlier, from which Ezekiel surely finds inspiration.
In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.
This will be quite a thing, won’t it? Except for one thing. Ezekiel, an “exile prophet” (he prophesied during the period of time the Jews spent in exile in Babylon) was describing the day when the Jews would be released from bondage, and allowed to travel back to their homeland. When that day came, a magnificent second Temple would be erected, and God would dwell there with his people forever.
Then the day came. Israel was allowed to go home, and the second Temple construction began. But it was such a poor, pathetic attempt that the elders, those who remembered the glory of Solomon’s temple, sat and cried. No way would God come and dwell there forever! They scanned the horizon for a descendant of King David to arrive and rule their new kingdom, but he never arrived. For hundreds of years the Jewish nation floundered, and eventually King Herod the Great began construction on a newer, grander Temple for the Jews, resurrecting the dream of a Davidic Messiah who would arrive and rule. But again the dream dissipated. Before the Temple was finished, in 70 A.D., it was destroyed by the Romans.
Two thousand years later, many people point to the prophecies that didn’t pan out and continue to dream of yet another Temple.
//In today’s verse, God speaks to Ezekiel and tells him that a new Temple must be built as his holy house. God dictates to Ezekiel several chapters of precise building instructions, describing a magnificent picture of a second Temple.
Ezekiel was not the only one to dream of a second Temple. Here is Isaiah’s promise, written much earlier, from which Ezekiel surely finds inspiration.
In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.
This will be quite a thing, won’t it? Except for one thing. Ezekiel, an “exile prophet” (he prophesied during the period of time the Jews spent in exile in Babylon) was describing the day when the Jews would be released from bondage, and allowed to travel back to their homeland. When that day came, a magnificent second Temple would be erected, and God would dwell there with his people forever.
Then the day came. Israel was allowed to go home, and the second Temple construction began. But it was such a poor, pathetic attempt that the elders, those who remembered the glory of Solomon’s temple, sat and cried. No way would God come and dwell there forever! They scanned the horizon for a descendant of King David to arrive and rule their new kingdom, but he never arrived. For hundreds of years the Jewish nation floundered, and eventually King Herod the Great began construction on a newer, grander Temple for the Jews, resurrecting the dream of a Davidic Messiah who would arrive and rule. But again the dream dissipated. Before the Temple was finished, in 70 A.D., it was destroyed by the Romans.
Two thousand years later, many people point to the prophecies that didn’t pan out and continue to dream of yet another Temple.
