Lee Harmon's Blog, page 89
July 4, 2012
Book review: A Simpler Faith
by Ed Galisewski
★★★★
Life is a journey, and author Ed Galisewski has been taking some big steps of late. He writes not as a theologian, but as an everyday guy, a “Joe Palooka” with a “view from the pew.” He tells, earnestly and frankly, about his trek away from denominationalism and where he is at on that journey. We need a simpler faith, he insists, brushing away all the dross until we’re back to the basics.
To be honest, Ed is convinced about many things that I am not. He claims to be a Christian, I claim to be a Christian, yet we don’t agree on even the basics. Here’s the funny thing: I can’t tell whether I’m ahead of Ed on the journey or whether he’s ahead of me! Maybe we’re just on different journeys.
Regardless, I enjoyed the glimpse at another man’s struggle with church, even as I realize I can’t relate to the direction the journey has carried Ed. His new opinion of how to get back to basics means stripping back to C-S-G … Creator, Savior, Guide (you may note the relation to the persons of the Trinity). Although he presents this as the solution to everyone’s church problems, this strategy doesn’t quite work for me. I stand in awe at the wonder of life and the universe, yet the role of a creator in all this remains pure speculation in my mind. I stand in awe at the unselfish sacrifice Jesus made, yet I don’t share Ed’s view of what we need to be saved from. He mentions talking with a rabbi and being astonished that this rabbi felt no need for a savior. As a conservative Christian, Galisewski naturally thinks that everybody recognizes themselves as a horrible sinner in need of being saved. As an example, at least three times, Galisewski bemoans the way men’s minds work, once making reference to a study that shows that men’s thoughts turn to sex about 30 or 40 times an hour. Oh, what evil beings we are for harboring within us that incredible, bewildering, life-giving chemical reaction that transformed homo sapiens into an evolutionary success! We shouldn’t be celebrating the miracle of life, we should be condemning it! Save us from this life-giving evil!
OK, I’m being dramatic, but the point is, Christians won’t see eye-to-eye on even what Galisewski considers “the basics” … and we shouldn’t! We are complex, thinking, environmentally-driven individuals with differing spiritual needs, so Ed’s solution isn’t universal, but it IS a good one! Ed advises taking a break from our church, stepping outside its “business plan” to think things through. It’s a scary thing to do … questioning long-held traditions and perhaps even embracing other rituals and worship atmospheres, but he’s surely right that this will contribute to our spiritual growth. Ed despises exclusivity, encouraging Christians to see across denominational lines.
Here’s the bottom line: While the differences of opinion between Ed and I are legion, he appeals to me as a person I would very much enjoy conversing with about Christianity. His approach is respectful and humble, and he and I could learn from one another. What we have within these pages is an everyman’s sincere struggle to be more Godly. Read his book for an insight into what worked for one man and his closest friends.
★★★★
Life is a journey, and author Ed Galisewski has been taking some big steps of late. He writes not as a theologian, but as an everyday guy, a “Joe Palooka” with a “view from the pew.” He tells, earnestly and frankly, about his trek away from denominationalism and where he is at on that journey. We need a simpler faith, he insists, brushing away all the dross until we’re back to the basics.
To be honest, Ed is convinced about many things that I am not. He claims to be a Christian, I claim to be a Christian, yet we don’t agree on even the basics. Here’s the funny thing: I can’t tell whether I’m ahead of Ed on the journey or whether he’s ahead of me! Maybe we’re just on different journeys.
Regardless, I enjoyed the glimpse at another man’s struggle with church, even as I realize I can’t relate to the direction the journey has carried Ed. His new opinion of how to get back to basics means stripping back to C-S-G … Creator, Savior, Guide (you may note the relation to the persons of the Trinity). Although he presents this as the solution to everyone’s church problems, this strategy doesn’t quite work for me. I stand in awe at the wonder of life and the universe, yet the role of a creator in all this remains pure speculation in my mind. I stand in awe at the unselfish sacrifice Jesus made, yet I don’t share Ed’s view of what we need to be saved from. He mentions talking with a rabbi and being astonished that this rabbi felt no need for a savior. As a conservative Christian, Galisewski naturally thinks that everybody recognizes themselves as a horrible sinner in need of being saved. As an example, at least three times, Galisewski bemoans the way men’s minds work, once making reference to a study that shows that men’s thoughts turn to sex about 30 or 40 times an hour. Oh, what evil beings we are for harboring within us that incredible, bewildering, life-giving chemical reaction that transformed homo sapiens into an evolutionary success! We shouldn’t be celebrating the miracle of life, we should be condemning it! Save us from this life-giving evil!
OK, I’m being dramatic, but the point is, Christians won’t see eye-to-eye on even what Galisewski considers “the basics” … and we shouldn’t! We are complex, thinking, environmentally-driven individuals with differing spiritual needs, so Ed’s solution isn’t universal, but it IS a good one! Ed advises taking a break from our church, stepping outside its “business plan” to think things through. It’s a scary thing to do … questioning long-held traditions and perhaps even embracing other rituals and worship atmospheres, but he’s surely right that this will contribute to our spiritual growth. Ed despises exclusivity, encouraging Christians to see across denominational lines.
Here’s the bottom line: While the differences of opinion between Ed and I are legion, he appeals to me as a person I would very much enjoy conversing with about Christianity. His approach is respectful and humble, and he and I could learn from one another. What we have within these pages is an everyman’s sincere struggle to be more Godly. Read his book for an insight into what worked for one man and his closest friends.
July 3, 2012
2 Kings 7:1-2, So cheap it's inedible?
Elisha said, "Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the LORD says: About this time tomorrow, a seah of flour will sell for a shekel and two seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria." The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!"
//Here’s the story of today’s verse. The Syrian army had surrounded the city of Samaria, and its inhabitants were starving. But Elisha the prophet encouraged the king, promising that tomorrow food would become so plentiful that it would be sold at cheap prices.
At this, the king’s officer scoffed, saying the only way that could happen is if food rained down from heaven! To which Elisha retorted, you’ll see it with your own eyes, but you won’t eat any!
If the officer’s stomach weren’t rumbling, I’m sure his eyes would be rolling. Why wouldn’t he eat any if there was plenty?
The next day, some mysterious loud noises startled the Assyrian army, and they scuttled off, afraid for their lives. A few adventurous lepers wandered into the now-empty Assyrian camp, and after eating their fill, they came back to the city to report what they found. So the king stationed his officer, the scoffing one, at the gate of the camp to supervise. At which point, the starving city-dwellers stampeded toward the food, trampling and killing the officer.
Elisha was right. Moral: don’t mock God’s prophet.
//Here’s the story of today’s verse. The Syrian army had surrounded the city of Samaria, and its inhabitants were starving. But Elisha the prophet encouraged the king, promising that tomorrow food would become so plentiful that it would be sold at cheap prices.
At this, the king’s officer scoffed, saying the only way that could happen is if food rained down from heaven! To which Elisha retorted, you’ll see it with your own eyes, but you won’t eat any!
If the officer’s stomach weren’t rumbling, I’m sure his eyes would be rolling. Why wouldn’t he eat any if there was plenty?
The next day, some mysterious loud noises startled the Assyrian army, and they scuttled off, afraid for their lives. A few adventurous lepers wandered into the now-empty Assyrian camp, and after eating their fill, they came back to the city to report what they found. So the king stationed his officer, the scoffing one, at the gate of the camp to supervise. At which point, the starving city-dwellers stampeded toward the food, trampling and killing the officer.
Elisha was right. Moral: don’t mock God’s prophet.
July 2, 2012
Mark 2:27-28, Lord of the Sabbath
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
//These words were spoken by Jesus to explain why his disciples were eating grain on the Sabbath. But the wording makes no sense. If the Sabbath is made for man, how does that imply that the Son of Man (e.g.: Jesus) is Lord of the Sabbath? What does this have to do with Jesus, anyway? It wasn't Jesus who was eating the grain.
The mystery is solved when we take this verse and translate it back to Aramaic. On the assumption that these are truly words that Jesus spoke, we should listen to the way it sounds in the language Jesus spoke.
It turns out that Aramaic uses the same word for "man" as it does for "son of man." It's the word "barnash." The original saying, from the lips of Jesus, would then have been "The Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore, barnash is lord even of the Sabbath." Now replace barnash with the word man, and read it again.
When the saying was written in Greek, however, the author apparently decided to turn it into a statement about Jesus, not about mankind. It became the Son of Man rules over the Sabbath.
//These words were spoken by Jesus to explain why his disciples were eating grain on the Sabbath. But the wording makes no sense. If the Sabbath is made for man, how does that imply that the Son of Man (e.g.: Jesus) is Lord of the Sabbath? What does this have to do with Jesus, anyway? It wasn't Jesus who was eating the grain.
The mystery is solved when we take this verse and translate it back to Aramaic. On the assumption that these are truly words that Jesus spoke, we should listen to the way it sounds in the language Jesus spoke.
It turns out that Aramaic uses the same word for "man" as it does for "son of man." It's the word "barnash." The original saying, from the lips of Jesus, would then have been "The Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore, barnash is lord even of the Sabbath." Now replace barnash with the word man, and read it again.
When the saying was written in Greek, however, the author apparently decided to turn it into a statement about Jesus, not about mankind. It became the Son of Man rules over the Sabbath.
July 1, 2012
Leviticus 19:28, No tattoos allowed
You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.
//Is this verse saying God doesn’t want you to tattoo your body? Many Christians think so, and it does read rather straight-forwardly. But why does God care?
God cares because that’s what Israel’s enemies—the Canaanites—did in their cultic funeral practices. They cut their hair, and lacerated and tattooed their bodies, all in an attempt to ward off the departing spirit by disguising themselves so they wouldn’t be recognized. God’s instruction continues:
You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.
But does this have anything to do with today’s time? I suggest this compromise: Go ahead and ink up your biceps, but wear a nametag to the funeral parlor.
//Is this verse saying God doesn’t want you to tattoo your body? Many Christians think so, and it does read rather straight-forwardly. But why does God care?
God cares because that’s what Israel’s enemies—the Canaanites—did in their cultic funeral practices. They cut their hair, and lacerated and tattooed their bodies, all in an attempt to ward off the departing spirit by disguising themselves so they wouldn’t be recognized. God’s instruction continues:
You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.
But does this have anything to do with today’s time? I suggest this compromise: Go ahead and ink up your biceps, but wear a nametag to the funeral parlor.
June 30, 2012
Book review: The Christ is Not a Person
by J. C. Tefft
★★★★★
As a colleague often proclaims, "Christianity is the belief that history is heading somewhere." Tefft would agree. It's heading toward an eternal consciousness. Tefft embraces the wonder of evolution instead of grudgingly accepting its possibility and then dismissing it into a corner. But more than mere biological evolution, Tefft sees the development of life as a gradual transition into conscious awareness. We see this on a macro scale, as we compare minerals to plants to animals to man to God.
Here, "God" is the all-pervading Intelligence or Spirit that motivates Creation, guiding us slowly toward ultimate Consciousness. You'll want to read this definition twice: "What is called the Christ in New Testament Biblical lore is not a person born two thousand years ago, but can be likened to a new unseen faculty or capability that exists within the field of omnipresent Energy at the 'entrance' to the Kingdom of Heaven."
So Tefft is clearly not a Christian in the conservative or exclusive sense of the word. He notes that Pure Consciousness came to light hundreds of years before Jesus, through at least two people that we know of--the Buddha and Lao Tse--though there were probably others. This acceptance of other traditions is important; religious authorities have tended to dwell on the differences that separate their way of thinking from others, rather than the similarities, and this closed-minded approach will never fully approach truth. However, the focus of Tefft's book is on the Bible.
Tefft reads the Bible with both scholarly and spiritual insight. He leans toward to a non-conservative dating of the Bible's books. For example, the Gospels were written between the years of 64CE and 100CE by authors who had never known Jesus personally; the books of Moses are compilations of multiple authors with multiple agendas; and so on. We cannot, therefore, expect perfection among these writings, as if the Bible can in its entirety be read in a spiritual manner. There is much in the Bible that belongs to antiquity, and while such material may be of historical interest to some (read: Lee Harmon), it is of little value in the realization of enlightenment (read: J.C. Tefft). Sigh. Now I have to read all the Bible.
And in this book, I nearly did read all of the Bible, or at least it feels like it. This is no beach read. Tefft has amassed and explained a huge number of scriptural passages, such that his book becomes almost a Bible in itself. You'll relearn the story of creation, the flood, Jacob's ladder, the ten commandments, and more, arriving at Jesus in the second half of the book. Tackle this one if you're really ready for a spiritual transformation, not merely looking for some surface-skimming entertainment. I struggled a little; I think I would have preferred for Tefft to give me Jesus first, or least his coverage of the Lord's Prayer, so I can see where we're heading. Then I could more easily appreciate the Old Testament stories.
Tefft's interpretation appeals to me as another window to truth, recognizing that religious truth is many-faceted. I think his view is mystical, meaningful, uplifting, and that it promotes human kindness. In other words, all the things that make for a good religion or humanitarian philosophy. Highly recommended. And yet ... for myself, I find that I'm too mired in the historical-critical method of reading scripture to be able to seriously approach the Bible in this fashion. Jesus, yes; the rest of the Bible; no. Tefft's method of reading the Bible is fascinating and spiritually uplifting, but I can't imagine that this is the way the writers of the Bible intended their words to be read.
The fact is, I had the book pegged for a 4-star review all the way until the last fifteen pages, when Tefft came through with an epilogue summary that was concise and uplifting. Of the events leading up to Jesus, Tefft writes,
"After Moses, enlightened souls the likes of Saul, David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah arose over the years within Israelite society--the later ones proclaiming a new Kingdom yet to come, and Kingdom unlike any they had known before ... It turned out to be a Kingdom that is within Man ... as one awakens to the living Christ within, one is shown how to approach Life with Love in one's heart."
Amen.
★★★★★
As a colleague often proclaims, "Christianity is the belief that history is heading somewhere." Tefft would agree. It's heading toward an eternal consciousness. Tefft embraces the wonder of evolution instead of grudgingly accepting its possibility and then dismissing it into a corner. But more than mere biological evolution, Tefft sees the development of life as a gradual transition into conscious awareness. We see this on a macro scale, as we compare minerals to plants to animals to man to God.
Here, "God" is the all-pervading Intelligence or Spirit that motivates Creation, guiding us slowly toward ultimate Consciousness. You'll want to read this definition twice: "What is called the Christ in New Testament Biblical lore is not a person born two thousand years ago, but can be likened to a new unseen faculty or capability that exists within the field of omnipresent Energy at the 'entrance' to the Kingdom of Heaven."
So Tefft is clearly not a Christian in the conservative or exclusive sense of the word. He notes that Pure Consciousness came to light hundreds of years before Jesus, through at least two people that we know of--the Buddha and Lao Tse--though there were probably others. This acceptance of other traditions is important; religious authorities have tended to dwell on the differences that separate their way of thinking from others, rather than the similarities, and this closed-minded approach will never fully approach truth. However, the focus of Tefft's book is on the Bible.
Tefft reads the Bible with both scholarly and spiritual insight. He leans toward to a non-conservative dating of the Bible's books. For example, the Gospels were written between the years of 64CE and 100CE by authors who had never known Jesus personally; the books of Moses are compilations of multiple authors with multiple agendas; and so on. We cannot, therefore, expect perfection among these writings, as if the Bible can in its entirety be read in a spiritual manner. There is much in the Bible that belongs to antiquity, and while such material may be of historical interest to some (read: Lee Harmon), it is of little value in the realization of enlightenment (read: J.C. Tefft). Sigh. Now I have to read all the Bible.
And in this book, I nearly did read all of the Bible, or at least it feels like it. This is no beach read. Tefft has amassed and explained a huge number of scriptural passages, such that his book becomes almost a Bible in itself. You'll relearn the story of creation, the flood, Jacob's ladder, the ten commandments, and more, arriving at Jesus in the second half of the book. Tackle this one if you're really ready for a spiritual transformation, not merely looking for some surface-skimming entertainment. I struggled a little; I think I would have preferred for Tefft to give me Jesus first, or least his coverage of the Lord's Prayer, so I can see where we're heading. Then I could more easily appreciate the Old Testament stories.
Tefft's interpretation appeals to me as another window to truth, recognizing that religious truth is many-faceted. I think his view is mystical, meaningful, uplifting, and that it promotes human kindness. In other words, all the things that make for a good religion or humanitarian philosophy. Highly recommended. And yet ... for myself, I find that I'm too mired in the historical-critical method of reading scripture to be able to seriously approach the Bible in this fashion. Jesus, yes; the rest of the Bible; no. Tefft's method of reading the Bible is fascinating and spiritually uplifting, but I can't imagine that this is the way the writers of the Bible intended their words to be read.
The fact is, I had the book pegged for a 4-star review all the way until the last fifteen pages, when Tefft came through with an epilogue summary that was concise and uplifting. Of the events leading up to Jesus, Tefft writes,
"After Moses, enlightened souls the likes of Saul, David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah arose over the years within Israelite society--the later ones proclaiming a new Kingdom yet to come, and Kingdom unlike any they had known before ... It turned out to be a Kingdom that is within Man ... as one awakens to the living Christ within, one is shown how to approach Life with Love in one's heart."
Amen.
June 29, 2012
Acts 3:15, How To Make An Author Smile
I stumbled upon a conversation yesterday on Hubpages where someone listed Revelation: The Way It Happened as one of the “top-3 Christian must-read books.” Don’t know who the guy is (somebody in the UK), but he knows how to make me smile! :) Which leads me to today’s verse:
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.
Yeah, I authored a book. Big deal. Jesus is the author of life, and look what kind of critical review he got for his work.
Sometimes while operating a historical-critical blog I tend to lose perspective. Some would say my writing is controversial, and my book about Revelation is no exception, but I hope ya know I ain’t dissin’ my main man. Jesus, with his dream of a Kingdom of Heaven on earth, remains my Christian inspiration. In him was life, and that life was the light of men (John 1:4). So, back to the topic: How do we make an author smile? Here is how we make the author of life smile:
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. That comes from John’s Gospel, the topic of my second book … a 180-degree reversal from the vengeful dreams of Revelation. It’s due out in January, and hopefully will fall next to Revelation on somebody’s top-3 list. :)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.
Yeah, I authored a book. Big deal. Jesus is the author of life, and look what kind of critical review he got for his work.
Sometimes while operating a historical-critical blog I tend to lose perspective. Some would say my writing is controversial, and my book about Revelation is no exception, but I hope ya know I ain’t dissin’ my main man. Jesus, with his dream of a Kingdom of Heaven on earth, remains my Christian inspiration. In him was life, and that life was the light of men (John 1:4). So, back to the topic: How do we make an author smile? Here is how we make the author of life smile:
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. That comes from John’s Gospel, the topic of my second book … a 180-degree reversal from the vengeful dreams of Revelation. It’s due out in January, and hopefully will fall next to Revelation on somebody’s top-3 list. :)
June 28, 2012
Exodus 20:7, Taking the Lord's name in vain.
You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
//Growing up, I understood swearing to be a serious sin. It was taking the Lord’s name in vain. So serious was this ban against swearing by God, that God made room for its inclusion in the Ten Commandments. But is this really what God meant by this rule?
Most scholars doubt it. Note the more precise wording of the NIV: you shall not “misuse” the Lord’s name.
In antiquity, the name of a god was sacred. A person who knew a god’s name held some power over him. In an age where an oath was binding, swearing an oath by the name of a god obligated that god to help with the request.
Now let’s go back to before the law was written, in Exodus 6:3, where God is talking to Moses: I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai—'God Almighty'—but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them. Oops! In what sounds like a slip of the tongue, God discloses his name. He has kept it a secret for 2,500 years, but now the secret is out, and he’ll spend the next 1,500 years until the time of Christ trying to erase his mistake.
Back to the Third Commandment. God probably doesn’t care if we let loose a little goddamn when our tight end drops an easy catch. He cares that we don’t swear an oath by his secret name, Yahweh.
//Growing up, I understood swearing to be a serious sin. It was taking the Lord’s name in vain. So serious was this ban against swearing by God, that God made room for its inclusion in the Ten Commandments. But is this really what God meant by this rule?
Most scholars doubt it. Note the more precise wording of the NIV: you shall not “misuse” the Lord’s name.
In antiquity, the name of a god was sacred. A person who knew a god’s name held some power over him. In an age where an oath was binding, swearing an oath by the name of a god obligated that god to help with the request.
Now let’s go back to before the law was written, in Exodus 6:3, where God is talking to Moses: I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai—'God Almighty'—but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them. Oops! In what sounds like a slip of the tongue, God discloses his name. He has kept it a secret for 2,500 years, but now the secret is out, and he’ll spend the next 1,500 years until the time of Christ trying to erase his mistake.
Back to the Third Commandment. God probably doesn’t care if we let loose a little goddamn when our tight end drops an easy catch. He cares that we don’t swear an oath by his secret name, Yahweh.
June 27, 2012
Book review: The Biology of Belief
by Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
★★★★★
Lipton is a cell biologist whose “study of cells turned [him] into a spiritual person.” This is a highly readable science book, defining how beliefs control behavior and gene activity, and consequently the unfolding of our lives. It’s a fun learning tool that doesn’t dig too deeply, with an uplifting message.
Belief truly is biological. One interesting topic that Lipton addresses is the placebo effect. It “is quickly glossed over in medical schools so that students can get to the real tools of modern medicine like drugs and surgery. This is a giant mistake. The placebo affect should be a major topic of study in medical school.” Of course, Lipton is a realist; he realizes placebo pills are a threat to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the scalpel holders, and Lipton is not one to mince words.
It should be pointed out that this is no dry textbook; it borders in places on metaphysical and holistic speculation. But the book is so darn fun. In this light, do not ignore the epilogue; it’s the best part of the book, where Lipton deals with speculative conclusions regarding our “me-ness” and the power of the mind that transformed him into a bubbly, optimistic believer. His “aha” moment was the realization that every protein in our bodies is a physical/electromagnetic complement to something in the environment … that environment being the universe, or to many, God. As we are inextricably intertwined with the divine, survival of the fittest turns out to mean survival of the most loving.
★★★★★
Lipton is a cell biologist whose “study of cells turned [him] into a spiritual person.” This is a highly readable science book, defining how beliefs control behavior and gene activity, and consequently the unfolding of our lives. It’s a fun learning tool that doesn’t dig too deeply, with an uplifting message.
Belief truly is biological. One interesting topic that Lipton addresses is the placebo effect. It “is quickly glossed over in medical schools so that students can get to the real tools of modern medicine like drugs and surgery. This is a giant mistake. The placebo affect should be a major topic of study in medical school.” Of course, Lipton is a realist; he realizes placebo pills are a threat to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the scalpel holders, and Lipton is not one to mince words.
It should be pointed out that this is no dry textbook; it borders in places on metaphysical and holistic speculation. But the book is so darn fun. In this light, do not ignore the epilogue; it’s the best part of the book, where Lipton deals with speculative conclusions regarding our “me-ness” and the power of the mind that transformed him into a bubbly, optimistic believer. His “aha” moment was the realization that every protein in our bodies is a physical/electromagnetic complement to something in the environment … that environment being the universe, or to many, God. As we are inextricably intertwined with the divine, survival of the fittest turns out to mean survival of the most loving.
June 26, 2012
Revelation 2:9, They say they are Jews and are not!
I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
//These words are written by John to the city of Smyrna, one of seven cities to whom the book of Revelation is addressed. There are two ways to interpret John’s frustration:
[1] There are Gentiles in Asia Minor who are masquerading as Jews.[2] There are Jews up in Asia Minor who have forsaken their heritage, and are frolicking with Gentile beliefs.
Most scholars lean toward [2], finding it unimaginable that John would deny Christian fellowship to Gentiles. But I’m actually not so sure. I waffle on the topic in my own book about Revelation. The fact is, Revelation is a very Jewish book, repeating age-old dreams of redemption for the Jewish nation. John never once uses the word “Christian”; he sees himself as a Jew who acknowledges Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
Regardless of the way you interpret this verse, it becomes one of many in Revelation that verify that Christianity and Judaism had not yet separated. The intense schism between Jew and Christians revealed in such books as John’s Gospel does not yet exist in Revelation. Yet, Revelation and John’s Gospel share many common themes, though their eschatology, cosmology, and vision of Jesus remain so different. Clearly, one drew from the other, or both drew from a common religious language.
How is it possible, then, that scholars pretend both were written in the 90’s, in the same area of the world? Could they reflect two different views by two different competing men, arguing over the meaning of Jesus?
I find it far more likely that Revelation’s primitive cosmology precedes John’s Gospel by a dozen years or more, and that John’s Gospel reflects a “growing up,” discarding the vengeful, messianic dreams of Revelation. It’s from this perspective that I write my two books, about Revelation and John’s Gospel.
//These words are written by John to the city of Smyrna, one of seven cities to whom the book of Revelation is addressed. There are two ways to interpret John’s frustration:
[1] There are Gentiles in Asia Minor who are masquerading as Jews.[2] There are Jews up in Asia Minor who have forsaken their heritage, and are frolicking with Gentile beliefs.
Most scholars lean toward [2], finding it unimaginable that John would deny Christian fellowship to Gentiles. But I’m actually not so sure. I waffle on the topic in my own book about Revelation. The fact is, Revelation is a very Jewish book, repeating age-old dreams of redemption for the Jewish nation. John never once uses the word “Christian”; he sees himself as a Jew who acknowledges Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
Regardless of the way you interpret this verse, it becomes one of many in Revelation that verify that Christianity and Judaism had not yet separated. The intense schism between Jew and Christians revealed in such books as John’s Gospel does not yet exist in Revelation. Yet, Revelation and John’s Gospel share many common themes, though their eschatology, cosmology, and vision of Jesus remain so different. Clearly, one drew from the other, or both drew from a common religious language.
How is it possible, then, that scholars pretend both were written in the 90’s, in the same area of the world? Could they reflect two different views by two different competing men, arguing over the meaning of Jesus?
I find it far more likely that Revelation’s primitive cosmology precedes John’s Gospel by a dozen years or more, and that John’s Gospel reflects a “growing up,” discarding the vengeful, messianic dreams of Revelation. It’s from this perspective that I write my two books, about Revelation and John’s Gospel.
June 25, 2012
James 2:14, Faith vs. Works
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
//The book of James, with its focus on practical living, is a book that barely snuck into the canon. If you’ll forgive my bluntness, some Christians are more interested in receiving than doing, and that attitude would rankle James. The following verse at times appears to be glossed over like a blip across the screen:
James 1:22, But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Christianity’s emphasis on grace and belief seems commonplace to us today, but neither of these are common focal points of other religions. For example, Christianity’s parent religion, Judaism, is often criticized by Christians because its adherents often seem not to believe their own stories. Jews, however, are often puzzled by this concern, and by Christians’ lazy, unregulated practices and reliance upon grace. As a Jew, you practice your religion by doing, adhering to God’s teachings, not by believing.
By contrast, reformed Christianity is founded on just the opposite opinion. Martin Luther was known to rip the book of James, with its blasphemous teaching that we are saved by works rather than faith, from his Bible. Luther was a character; he claimed James was “an epistle of straw,” hated the book of Esther (which has no mention whatsoever of God), and said he saw no evidence of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration in Revelation.
Christianity clings to the flavor of the majority of its founding writers and their spectacular claim that the Messiah has arrived, and the Messianic age of God’s favor has begun. But can we bathe in grace, just believing and enjoying, or is it our responsibility to share in supporting the Messianic age by good works?
//The book of James, with its focus on practical living, is a book that barely snuck into the canon. If you’ll forgive my bluntness, some Christians are more interested in receiving than doing, and that attitude would rankle James. The following verse at times appears to be glossed over like a blip across the screen:
James 1:22, But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Christianity’s emphasis on grace and belief seems commonplace to us today, but neither of these are common focal points of other religions. For example, Christianity’s parent religion, Judaism, is often criticized by Christians because its adherents often seem not to believe their own stories. Jews, however, are often puzzled by this concern, and by Christians’ lazy, unregulated practices and reliance upon grace. As a Jew, you practice your religion by doing, adhering to God’s teachings, not by believing.
By contrast, reformed Christianity is founded on just the opposite opinion. Martin Luther was known to rip the book of James, with its blasphemous teaching that we are saved by works rather than faith, from his Bible. Luther was a character; he claimed James was “an epistle of straw,” hated the book of Esther (which has no mention whatsoever of God), and said he saw no evidence of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration in Revelation.
Christianity clings to the flavor of the majority of its founding writers and their spectacular claim that the Messiah has arrived, and the Messianic age of God’s favor has begun. But can we bathe in grace, just believing and enjoying, or is it our responsibility to share in supporting the Messianic age by good works?
